HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-06-2012 - 1 ORANGE COUNTY
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 6, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Updates
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
A) Draft City of Durham/Orange County
Transfer Station Agreement Gayle Wilson, 919-968-2885
Michael Talbert, 919-245-2308
B) SWAB Memo of November 2010 —
Interlocal Agreement
C) History of the City/County Utility
Commission —Winston-Salem/Forsyth
County
D) Comprehensive Review of Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Options Report—
Town of Chapel Hill — (LINK
ONLY) http://chapelhillpublic.novusagen
da.com/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=1999&m
eetingid=174
PURPOSE: To provide an opportunity for each jurisdiction to present an update of local solid
waste management issues and to initiate discussion or inquiries of selected topics of interest.
BACKGROUND: The following updates are provided by each jurisdiction:
Town of Carrboro
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen recently discussed various solid waste issues at their
November 13, 2012 meeting and was provided an update on solid waste operations by staff on
December 4, 2012. Information and discussions included:
• Update on proposed changes to solid waste collection operations due to closing of landfill
come June 30, 1013 - including residential route changes, purchase of new front loader
truck for dumpster service, re-configuration of yard waste collection service.
• Enter into an agreement for disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) in early 2012.
• Time table for public education on route changes — brochures, on-line information.
• Continue collaboration and discussion with Orange County and other Towns on various
solid waste topics such as: organics collection and disposal, pay-as-you-throw and other
2
waste reduction strategies, site/construct a new transfer station, new inter-local
agreement, re-establishment of the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB).
Town of Chapel Hill
The Town of Chapel Hill will provide an update on its solid waste issues and operations at the
meeting.
Town of Hillsborough
Hillsborough has indicated that it wishes to become a party to the "Interlocal Agreement
Between Orange County and the City of Durham Regarding the Disposition of Municipal Solid
Waste Generated in Orange County at the Durham Transfer Station" (Attachment A).
Orange County
Orange County staff provides updates on the following items:
Single Stream Recycling — Starting in July 2012 the County transitioned all recycling programs
(except government buildings) to single stream collection in which all bottles, cans, and paper
are collected together. Formerly paper was separated in its own bin. Overall, total material
tonnage is up compared to last year, notably, curbside recycling tonnage in the three towns has
increased over 6 percent. At this point it is difficult to quantify all the efficiency gains from the
increased speed and ease of collection; total efficiencies and savings will not be fully realized
until roll carts replace curbside bins throughout the towns, resulting in more automated recycling
collection. Based on experiences elsewhere, staff anticipates increased participation diverting
more waste tonnage from the Durham transfer station to recycling alternatives.
Landfill Closure — The Orange County MSW Landfill will close permanently on June 30, 2013.
Staff is currently finalizing closure construction plans, finalizing an agreement to haul County
waste to the City of Durham Transfer Station, downsizing staff consistent with the reduction in
landfill operations and preparing Eubanks Road and Convenience Center facilities for post-
landfill operations.
Interlocal Agreement with Durham for Use of Waste Transfer Station (WTS) - The County has
concluded negotiations with the City of Durham regarding the issue of the Durham WTS and will
consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement with Durham at the Board of Commissioners'
December 11, 2012 regular meeting. The current draft agreement (Attachment A) can be
further revised as necessary should any of the Towns wish to also be authorized to utilize the
Durham facility through this agreement. Joining in the agreement with the County does not
obligate a Town to deliver waste to Durham, only allows such a delivery at the Town's option. A
Town that does not wish to become part of the agreement at this time can request the
agreement be amended at some future date.
Interlocal Agreement for Waste Management in Orange County — In 1999 Orange County,
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and later Hillsborough entered into an interlocal cooperation agreement for
the management of solid waste. The Towns' and County attorneys have jointly determined that
upon the June 30, 2013 closure of the Orange County MSW Landfill, the Interlocal Agreement
effectively terminates with regard to the provisions related to MSW. Given the limited extent to
which the current Interlocal Agreement addresses the management of recyclable materials and
3
Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste, it was suggested that if the County and Towns desire
some level of cooperation to continue, a new Interlocal Agreement should be developed.
In December 2010 the BOCC established a Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Work Group with
appointments made by all four jurisdictions. The Work Group has not been activated in part due
to uncertainty with regard to outcomes of the Town of Chapel Hill's comprehensive analysis of
its solid waste services and programs (see Electronic Link Attachment D under ATTACHMENTS
above). Given that negotiations of a new Interlocal Agreement, should the jurisdictions desire
one, could take several months, it may be advisable to immediately reactivate the Work Group
(or establish an alternative process) to begin work creating this new document. Department
staffs have recently initiated discussions of potential elements of a new agreement and the Solid
Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) has previously commented on various occasions (Attachment
B). The issue of an Interlocal Agreement was also discussed at the January 26, 2012 Assembly
of Governments (AOG) meeting.
Solid Waste Authority/Solid Waste Districts - An occasional topic of discussion has been the
notion of an alternative organizational structure such as the creation of a Solid Waste Authority,
Solid Waste Districts or other local waste management entity that could manage various solid
waste functions. Recently the County Manager inquired about Solid Waste Authorities and
Solid Waste Districts in North Carolina.
In follow-up staff identified two Solid Waste Authorities in North Carolina - Albemarle Regional
Solid Waste Management Authority - Perquimans, Chowan, Gates, Dare, Currituck, Hyde and
Tyrell (including all of the towns within except Duck) created in 1992 and Coastal Regional Solid
Waste Management Authority — Craven, Carteret and Pamlico, created 1990. The SWAB
received a presentation in 2010 from Ms. Kara Millonzi, Associate Professor of Public Law and
Government with the UNC School of Government, on the issue of Solid Waste Authorities in
North Carolina.
With regard to Solid Waste Districts staff was unable to locate any active Districts. Winston-
Salem has incorporated solid waste operations into the Winston-Salem Public Utilities
Commission and Forsyth County participates. This is an unusual situation in North Carolina as
far as can be determined. Originally this Commission (1976) dealt only with water and sewer.
Solid waste management was added in 1990. North Carolina General Statute 160A-462 — See
Attachment C for history of the Commission.
