City Backs CP&L Effort
Rowan commissioners ask for Salisbury’s support for power plant site

BY MARK WINEKA
SALISBURY POST

Stinging from negative comments they’ve seen in the newspaper, Rowan County commissioners asked Salisbury City Council Wednesday to back them in promoting a U.S. 70 site for a $200 million power plant.

Council members said they’d be glad to. In fact, the city fathers praised commissioners for, in Councilman Bill Burgin’s words,‘‘not letting that fish get away.’’

‘‘I’m delighted they’re coming back to look at us,’’ agreed Mayor Pro Tem Paul Woodson. Mayor Susan Kluttz said the proposed Carolina Power and Light plant at U.S. 70 and N.C. 801 ‘‘would be wonderful for the county,’’ and she also commended the county officials for not giving up on CP&L after the company’s first proposed site in Rowan County fell through because of citizen opposition.

Council will consider adoption of a formal resolution in support of the plant at its meeting next Tuesday.

CP&L has its eye on 367 acres bordered roughly by U.S. 70, N.C. 801, Parks Road and Godbey Road. Late last year, the power company abandoned plans to build a similar power plant on a smaller piece of land off U.S. 601 north of Salisbury.

Worried about things such as noise, stack emissions and lower property valuations, citizens complained then that the plant was too close to their homes. They mounted a petition drive and also promised to oppose the plant at rezoning hearings.

This week, the Post published an opinion column and a letter that questioned the new site. Rod Justin, a Woodleaf resident, asked whether an environmental impact study had been done, what the effect on surrounding property values would be and what kind of stack emissions the plant would generate – among other questions.

Justin also suggested that it might be time to resurrect REAP, the organization of western Rowan County residents who fought the state’s proposed location of a hazardous waste incinerator a dozen years ago.

Newton Cohen, chairman of the board of commissioners, said it was unfair to compare the CP&L proposal to the hazardous waste facility and added that he hoped the county could overcome ‘‘a few of the naysayers.’’

‘‘It’s positive all the way,’’ Cohen said of CP&L’s proposal. He noted that the power plant would generate significant tax revenues while requiring virtually no costs in additional infrastructure such as more roads, bigger schools, increased law enforcement and more human services.

The plant will employ roughly 20 people. County Manager Tim Russell estimated that the new industry would generate $1.1 million in property tax revenue each year.

Last week, CP&L officials said a final decision on the property would come within 30 to 40 days. The site already is zoned industrial. The former U.S. 601 site had a combination of rural residential and rural agriculture zoning.

Commissioner Dave Rowland said it would take 1,500 new homes in the $110,000 category to make up what the county stands to lose, if CP&L backs out again. Meeting over lunch, the city and county officials also noted that such an equally valued residential development would put additional burdens on the school system, law enforcement, roads and other services.

Commissioner Frank Tadlock said the power plant offers an opportunity to ease the tax burden on the county’s property owners – city and rural.

‘‘Almost every citizen, directly or indirectly, will be impacted by this,’’ Tadlock said.

Commissioner Arnold Chamberlain said supporters of the CP&L proposal may have to hit the newspapers with their own letters.

‘‘We need some help,’’ Chamberlain told council.