City Council Regular Meeting — August 18, 2026

Lebanon WWTP Site Selection — Public Record Archive  |  Return to main page

Video recording (YouTube)  —  Transcript  —  Meeting began 6:00 p.m., City of Lebanon Administration Building

Public Comment — Recurring Themes

Speakers addressed all three finalist sites (7 — Horn Springs/Oriole Drive; 13 — Rockwood/Hartman Drive, including the adjacent Carver Creek/Carver Lane neighborhoods; 22 — Maple Hill Road). Common arguments, heard from many speakers across all three sites:

• Use existing industrial land instead. The most frequent request was to expand or rebuild on the current 1963 plant site (321 Hartmann Drive) or other already-industrial-zoned land (the TRW property and empty buildings off Hartman Drive were named specifically), rather than any of the three residential-adjacent sites.
• Property value and health impacts. Many speakers cited potential property devaluation, and several cited specific research: a 2016 peer-reviewed study of 235 residents living within approximately 0.3 miles of a wastewater treatment plant reporting headaches, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and gastrointestinal symptoms; and a 2024 study (source name not clearly transcribed) measuring wastewater bioaerosol concentrations of roughly 7,978 to 3,710 colony-forming units per cubic meter, with wind speed and humidity affecting concentrations. One speaker (reading remarks on behalf of Rachel Defendorf, unable to attend) asked why Lebanon isn't following Davidson County's reported setback requirement of at least 1,000 ft (about 0.19 miles) from any residential property line.
• Transparency complaints. Several speakers said they could not find Site Selection Committee minutes on the city website or agenda center, felt “blindsided” since the August 4 meetings, and asked for clearer public communication going forward. (This was addressed directly later in the meeting — see “Engineer and Council Response,” below.)
• Two neighborhood petitions were announced from the podium: Katherine Isacson (1800 Horn Springs Road, whose home would face the Site 7 entrance) reported 534 signatures gathered in about a week opposing Site 7; Jennifer Houston (Carver Creek) reported 610 signatures opposing Site 13, gathered in roughly the same period.

Site-specific claims worth noting

• Site 7 — city limits/growth boundary claim. Reading from the neighborhood petition, Katherine Isacson stated: “the proposed location extends far beyond the city limits and designated urban growth boundaries” (1:14:23–1:14:31). This is consistent with this archive's own independent finding (from the July 21 committee transcript) that Site 7 is outside current city limits and only partially inside the Urban Growth Boundary — see the candidate sites table.
• Site 22 — ownership status disputed. John Thirsten (16 Melly Court, Plantation South) stated that, per county records he obtained the day before this meeting, the 150-acre Site 22 parcel had not changed hands and remained with “the original owner” as of that check, and asked the council to clarify who the city is actually negotiating with (56:07–57:38). This has not been independently verified by this archive and is presented here as a claim made on the record, not a confirmed fact.
• Alternative-technology advocacy continues. Mark Cobalt (1695 Horn Springs Road) said he met with Mayor Bell face-to-face on July 6 to present information on moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology — citing the John's Creek Environmental Campus and Bear Creek Sewage Treatment Facility, both in Fulton County, Georgia, as built examples on compact, odor-controlled sites — and asked what became of that information (8:58–9:12). Terry Monahan repeated his now-familiar MBBR/retrofit argument. Derek Dodson described contacting the public works director of Greenfield, California about a recently built membrane bioreactor plant there, and urged the council to set aside the September 30 grant-deadline pressure (“pay the stupid tax”) in favor of further technology review (1:29:14–1:31:05) — a departure from his earlier advocacy for a specific site.
• Capacity-change question. John Langford, a former planning commissioner now on the Industrial Development Board, said he was told the existing plant was at 65% capacity when the planning commission approved a new Site 22-area neighborhood in January 2026, and asked how that changed within two months to justify the current urgency; he also suggested the city consider eminent domain on vacant land adjacent to the existing plant rather than residential sites (53:06–54:39).