Solid Waste Advisory Board — The SWAB, as defined in the Interlocal Agreement for Solid
Waste Management in Orange County, consists of eight members with two each representing
each of the four partner jurisdictions. At present only three members are actively appointed, two
representing the Town of Chapel Hill and one representing the Town of Hillsborough. If the
AOG believes there is still work to do for the SWAB, then discussion of specific potential work
tasks or a mission and filling of vacancies should ensue. Alternatively, an AOG consensus
could be that SWAB activity should be suspended until if/when a new advisory board is created
or the current SWAB reactivated through a new Interlocal Agreement.
Solid Waste Convenience Center Upgrades — The BOCC has authorized a major
modernization/upgrade of the Walnut Grove Solid Waste Convenience Center as a first step in
eventual improvements to all five solid waste convenience centers. These improvements
conceive of creating two centrally located District Centers (Walnut Grove and Eubanks) which
would have extended hours of operation and a wide range of services to include Household
4
Hazardous Waste, expanded salvage sheds, food waste/cooking oil recycling and various other
new and improved recycling opportunities. Neighborhood Centers would have slightly reduced
hours of operation and more limited services. All would utilize compaction for more efficient
hauling and be paved for a more sanitary and aesthetic resident experience with more user
friendly and safer waste/recycling receptacles.
Roll-Carts to Curbside Programs — The County has postponed the acquisition and distribution of
roll carts in the Urban Curbside Recycling Program in the three Towns, pending a decision of
the Town of Chapel Hill to continue partnering with Orange County with regard to existing and
future county-wide recycling and waste reduction programs. Assurance of the Town's continued
participation could be included in a new Interlocal Agreement to allow this investment in carts to
proceed. In the event that finalizing a new Interlocal Agreement is likely to take several months,
it may be possible for the Town Council to adopt a resolution of intent to allow the County to
proceed toward roll cart implementation more quickly. Once the BOCC is ready to proceed, the
roll carts will be acquired concomitant with a Request for Proposals for the collection service
contract.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts related to the presentation of solid waste
updates or general discussion of solid waste services, facilities or programs.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The County Manager recommends that the Boards receive the
updates and discuss issues, options, needs and processes relative to addressing current and
future solid waste management matters in Orange County.
5
Attachment A
Interlocal Agreement Between Orange County and the City of Durham Regarding
the Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste Generated in
Orange County at the Durham Transfer Station
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 20_ between the
City of Durham, North Carolina ("City"), a North Carolina municipal corporation, of
Durham County, North Carolina; and Orange County ("County"), a political subdivision
of the State of North Carolina, for the disposition and funding responsibilities related to
municipal solid waste, as that term is defined in North Carolina General Statutes
Section 130A-290(a)(18a) ("MSW"), generated in Orange County and delivered to the
City of Durham owned and operated waste transfer station ("Station").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the County and City are public bodies, politic and corporate, under
the laws of the State of North Carolina and are vested with the power and authority to
operate solid waste disposal facilities for the benefit of the public and are authorized by
Article 20 of North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160A to enter into this Interlocal
Agreement ("Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the County owns and operates a solid waste landfill affording
services to all residents of Orange County and the City operates its Station for the
principal benefit of City residents; and
WHEREAS, the County-owned landfill is scheduled to close in June of 2013 thus
creating a need for County to find a suitable means of disposing of MSW generated in
Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the County and City (which hereinafter may be referred to jointly as
the "Parties" and individually as "Party") acknowledge that City has the available
capacity at the Station to dispose of MSW generated within and by County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and on mutual promises and
obligations set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
a. This Agreement shall commence on the date set out above and shall
continue through June 30, 2018.
b. This Agreement may be renewed beyond June 30, 2018 upon written
agreement of the Parties.
Page 1 of 4
6
2. MATERIALS DISPOSED
a. County will transport to the Station only MSW.
b. With the exception of incidental amounts, the following materials will be
segregated from the waste stream and continue to be processed in
Orange County: Construction and Demolition waste; tires, White Goods;
Yard Trash; electronics, and Recyclable Materials,.
c. County will commence delivery of MSW to Station on or about July 1,
2013, and shall continue to do so per this Agreement, except as
otherwise provided herein.
d. Definitions found in North Carolina General Statute 130A-290(a) shall
apply when those terms are used in this agreement.
3. FEE AND PAYMENT
a. County will pay the City's per ton tipping fee ("Fee") for County MSW
transported to and disposed of at the Station, which is currently $42.50.
b. City shall generate and maintain an accurate account of County MSW
load deliveries to the Station. City shall invoice County for MSW loads
generated by County monthly.
c. Upon receipt of an invoice for MSW loads, County shall pay such invoice
within 30 days.
4. CAPACITY AND FEE MODIFICATION
a. The Parties acknowledge that the Station currently disposes of
approximately 475 tons per day of MSW and the Station has a facility
design capacity of 1,100 tons per day of MSW.
b. The Parties agree that County currently disposes of approximately 200
tons per day. Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement City will accept
approximately 200 tons per day from County.
c. The Parties acknowledge the Fee may be modified by the City Council at
any time. City shall provide County ninety (90) days advance notice of
any increase in Fee.
5. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
a. Station currently receives MSW loads Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. and Saturday. 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. County shall ensure
that MSW loads generated by County are delivered to Station during its
regular hours of operation.
b. Should County be unable to reasonably deliver MSW loads only during
Station's regular hours of operation, County may request City expand its
Station hours to accommodate County's needs.
Should such expansion of Station hours be reasonable and feasible City
shall make such expansion.
Page 2 of 4
7
6. ADDITIONAL PARTIES
a. The City and the County anticipate that multiple Orange County
municipalities may desire to participate in this agreement.
b. Should Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or Hillsborough desire to be added as a
party to this Agreement and the City agrees to do so, an amendment to
this agreement shall be executed between that town and the City. The
County hereby consents to such amendment. Should another party join,
the definition of "Party" and "Parties", above, shall be read to include the
additional town. A separate financial account will be generated for each
town by the City.
7. ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT
a. City shall not be responsible for enforcing any Orange County
Ordinance. Any MSW load delivered to Station shall be presumed to be
in compliance with County Ordinances.
b. County shall enforce its ordinances with respect to MSW within Orange
County or at the Station upon loads originating within Orange County.
