Michael Bobbitt: Notes From The Peanut Gallery (VC BoC Planning Environment and Water Planning)


Our Board of Commissioners has divided their collective responsibilities into committees, each committee headed by an active commissioner. Logically the reason for the committees system is simple. Each commissioner is dependent on the integrity and honesty of fellow commissioners when learning of the voters desires, needs, and wants before making a decision that will affect the whole community. Last week two important committees met to find consensus among the committee members on their respective issue of zoning or the water project.

Planning Environment Committee

The Planning Environment Committee was challenged with the review of the zoning ordinance allowing the erection of large scaled arrays of solar panels within the county. The need for this review became an issue when one commissioner converted to NIMBYism following his self discovery that his lassie fare attitude three years ago sandwiched his property between two large scale arrays of solar panels. Commissioner Wilder’s primary concern has been focused on the esthetic visual value of large scale (industrial sized) arrays of solar panels on the adjoining property values. The topic of adjoining property values along with the unintended environmental impact on wildlife that is being attributed to large scale arrays of solar panels are both subject of strong disagreement. Apparently the City’s recent zoning ordinance on the same topic has quelled the developers need to show their face to the committee members since only the committee members and county staff attended the committee meeting. The committee members agreed to the zoning changes that established among many changes a one hundred (100) foot buffer from street right of ways and property buffers. Nothing in the ordinance changes or restricts the distance between adjoining properties with the arrays. The public (including the out of town developers) will be allowed to voice their views on this zoning change during the designated public hearings at the July 6, 2015, Board of Commissioners regular meeting. It is worth noting that the Economic Development Commission is scheduled to meet behind closed doors with the Board before the public has had an opportunity to express their desires, needs, and wants regarding the erection of large scale (industrial sized) arrays of solar panels.

Water Planning Committee

The Water Planning Committee met last Thursday in part to review the construction project status reports and hoping for a Disney ending to financial disaster created by the county’s water project. Mr. McMillen assured the committee that if enough construction crews are employed immediately, then the county will have achieved its goal of completing the placement of water pipe in the ground without ready, willing, and able buyers to pay for the system by September 2015. The full debt repayment meter begins after the end of construction in September. Since the county’s water system is not self-financed as required county property owners, excluding city property owners, are paying the bill for a system less than half the potential customers need, want or desire. Attending the committee meeting were four property owners. Julie Booth derailed the otherwise scripted committee with the statement, [We] “need to put to rest the negative discussion within the community” on this project. Only two commissioners attended the meeting; the third was working with a youth group shingling a roof. Committee Chair Garrison and Commissioner Taylor allowed Ms. Booth to fully express her revelation of the $150 lifetime deposit to cover potential non-payment of water. This opened the door to comments and questions from the other three property owners. During the comments and questions Mr. Ronnie Perkinson asked a new question; how does he convert his tap to a dry tap adding he is willing to pay the $800 dry tap fee? Mr. McMillen was quick to attempt a blunt Mr. Perkinson’s request warning the committee members that others may ask for the same opportunity further reducing potential customers. The $800 fee is required for the privilege of a wet tap at some future date. The permanent $30 a month “privilege fee” was again batted about. In reality the $30 a month “privilege fee” is each wet or dry tap customers’ payment of the debt for the water system. Committee Chair Garrison pointed out the need to find a way to pay for this water system without a user fee or property taxes. He added that unlike Warren County, Vance County turned its back on grant funds offer 1970s to build a water system. The final point Mr. McMillen wanted to address was the early incentive tap fee. Initially this fee was considered as an inducement for sign-ups by charging $125 for a water tap before the water line passes by the homeowner, after which the fee would be $2,000. Mr. McMullen, being the good engineer, pointed out it is time to close out the early incentive tap fee and begin charging the $2,000 tap fee. The Chair was unable to see the marketing advantages of a $2,000 tap fee on top of a $150 life time deposit and a $30 a month “privilege fee”. Commissioner Taylor asked Mr. McMillen, what is the economic impact of the $2,000 tap fee vs the $125. The meeting adjourned with Commissioner Taylor thanking those attending for bringing to his attention the issues.