Engineer Q&A (Steve Jones, with Mayor Bell)

After public comment closed, Mayor Bell invited engineer Steve Jones to the podium for questions:

• Technology tradeoffs: Jones explained that different biological treatment technologies (conventional activated sludge, MBBR, membrane bioreactor) hold different concentrations of biomass and therefore need different footprints, but each has cost tradeoffs. He said a membrane system quote he currently has would cost roughly twice the capital cost of clarifiers, with membranes needing replacement every 8–10 years versus roughly 40 years for a clarifier's motor. He stated he has 14 different cost estimates combining various technologies, which informed the committee's acreage recommendations, but said “that information's not all been shared at the previous meetings.”
• Odor control: Headworks and anaerobic/anoxic basins (the largest odor sources) would be enclosed, with collected air run through biological scrubbers with a carbon cap.
• Next steps and timeline: Jones said the city is still waiting on legal right of entry to the three finalist properties to perform environmental site assessments and geotechnical investigation (depth to bedrock, sinkhole risk). Once granted, he estimated at least 90 days before a report is ready (roughly 30 days to mobilize a firm, a week of testing, then report writing) — meaning no information would likely be ready before early 2027. He confirmed nothing has yet been presented to city council: no cost data, no completed site assessments.

Mayor's Remarks

Mayor Bell gave an extended account of the process, summarized here (1:32:30–1:59:17):

• History: The current plant (321 Hartmann Drive) was built in 1963. Site search began by focusing on the area near the existing plant/effluent pipeline (which runs northwest, exiting near the Sportsman's Club on Mann Road). A Hartman Drive/Coles Ferry Pike corner property was considered first but the owner was unwilling to sell; the search then moved to Rockwood (then referenced as “91 Carver Lane”), which was industrial-zoned, a half-mile from the current plant, and had a willing seller. This predated formation of the Site Selection Committee, which was created by a city council resolution passing 5–1.
• On Site 22 and the Site 13 apartment parcel: Mayor Bell stated directly that neither site was part of the city's internal pre-committee site search:

  “That site [22] was never previously considered as we studied it internally... it was added to the list because a neighboring property owner stood at the podium and said it should be considered. I really don't think site 22 should have been added to the list... I also want to say that the apartment complex that has the chain-link fence around it, it had never been considered previously either. And personally, I don't think that should have been added to the list either.”

• Voting mechanics and a stated commitment: Bell explained the council has six members, needs four affirmative votes to pass anything, and that as mayor he only votes to break a tie. He then stated: “if site 22 gets on the agenda and it's a tie, I'm going to vote no. If site 13 gets on the agenda and the apartment property is attached to it and it's a three-three tie, I'm going to vote no.”

Council Comments

Six council members spoke in turn: Joey Carmack, Geri Ashley, Camille Burdine, Chris Crowell, Tick Brian, and Phil Morehead. (The auto-generated transcript renders Crowell's name as “Cra” throughout — a mishearing of “Crowell.”)

• Councilor Carmack stated he would not vote for Site 22 if it comes to a vote, criticizing its addition to the list as tied to “the individual that got up and added it to the list because he is the family of… a willing seller” (an apparent reference to Philip Donnell, whose public advocacy for Site 22 is documented in this archive's June 16 and July 21 notes). He also questioned whether the full Site 13/13A footprint (reaching toward the apartment complex and Carver Creek back yards) is necessary, naming a specific affected resident (matching public commenter Gail Douglas of Madrid Drive), and said he would “only vote for the Rockwood property” — i.e., the core Rockwood parcel, not the 13A addition.
• Councilor Ashley called the committee process the right approach for “the largest financial decision the city has ever made,” and said council has received no cost or site-ranking information from the committee to date.
• Councilor Burdine confirmed committee minutes are posted on the city website and YouTube (referencing Ashley's preceding remarks), said no council work session has yet been scheduled, and noted the September 30 grant deadline no longer appears to be driving the timeline given the 90+ day study process.
• Councilor Crowell shared a personal story of opposing development near his family's century farm before he was elected (as Ward 4's representative), and encouraged continued public engagement without committing to a specific site.
• Councilor Brian said he has lived next to the existing treatment plant in Weston Heights for 22 years, reported no noticeable odor for roughly the past decade after plant upgrades, and said his own property value has quadrupled over that time — offered as a counterpoint to public concerns about odor and property value, while acknowledging those concerns as understandable.
• Councilor Morehead closed by stating no decision has been made, that the committee's charge was only to produce a list of sites, and that the substantive cost/technology work is only now beginning.

Legislative Action — WWTP Item

Resolution 26-2896 — To accept bids for the wastewater treatment plant effluent pump station cleaning project, presented by Regina Santana (utilities director). Approved on consent with no discussion. A separate item confirmed a water/sewer rate study is underway (same consultant doing the city's gas rate study), with a presentation expected to council in a work session later this fall; utilities staff noted sewer rates for at least one distant service area (the racetrack) may be evaluated differently from in-city rates due to higher maintenance cost.