Such enforcement activity occurring at Station shall involve County
enforcement personnel and shall not interfere with Station operations.
8. AMENDMENTS AND NOTICES
This Agreement may be amended and/or renewed by mutual written consent
of the Parties. Any notice required or authorized by this Agreement shall be
delivered by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested to the
following:
If to County If to City
Orange County City of Durham
County Manager City Manager
P.O. Box 8181 101 City Hall Plaza
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Durham, NC 27701
9. TERMINATION
a. This Agreement may be terminated by the Parties hereto upon one year
advance notice by either Party or at any time by mutual written
agreement of the Parties.
b. Should City increase the Fee by ten percent (10%) or more in any one
annual period, then upon sixty (60) days' notice to City, County may
terminate this Agreement without penalty to County.
Page 3 of 4
8
10. INDEMNIFICATION
No party hereto, together with its respective officers or employees, shall
assume any liability for the acts, omissions, or negligent or intentional conduct
of the other party, its officers or employees.
11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the Parties hereto and is
effective the date first above recorded.
City Manager Chair, Board of Orange County
Commissioners
ATTEST: ATTEST:
City Clerk Clerk to the Board
This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local Government
Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Orange County Director Finance
and Administrative Services
Page 4 of 4
Attachment B 9
Memorandum
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Jan Sassaman, Chair
Solid Waste Advisory Board
Subject: SWAB Interlocal Agreement and Alternative Technology
Framework/Timeline Recommendation
Date: November 11, 2010
The Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB)has been discussing issues concerning the
future of the Interlocal Agreement (IA) as well as a possible response to the Alternative
Technology Timeline and framework request made by the BOCC in item 4 of its motion,
adopted December 2009, to utilize the City of Durham transfer station as a disposal site
when the Orange County-owned landfill ceases to accept waste.
At the SWAB's November 2010 meeting, general consensus was reached on a number of
points that are presented below. These issues will probably be further discussed at the
December SWAB meeting. In addition, the SWAB has identified those elements that we
believe should be incorporated/included in any new Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste
Management for Orange County.
Key Points from SWAB
• Discussions on revising the current IA should proceed at a higher political and
managerial level than the SWAB. We believe that a group of representatives
from the four jurisdictions should be formed immediately to begin active
discussions on the political and functional possibility of a future partnership for
local solid waste management. These discussions could even consider the notion
of a public solid waste authority. The SWAB feels strongly that the
organizational issue and what the governments will do with their waste during and
following a possible 3-5 year interim period following landfill closure are
inextricably related and need to be addressed with all due haste.
• The governing bodies should move deliberately as the 3-5 year period will pass
very quickly and a goal of not only deciding what to do and how to do it, but of
actually implementing a solution, would be in our mutual best economic and
environmental interests. In fact, with staff continually endeavoring to extend the
life of the landfill, a timely organizational and operational resolution could avoid
or at least limit the interim option and related expense of hauling to the City of
Durham. In other words, the process for post-Durham transfer station waste
management should begin immediately, along with the organizational discussion.
10
• The range of technical, economic and risk-related issues surrounding a thorough
and effective consideration of alternative technologies for solid waste may require
far more resources and expertise than the SWAB has available. If the Board
wishes the SWAB to remain lead entity in conducting this evaluation, a clear and
detailed set of parameters and criteria for evaluating technologies needs to be
provided.
• SWAB also felt that many of the issues associated with alternative technologies
(i.e. those associated with emerging thermal technologies for waste conversion)
had already been presented to the Board in the GBB report of August 2008 and
those technologies that would incorporate multi jurisdictional actions were
beyond the scope of the SWAB as we understand it to be and would, furthermore,
be dependent upon any mutual agreement of Orange County and the individual
municipalities that would be affected.
• Based on the inter-dependence of the IA and consideration of alternative means to
dispose of solid waste, and the imperative to find a workable solution for Orange
County and it's municipalities, SWAB agreed that an interim Memorandum of
Understanding among the current IA signatories to agree to work together to find
a solution and in the interim to commit to use of the Durham transfer station,
should that become necessary, was an important initial step in this process.
• Mr. John Stephens of the UNC School of Government might be considered to
provide professional assistance with process issues related to organizational
discussions and/or long-term waste disposal decisions. Mr. Stephens's areas of
expertise are Inter-agency and public policy dispute resolution; citizen
participation; group collaboration and facilitation.
Recommended Elements of a New Interlocal Agreement
The SWAB has reached consensus with regard to the elements that should be
included/incorporated into any new IA. The SWAB concept is for a comprehensive solid
waste management agreement that builds on current successes, improves existing
shortcomings and provides a means to deal with future challenges.
• Financial responsibility for closure and post-closure of landfills —Identifies and
clarifies financial responsibilities.
• Provision of storm debris management/processing—Provides for effective
ongoing emergency storm debris management.
• Provision of yard waste management/processing—Continues and encourages
responsibility for improvements in organics management.
2
11
• Greene Tract issues -Addresses as necessary any remaining issues pertaining to
the County-owned 60 acre portion of the Greene Tract, including enterprise fund
reimbursement.
• Solid waste transfer and disposal—Assigns responsibility and accountability for
providing environmentally responsible and economically viable/cost-effective
waste disposal solutions, involving other jurisdictions when feasible/beneficial
and providing opportunity for meaningful public input.
• Local government solid waste advisory body—Necessity of a permanent advisory
body to represent citizens and the governments in local solid waste matters.
• Solid Waste Collection systems in Orange County, including Convenience
Centers - Consideration of cooperation, collaboration and/or consolidation of
waste collection operations among the jurisdictions.
• State waste planning and plan preparation/coordination—Clarifies centrally
managed and coordinated State planning and reporting responsibilities.
• Provision of recycling and waste reduction services/programs —Continue County
leadership in recycling and waste reduction services, facilities and programs.
• Long-term management of solid waste enterprise fund and programs/facilities—
Maintain system wide management of facilities and continue enterprise fund
financing utilizing diverse income streams, examples of which may be user fees,
tipping fees, household fees, recyclable material revenues, etc.
