Michael Bobbitt: Notes from the Peanut Gallery (VC BOC July 7th, 2014)


Farmers Market Update

Tracy Madigan presented to the Board a status report on Vance County Regional Farmers Market. The status reported covered the first eight days the market has been open. The market is open only two days a week for 11 hours weekly. The status report is skimpy on details and the Farmers Market web-site is obsolete. Of the $2,411 gross income, $1,071 (44.4%) is listed as Miscellaneous Income. Why is miscellaneous income nearly half of total gross income is not explained. The average number of venders for each of the eight days was ten (10) and they paid a total of $800 (33.2% of total income) in vendor fee. It appears that prior to opening day twelve (12) vendors had paid the $360 in application fees. Since the opening day only six (6) additional vendors have paid the application fee. The eighteen vendors have paid a total $540 (22.4% of total income) in application fees. Based on June’s data, July’s gross income should be between $880 and $1050, assuming June’s miscellaneous income of $1,071 was an aberration, an outlier. The status report is lacking expense details negating any attempt to calculate a profit and loss for June. Commissioner Taylor did ask Ms. Madigan if there was a business plan available for examination. Ms. Madigan reported there is no business plan.

 

Water District Board

The Water District Board portion of the commissioner’s Board meeting was the longest segment of the entire evening. The commissioner’s had five topics to address in their role as members of the Water District Board. Three of the five topics were contentious. Some reasons for the contention were made crystal clear when Commissioner Brummitt and Chairwoman Brown each stepped up onto their own ‘soap box’ to express their pent up frustrations. This occurred late in the Water District Board meeting when discussing approval to authorize additional engineering design work for an additional 10 miles of water lines. On June 25, the Water Planning Committee met to review the request to add the 10 miles of new water lines. At that committee meeting Commissioner Brummitt expressed his exasperation with another short notices meeting to discuss major expenditures for the water project. Commissioner Brummitt stated he could not approve the new roads until he new these new lines would cash flow, be self sustaining. Management and staff had not prepared financial estimates supporting expansion of the water project.

During the Water District Board portion of the meeting Commissioner Brummitt stated that based on his research the new lines would not cash flow. Therefore, city and county taxpayers’ money will be required to pay for the new roads. Commissioner Brummitt got on his ‘soap box’, saying “we are supposed to be making business decisions here. And why do I have to take my time as a county commissioner to … do all these calculations and calculate cash flows and business analysis of this thing. That is a part of what staff should be doing prior to us making these decisions. We are not making these decisions based on business decisions we are just making random decisions.” Chairwoman Brown did strongly admonish county management and staff for expecting an elected commissioner to do their work. Commissioner Brummitt added that these road decisions and the like come to the Board at the last minute without adequate information to make a business decision with management and staffs expectation of a decision. Chairwoman Brown added that management and staff need to have prepared and presented the information to show that a decision would be cost effective. Before the motion for a voting to authorize the engineering work, Chairwoman Brown took a long moment to vent her frustrations with the water project. She first instructed the Water Planning Committee “to go back to the drawing board and address the flat rate we are charging our customers.” She added that “we led [property owners] to believe one thing; then because we didn’t use our calculators correctly we have changed it. And that’s no way to do business. If we have to eat this then we have to eat it. We need do what we said we would to do, to provide this service at a flat rate to customers. … If those who signed that agreement in 2010 and that agreement stated the base fee would be $20 then I believe this county should be reputable enough to say and the county commissioners’ to say you know what we are going to stick to our word.” Those who signed later at a different rate are responsible for that. “But for those who signed in 2010, we need to honor our word. We just need to do it. … In private business when the cash register comes up short I’ve heard that [the difference] comes from the person’s salary.” Chairwoman Brown continued on saying, “We (the Board of Commissioners) did a disservice to [property owners] of this county by having only one plan brought before us. … No good planning went it to this. We do not have county wide water we have water in selected areas of the county. That’s right. … We did not plan like we should have. And now we are in the mess we are in. … you’re not going to force me to pay for water when you haven’t kept your end of the bargain.” She concluded saying, “I’m requesting the Water Planning Committee to please take this opportunity to find a means to do what we said we would do.”

During Commissioner Brummitt’s commentary I wondered why the other commissioners have been willing to sit in silence for the past four years never asking the questions that Commissioner Brummitt has thanklessly sought answers. I also wondered why Chairwoman Brown is so shocked at the disparity between the original promises in 2008 and 2010 and last October’s revelations.

 

Other topics

The individual commissioners are members of both the Water District Board and the Board of Commissioners. This insures that the decisions of the Water District Board will be approved by the Board of Commissioners. I have a question about this arrangement. If the Water District Board is not adjourned and the Board of Commissioners is not resumed does that have a technical or legal impact on any votes taken? The Board of Commissioners did transform into the Water District Board that is heard on the recording. The reverse did not happen as also evidenced in the recording. Which board approved the following: the anti-gang grant application, to meet with Granville County Commissioners to resolve the voter residency issue, awarding contract to build a white goods concrete pad, or increasing the fee for dumping yard waste by nonresidential and commercial users of the landfill?