SWAB Recommendations
SWAB recommends that the BOCC initiate conversations with the other IA signatories
and other potentially interested parties (such as the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill)in order to begin the process of modifying the current IA or developing a
new IA that is responsive to the present solid waste priorities of Orange County and its
municipalities.
SWAB further requests clarification from the BOCC regarding the Board's request for a
framework and timeline for evaluating alternative technologies in terms of the scope of
inquiry and role of SWAB as noted in our "Key Points" enumerated above.
We remain committed to assist you in these matters and we look forward to taking these
next steps, especially as the Solid Waste Plan Draft has been completed and provides a
continued framework for continuing local dialogue for future solid waste handling and
disposal for Orange County.
3
12
Attachment C
A
HISTORY OF THE
CITY/COUNTY
UTILITY COMMISSIOIN
WINSTON-SALEM / FORSYTH COUNTY
1994
(Amended 2009)
Written and Researched by:
Bridget Tatazona, Utilities Division Intern
Edited by:
Mylinda Jacobsen and Teresa L. Lockamy,
Utilities Administration
Amended by:
Carolyn Smith
David Saunders
13
FORWARD
(Written in 1994)
The following pages document the history of the City/County Utility Commission of
Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. It begins with the formation of the Commission in
1976, describing events and individuals who have contributed to its creation and growth.
What this glimpse does not capture is the dramatic sense of empowerment to staff
members by the Utility Commission. In the early days of the Commission, I was a
frequent visitor to John Watlington's office where he so clearly stated the expectations he
had for the Commission. His confidence, trust and support were very clearly given.
Although not spoken, it was just as clear that failure was not an option. Other
commissioners, especially that first group of committee chairmen, were smart,
hardworking business people who made tough decisions which created the opportunity
for us to accomplish heights beyond our expectation. It is this contribution by former
Utility Commission Members that has positioned the organization to be one of the few
AAA bonds rated public utilities in the United States.
This community is indebted to those members who have given their energy and
commitment to create the successful organization we have today. Moreover, the staff is
grateful for the leadership provided by former Commission Members, as well as their
contributions to staff's professional development.
It is important to appreciate the legacy inherited from those who worked so diligently to
build a solid foundation for the City/County Utility Commission. It is equally important
to appreciate today's Commissioners who continue the pursuit of excellence.
P. W. Swann
Assistant City Manager/Public Works
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Introduction ... 3
III. Murmurs of Consolidation 4
IV. Consolidation Agreement .. 7
V. Milestones .. 8
VI. Legacy of the Utility Commission 11
VII. Financial Success 12
VIII. Future Plans 13
IX. Conclusion 14
X. Appendix 15
XI. Bibliography 17
15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1778 — 1994
In 1778, the Village of Salem installed 332 wooden rods of water pipes. The cost
of these pipes was approximately $2,000.00 and the average citizen compensated the
village at a rate of 9 pence per four weeks, regardless of the usage. Later, these wooden
pipes were replaced with clay and still later the pipes were replaced with iron and a
cistern in an attempt at providing the best possible service. This glimpse of the area's
oldest utilities management shows how service was a primary issue for local governing
officials. The desire to serve constituents effectively and efficiently was an important
value back in 1778 that remains today. By the mid 1970's, City of Winston-Salem and
Forsyth County Officials were faced with considerable water and sewer service
challenges. Thus, consolidation of the two separate water systems became an option to
consider.
Beginning in the mid 1960's, City and County leaders begin talking about
consolidation. This need was confirmed by an engineering firm, Piatt and Davis, who was
hired to review the situation and the demographics. They recommended that all water and
wastewater services be placed under a single authority that would not necessarily be
identified with the county or a municipality. From this recommendation, committees
were formed but talks stalled until late 1973 when a new committee was established.
This group was faced with the subject of timing, because by then, there was no doubt that
consolidation would occur. Discussions continued through various committees and
negotiations on specify took some time. In April of 1976, an abruptly called special
meeting brought the issue to a close. Consolidation was approved, albeit by a very narrow
margin. Along with consolidation came provisions such as the following: 1) the facilities
would be owned by the City, 2) the City would pay the utility debt of the County, 3) the
City would provide water and sewer services to the consolidated area, 4) utilities would
operate on an enterprise fund, and most importantly, 5) the formation of the City/County
Utility Commission.
Soon after its formation, the Commission had to deal with many major projects
that soon became milestones for the organization. The first major project was the 201
plan. This plan was in response to EPA mandated legislation that required public utilities
to better clean the wastewater being discharged into raw water sources. Unlike many
other public utilities, the Commission had been studying this issue and was able to submit
its 201 plan in a timely fashion. Consequently, the City/County Utility Commission
received a grant from the EPA which paid for 75% of the $70 million environmental
improvements. These included sewer line and wastewater plant improvements,
construction of new lines, construction of the Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant,
and a regional laboratory and maintenance building at the Archie Elledge Plant.
Another milestone came in 1990 when the City/County Utility Commission
assumed responsibility for the Solid Waste Disposal Management Program. A Citizen
Task Force was formed and based on their recommendations, the City/County Utility
Commission began to operate a comprehensive Waste Management System that included
aggressive long-term plan for waste disposal and funded curbside recycling for the City
of Winston-Salem as well as many other recycling/waste reduction programs.
1
16
Historically, the City/County Utility Commission has had the privilege of
excellent leadership that takes their volunteer positions very seriously. In response, the
Utility Commission Staff has acted with a willingness to serve the Commission
conscientiously. The Staff and Commission Members have combined their efforts to
produce a successful organization that has been beneficial to the entire community.
Indeed, many industrial customers such as R. J. Reynolds, Lee Jeans, Corn Products and
Stroh Brewery have benefited from the sound management principals of the Utility
Commission.
The Commission has governed the Utilities Division in a manner that has allowed
the unit to grow. Consequently, the Division has plans for the future with many of the
projects underway. In the past three decades, the Utility Commission has added one new
wastewater treatment facility; the Lower Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
performed two major upgrades to the Archie Elledge Wastewater Treatment Plant, and is
in the process of constructing a totally new preliminary treatment facility and influent
pump station there. The Utility Commission has also added one new raw water supply
intake on the Yadkin River and 25 Million Gallon per day water treatment facility, the
Northwest Water Treatment Plant, The list of other projects includes the refurbishment
the R.W. Neilson Water Treatment Plant, and completely replacing the RA Thomas
Water Treatment Plant near downtown Winston-Salem. In addition to these major plant
facilities, the Commission has provided for the long term management of its wastewater
treatment residuals by implementing a phased approach to biosolids management,
culminating in the construction of a biosolids dryer facility in 2008 that will meet the
systems biosolids disposal needs for the next 20 years.
Faced with aging infrastructure in the water distribution and waste water
collection piping systems, the Utility Commission began focusing on pipeline
rehabilitation in 2004. In the past 5 years, $ 27,800,000 has been invested in pipeline
rehabilitation to insure the longevity of the systems for future generations.
The Solid Waste Disposal Program has performed long range master planning for
Forsyth County and all 8 municipalities within the county under the guidelines of the
North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources for 10 Year Solid Waste
Management Plans. In performing its duties to provide long range planning and solid
waste management, the Utility Commission has served its neighbors in a regional
capacity. Beginning in 1999 it expanded the Hanes Mill Road Landfill providing an
additional 30 years of landfill capacity for the local service area. In addition, the
Commission has built and operated the Old Salisbury Road Construction and Demolition
Landfill on the southern reaches of the service area, and has acquired land to provide
additional capacity on the northern side of the service area.
The City/County Utility Commission is an organization with the vision and
leadership dedicated to service the Winston-Salem and Forsyth County community well
into the future. The Commission is committed to professional management of
environmental, financial and human resources.
2
17
INTRODUCTION
"January 5, 1778 —Br. Triebel and Strehle went today to the English settlement to
cut logs suitable for water pipes". (Neilson, 35) In December of the same year the
Village of Salem installed 332 wooden rods of water pipes, costing over $2,000.00. The
average citizen of Salem was expected to help with the upkeep of this system by paying 9
pence per 4 weeks, regardless of how much water they used. As the town grew, so did
the demand on water, which resulted in the need for better pipes.
In the book, A Historical Account of the Water Supply Systems of Salem and
Winston 1752 to 1913, these are numerous diary entries that illustrate the quality of pipes
during that time. One entry reads, "May 31, 1791... President Washington visited out
water works and gave his approval of them and the service it gives". (Phillips, 7)
Although the water system worked, there were problems. The major problem was the
short ground life the wooden logs had, which resulted in leaks and the lack of water
pressure or the delivery of water at all. By 1806, Br. Crist suggested that clay pipes
should be used to replace the wooden ones. There is evidence that clay pipes were used
but an extensive replacement program did not occur at that time. (Phillips, 8)
In 1828, a Committee was established to examine the water shortage and how
water could be distributed more effectively. The committee's report, "proposed to use
the free spring at Br. Theodore Shulz water-works leading the water to his line and Br.
Benzion's bottom garden and there the water can be taken in a direct line to a point in
front of the house of Theod. Shulz, the highest place in town, and can from there be
distributed. Iron pipes to be used from the wheel to the cistern" (Note: a cistern is an
artificial reservoir for storing liquids, especially water). (Phillips 9)
This brief look into the earliest form of public utilities management for the local
community gives some insight into what officials of the City of Winston-Salem and
Forsyth County faced in the 1970's when considering consolidation of the County's and
City's Water System. Like the early citizens of Salem, City and County officials both
wanted to serve their communities well in service and in cost, and so the seed of a
consolidated system was sown in Forsyth County in the late 1960's.
3
18
MURMURS OF CONSOLIDATION
County and City leaders began talking about consolidation as an alternative to the
two existing Public Water Systems. The need for consolidation was confirmed by an
Engineering Firm in 1965, Piatt and Davis & Associates of Durham, who was hired to
review the projected population growth in the area. The Engineering Firm concluded
"that the nature of Forsyth County and its growth pattern are such that possibly another
approach would be preferable to the present methods of providing services, and that all
water and wastewater services be placed under a single authority". (Piatt & Davis, 6)
Piatt and Davis further recommended, "The authority would not be identified necessarily
with the County or a Municipality, but could be a separate entity". It was the Piatt and
Davis report that generated initial discussions of the City/County Utility Commission.
From this recommendation, a Committee was jointly established by Fred D.
Hauser, who was then Chairman of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, and the
Mayor of Winston-Salem, M. C. Benton. Both the City and the County placed four
individuals on the Committee. (Sparrow, 12-10-65) the ninth member was Kernersville
Mayor Roger Swisher. The County appointees were G. S. Coltrane, G. G. Reynolds,
County Manage Robert Hauser, Jr., and Purchasing Agent and General Director of the
County James B. Nowell. The City appointed members included Aldermen Floyd S.
Burge and C. C. Ross, City Manager John Gold, and Superintendent of City Water
Stanford E. Harris, Jr. The Goals for this group were to assess the consolidation proposal,
to examine what sort of governing "authority"would benefit Forsyth County and actually
determine, if at this time, a merger was feasible. (Sparrow 12-10-65)
After six months of debate and discussion, City Manager John Gold made a
controversial remark that "the County should build a Water System so that they have
something to consolidate". (Winston-Salem Journal 3-22-66) this remark proved to be a
splinter in the City's side for quite some time. The controversial remark was perhaps
spoken in haste, but nonetheless had some validity. The County was undeveloped with
sparse water lines. The goal for the County was to develop the water lines and then tap
into the City's system.
4
19
The talk of consolidating the City and County Water Systems stalled until late
1973. An article appeared in the Winston-Salem Journal on November 29, 1973 entitled,
Water/Sewer Study Starts Friday. The article announced a new committee. Members to
the committee were appointed as before, with fair representation from both the City of
Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. Appointed by the Winston-Salem Board of
Aldermen were Director of Hanes Dye and Finishing Company, Joel A. Weston, Sr.;
Vice President of Wachovia Mortgage Company, Sterling A. Spainhour; and the
Manager of Westinghouse, Alan J. Melinger. The Forsyth County Commissioners
appointed Director of Western Electric Company, H. J. Shultz; a Lumber Company
Executive from Rural Hall, Burke E. Wilson; and Fred D. Hauser, a former Chairman of
the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners. (Hore, 12-4-73) The final member of the
group was George S. Coltrane of Kernersville. Fred Hauser was chosen to serve as the
Chairman of the group because he had dealt with the consolidation talks in 1965. This
group was faced with the subject of timing of consolidation, since by this time; there was
no question that it would occur. (Hoar, 11-29-73)
Discussions regarding the details of the consolidation agreement bounced through
various committees of both the City and County for several months. Negotiations on
specifics took some time. Discussions of a consolidated water system came to a head at
an abruptly called special meeting of the Forsyth County Commissioners and the
Winston-Salem Board of Aldermen in April of 1976. The meeting was called to vote on
a final agreement, designated to create a unified Public Water System. The
Commissioners and the City Aldermen voted in separate sessions, with the agreement
being passed in a 3-1 vote and 5-4 vote, respectively. With the close vote on the
consolidation issue, it quickly became apparent that opposition to some critical sections
of the agreement still existed for both elected officials and citizens alike. This lack of
agreement came as a surprise to many, because all involved had previously appeared
satisfied with negotiations. One figure in particular, Alderman Richard N. Davis, was a
vocal opponent. He argued that the terms of this agreement had been changed to the
City's disadvantage and the Aldermen had no control over what would be decided. He
preferred an earlier proposal that gave the Board of Aldermen final approval over all
actions of the appointed commission. (Hoar and Slater, 4-21-76)
5
20
Concerns were also expressed by a number of citizens present at the special
meeting. Their concerns were of a slightly different interest. One issue expressed was that
an appointed committee would not listen to the people or care about how issues affected
the community. Others worried that the Board of Aldermen and the County
Commissioners would not take their job of appointing outstanding community leaders to
the consolidated commission seriously. Citizen Sue Drummond, also wife of County
Commissioner David L. Drummond, was quoted by the Winston-Salem Journal at the
County Commissioners meeting as saying, "The Board, including my husband, does not
have a good record of appointing people to various citizen's Boards and Commissions.
Nearly all appointees are Democrats, most are men, and many are not qualified". Mrs.
Drummond went on to say that she has done some eavesdropping and has heard frantic
last minute calls among the Commissioners trying to fill appointed positions. She asked,
"Will the Utility Commission be any different?" (Hoar, 4-21-76)
In spite of the controversy, in the spring of 1976, the City of Winston-Salem and
Forsyth County followed in the footsteps of other North Carolina Cities, such as
Greensboro and Charlotte, and created a consolidated City/County Water and Wastewater
System. The consolidation was officially effective July 1, 1976. (Hoar, 4-21-76)
6
21
CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT
The agreement to consolidate the public utility facilities of Winston-Salem and
Forsyth County contained several important provisions. Among them were: 1) both
parties agreed that all facilities would be owned by the City, 2) the City agreed to pay the
utility debt of the County, 3) the City agreed to provide water and sewage services to the
consolidated area, and 4) all water and sewage operations would be financed through a
separate utility fund. A fifth, and perhaps the most significant aspect to the merge, was
the formation of the City/County Utility Commission (CCUC). Mr. William Hobbs, a
former City/County Utility Commission Member, explained the main goal of
Commission Members was to oversee the successful merge of water services, and make a
unified system which was efficient in operation and cost. (Hobbs, Summer 94)
The first 11 members appointed were: Thomas H. Davis, Flake F. Steele, Jr.,
William D. Hobbs, William H. J. Schultz, Willie E. Grissom, Leonard E. Warner, Jack L.
Covington, Martha Lowrance, G. S. "Sol" Coltrane, Joe L. Pinnix, and John F.
Watlington, Jr., who served as Chairperson until his retirement in 1986. (City/County
Utility Commission Minutes, 37) The City Aldermen and County Commissioners each
appointed five members, with the eleventh member being appointed by the Mayor and
the County Commission Chairperson. This member would serve as the City County
Utility Chairperson.
Along with the formal provisions, there was also an understanding that the
City/County Utility Commission would be run as a private enterprise. Therefore, the
people placed on the Commission would represent no special interest groups, and all
operations were to be financed by revenue generated from the services provided, not tax
money. (Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utility Commission)
7
22
MILESTONES
Soon after its formation, the Utility Commission embarked upon the most
significant infrastructure capital building project to date. In 1972, federal legislation was
passed that required public utilities to better clean the wastewater being discharged into
rivers, streams or other raw water sources. The Federal Government offered grant money
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency to assist with this point source
clean up. To qualify for the grant money, each Public Utility had to conduct an extensive
study to determine specific problems, methods to remedy them and a timetable for
completion. This document became known as a 201 plan. Fortunately, the Staff of the
Utility Commission had already completed this research and was all but ready to process.
However, at that time, the Utility Commission had insufficient funds to pay for all the
projects needed. Because many other North Carolina Public Utilities had not prepared
their 201 plans in time, the City/County Utilities Division was able to submit its plan and
receive $70 million in EPA grant money. The EPA grant money paid for 75% of the
designated environmental improvements, leaving the State and City/County Utility
Commission to pay the remaining 12.5% respectively. The $70 million improvements
were spent on the following projects:
• $7.2 million Connected Town of Kernersville's Sanitary Sewer System
Archie Elledge Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• $5.5 million Major improvements at the Archie Elledge Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
• $2.0 million Construction of Regional Laboratory and Maintenance
Building at Elledge to serve Wastewater Treatment Plants.
• $2.3 million Inspections and repairs of existing sewer lines to reduce
infiltration and inflow.
• $3.0 million Construction of new sewer lines.
• $50.0 million Construction of the Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant. (Hoar, 2-24-82)
8
23
As the era of EPA funding closed out on the 1980's other funding sources were
identified by the Utility Commission. In 1988, the Utility Commission began using
revenue bonds to fund most of its Capital Improvement Needs. Many other projects that
have been constructed by the Utility Commission and funded by Revenue Bonds issued
by the City of Winston-Salem include:
• $30.7 million The 1991 odor abatement project at the Elledge Waste
Water Treatment Plant
• $15.3 million The 1996 upgrade of the Lower Muddy Creek Wastewater
Plant
• $3.0 million The 1998 Phase 1 modernization of the R W Neilson Plant
• $84.4 million The 2002 25 MGD North West Water Treatment Pant,
Dam and Intake
• $6.5 million The 2003 Biosolids dewatering facility
• $30.8 million The 2006 Biosolids Dryer Facility
• $65.3 million The 2008 replacement of the Thomas Water Treatment
Plant
• $60.5 million The 2008 relocation and upgrade of the Archie Elledge
Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks
9
24
Solid Waste
In the late 1980's, a Citizen Task Force was appointed to weigh the pros and cons
of consolidating the City's and County's Solid Waste Disposal Operations into a Single
Operation. The 1990 report assessed present and future waste disposal issues, and
recommended a Waste Management Plan.
The primary outcomes of the Task Force efforts were:
• The Technical Sub-Committee made two recommendations; to institute solid
waste recycling efforts, and to work on consumer waste reduction.
• The Finance Sub-Committee, keeping increased recycling efforts in mind,
advised the compensation for public recycling efforts.
• The Public Awareness Sub-Committee suggested that a Public Relations Firm
be hired to communicate the City's recycling efforts to the public.
• The Organizational Sub-Committee made the key recommendation that the
"County-Wide Solid Waste Management Authority should be put under the
auspices for the City/County Utility Commission" (Report of the City/County
Task Force on Solid Waste Disposal p.25).
The Utilities Division considered the recommendations of the Task Force and
instituted a comprehensive Waste Management Program. This Program included
funding a City-Wide Curbside Recycling Program and long-term planning for
Solid Waste Disposal in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. The enterprise
operation for water and wastewater proved such a success that it became the
impetus for the addition of the Solid Waste Disposal Program as an enterprise
fund in 1988 to the City/County Utility Commission's responsibility.
10
25
LEGACY OF THE UTILITY COMMISSION
The most significant facet to the City/County Utility Commission's success is the
quality of membership, leadership and support the group has been able to acquire. The
early Commission Members achieved the goals for consolidation and efficient operation
of the Water and Wastewater Systems. The success of this organization can be attributed
to the quality of the people that served on the City/County Utility Commission. All
members have demonstrated outstanding leadership skills.
When the Commission was first formed, the City and County both saw the
benefits of appointing people who has venerable personalities and who could work in a
team effort. The Senior Staff Member to the Utility Commission, Assistant City
Manager/Public Works, Mr. P. W. Swann, emphasized the importance of obtaining
community leaders to serve on the Utility Commission; "they give instant credibility that
brings honor to the Commission". (Swann, 94) This frame of mind continues to draw
people to serve on the Commission. No person has turned down the opportunity to work
on the Utility Commission since its formation.
When looking at the achievements of the Utility Commission, it is important to
highlight the leadership of Mr. John F. Watlington. He is the former City/County Utility
Commission Chairperson who served for ten years and made a bold impact during the
formative years of the organization. Mr. P. W. Swann, Assistant City Manager/Public
Works, recalled the impact Mr. Watlington had on people and situations, "Mr.
Watlington made it clear that the City/County Utility Commission would be run
according to the original provisions and as a private enterprise, minus political
interference". This leadership also allowed a highly effective support staff to evolve. Dr.
Manson Meads, who succeeded Mr. Watlington as Commission Chairperson, emphasized
the significant support the Commission received from Assistant City Manager/Public
Works, Mr. P. W. Swann and Utilities Superintendent, Mr. Thomas Griffin. The Staff
quickly discovered how seriously the City/County Utility Commission members took
their volunteer responsibilities, and responded with a willingness to serve the
Commission conscientiously. The delicate balance of members and supporting staff has
been vital to the success of the City/County Commission. (Meads, Summer 94)
11
26
FINANCIAL SUCCESSES
No review of the City/County Utility Commission would be complete without
examination of its financial success. Because the Utilities Division was to be operated as
an enterprise fund, shrewd business people needed to serve on the Commission. (See
Graph 1 & 2)
Graph Revenue and Expenses • `�fahf�Revenues
1976 - 1994 ❑�fehre&'ems
40 I I I�
35
50
c 25 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPOPIIIIIII
grim lom loulm 01
0
20 00 1 00 0 00 1 00 0 00 11
g 15
0 limporri Imp la pi 114 Ili 1 I I I I I I I I I 1.0111 I I I 1111 111 1111 II 1111 1 1111 II II I
5 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111EMEN 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 11011, 11111 rn rn rn rn �i �i �i �i � �i � �i �i �i � � � � 0)
ion on 2 Operating Revenues
Graph and Expenses oOpe,ating Expenses
�o
1995-2009
I
N 5° 001111.0011100010100000000010000000000000000000000000000000000001111111111111111111111111 ill ill ill ill 0101
O :00
0
IibIiI:
I I i71011001101
100 01 01 1 01 01 01 1 1
_ [ 12
27
One should not neglect the financial gains the extraordinary management of the
City/County Utility Commission brought to the Piedmont. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth
County area with its abundant water and wastewater resources is held in high regards
throughout the Stat of North Carolina as an example of prudent long range planning
coupled with strong financial principles.
FUTURE PLANS
The City/County Utility Commission has long had the reputation as an efficient
operation with a long-range vision. Future plans for the water and wastewater system
include maintaining a competitive water rate in the state, sustaining the goal of providing
the best possible service to its more than 120,191 customers and continued investment in
the critical infrastructure of water and sewer lines and treatment plant facilities. In order
to collect and distribute wastewater and water throughout the system, the maintenance of
lines must be managed. Since 1976, the total miles of sewer and water lines have grown
to 1,046 miles and 2,088 miles, respectively.
The solid waste disposal program is has sufficient capacity to meet the
community's solid waste management needs well into the future. The program must find
ways to meet the challenges of funding its core responsibilities, and continuing to provide
excellent management oversight into the valuable waste reduction and recycling
programs needed to ensure sustainability of the regions waste management assets.
13
28
CONCLUSION
The City/County Utility Commission has become synonymous with success. The
respect the members and supporting staff have earned is based on professionalism and
hard work. The best way to summarize the mission of the City/County Utility
Commission is found in a speech given by Dr. Manson Meads, who served as
Commission Chairperson from 1986-1990. He writes,
"First, that, as the utilities system is self-financing, it must be operated as a
business with commensurate authority and public accountability, but freed as much as
possible from political winds; Second, that it would serve the needs of all of its customers
(municipal, corporate, business and individuals) in an equitable and sensitive manner;
Third, that it would maintain sound professional management that would seek to give
high quality service at the lowest possible cost; Fourth, that it would be proactive in
planning and action in anticipation of future needs." (Meads, Summer 94)
14
29
APPENDIX
FORMER AND PRESENT CITY/COUNTY UTILITY COMMISSION MEMBERS
Toyoko "Toy"Beaty (2005-Present)
Bernard L. Beatty (1979-1985)
John B. Brady (1986-Present)
Herbert K, Brenner(1984-1989)
Curtis W. Carpenter (2002-2004)
F. Hudnall Christopher(1986-1991)
G. S. "Sol" Coltrane(1976)
Charles A. Coone(2000-2004)
Jack L. Covington (1976-1984)
Thomas H. Davis (1976-1985)
Brenda B. Diggs (1990-1999)
Carmen Elijah (1983-1988)
Jack D. Fernery (1976-1979)
Lyons Gray (1985-95 and 2002-2005)
Willie E. Grissom (1976-1984 and 1988-1998)
J. Andrew Hancock(1996-2006)
William D. Hobbs (1976-1983)
Harold R. Holmes (2007-Present)
Janeen Lalik(2009-Present)
George L. Little, Jr. (1995-2005)
James E. Lowe (2004-Present)
Martha Lowrance(1976-1983)
Paul S. McGill(2003 -Present)
Manson Meads, M.D. (1983-1986)
L. Homer Moeller(1990-1996)
David Neill (2006-2009)
Robert L. Neill (1981-1986)
R. Allen Osborne, Jr. (1982-1992)
15
30
APPENDIX
FORMER AND PRESENT CITY/COUNTY UTILITY COMMISSION MEMBERS
Stephen D. Poe(1996-2006)
Joe L. Pinnix, Sr. (1976-1982)
John A. Redding, Sr. (1992-2002)
Melvin J. Scales (1998-2003)
William H. J. Schultz (1976-1981)
James C. Schupp (1995-1998)
Al H. Seymour (2006-Present)
Stephen M. Shelton (2005-Present)
G. Dee Smith (1982-1987)
Flake F. Steele, Jr. (1976-1982)
Donald R. Stewart(2003-2008)
J. Hill Stockton (1999-2004 and 2005-Present)
Richard Stockton (1985-1995)
Paschal "Pat"W. Swann (1997-2007)
Raymond D. Thomas (1998-Present)
Isaiah Tidwell (1984-1994)
Randall S. Tuttle (2008-Present)
Leonard E. Warner(1976-1986)
Claudette Weston (1986-1998)
Paul M. Wiles (1989-1999)
A. Tab Williams (1987-1997)
L. C. Woolard, Sr. (1998)
CHAIRMEN FORMER AND PRESENT
John F. Watlington, Jr. (1976-1986) J. Hugh Wright(1998-2007)
Manson Meads, M. D. (1986-1990) Paschal "Pat"W. Swann (2007-2009)
Christopher J. Chapman (1990-1998) David Neill(2009-Present)
16
31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
City Secretary's Office, City/County Utility Commission Minutes, Vol. 1, City/County
Utility Commission, Winston-Salem, NC,pp.1-35.
City/County Utility Commission Administration Staff, Personal Interviews, Summer
1994.
Finance Department, Annual Reports, City of Winston-Salem, NC, 1973-1993.
Hoar, Stephen, "Hauser To Head Study Of Water-Sewer Move, Winston-Salem Journal,
December 4, 1973.
Hoar, Stephen, "More Water Bonds Urged", The Winston-Salem Journal, December 8,
1977.
Hoar, Stephen, "The Race Is On For Sewerage Improvement Funds", The Winston-Salem
Journal, February 24, 1981.
Hoar, Stephen, "Water Sewer Study Names 7th Member", The Winston-Salem Journal,
November 30, 1973.
Hoar, Stephen, "Water Sewer Study Starts Friday", The Winston-Salem Journal,
November 29, 1973.
Hoar, Stephen and Paul Slater, "Mayors Vote Clinches Deal", The Sentinel, April 21,
1976.
Hobbs, William, Personal Interview, Summer 1994.
Meads, Manson Dr., Personal Interview, Summer 1994.
Neilson, R. W., History of Government; City of Winston-Salem, NC: All American City,
1766—Bicentennial— 1966, Vol.l p.35.
Perry, Rachel, "County Has Model Water-Sewer System After 10 Years' Development".
The Winston-Salem Journal, March 9, 1986.
Philip, Benbow A., A Historical Account of the Water Supply Systems of Salem And
Winston 1752 to 1913 and of Winston-Salem, NC 1913 to 1960, Unknown:
Winston-Salem, 1943,pp. 1-22.
17
32
Piatt& Davis and Associates, Study For the County ff Forsyth, NC Concerning Water
And Wastewater Facilities", Board of County Commissioners, Durham, NC
1965,pp. 1-15.
Staff Writer, "County Wide Water Plan Abandoned", The Winston-Salem Journal, March
22, 1966.
Staff Writer, "Officials Discuss County Sewer System", Winston-Salem Journal, January
21, 1966.
Swann, P. W., Personal Interview, Summer, 1994.
Utilities Division Staff, Final Script for Slide Presentation, City/County Utility
Commission, Winston-Salem, NC, February 8, 1990,pp.1-5.
Utilities Division Staff, Report of City/County Task Force on Solid Waste Disposal,
January 1990.
Utilities Division Staff, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utility Commission, City/County
Utility Commission, Winston-Salem, NC,pp.1-3.
Utilities Division Staff, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County Utilities Division Brochure, City
of Winston-Salem, NC, April 1991,pp.1-4.
18