Solid Waste Plan Update
Jordan McMillen, Director Planning and Development, opened this topic explaining that every three years the Commissioners need to review the County’s ten year solid waste plan. To meet this end Mr. McMillen presented the updated Solid Waste Management Plan along with a resolution that the Commissioners needed to read and approve. Mr. McMillen’s letter to the board included highlights of the plan among them the goal of reducing solid waste in general, an admirable goal at that. According to Mr. McMillian, recycling is intended to make up 65% of the total waste reduction. Mr. McMillen stressed that we (all of us) need to think of ways to be more efficient and productive reducing our individual and collective solid waste disposal. Commissioner Hester asked if a reduction in solid waste can equate to a lower cost to the County for waste disposal. Mr. McMillen did not have an answer except to add that the electronic recycle program is earning the county $3,000 – $5,000 a year. Commissioner Brummitt asked are we missing a revenue stream through the payment of hauling fees for recycle waste. Adding this past January the Board agreed this budget cost was suppose to be monitored and that seems to have been ignored, again. He also asked if the payments to Waste Management will be reviewed before the contract renewal in 2017. Commissioner Brown along with Commissioner Brummitt wondered aloud if part of the contact with Waste Management could be reviewed and changed before 2017. After Chairman Garrison returned the discussion to the topic, approval of the updated plan, the floor was open for public comment. Alas, again no public input, not even a voice from the County Appearance Committee that reviewed the plan. Before the vote to approve the resolution Commissioner Brummitt requested a delay on the vote until the plan could address the questions he has asked about the potential revenue on recycled waste. Chairman Garrison said we can approve this plan then address the issues Commissioner Brummitt has raised. Plan approved without Commissioner Brummitt’s approval.
Farmers Market
Paul McKenzie was the spokesperson for the Farmers Market. He pointed out that this is a request for approval to let the bids to build a half million dollar building based on a rough estimate. Commissioner Hester asked if any Vance County tax dollars would be required, even though The Draft Budget for Constructing “Phase 1” of Vance County Regional Farmers Market clearly indicates the funds are from three different trust funds. Commissioner Brummitt quickly pointed out that funds to operated the building do come from the Vance County taxpayers. The Commissioners all approved the request to let the bids to build a smaller than envisioned building that is intended to serve more than as a Saturday farmers market, without any idea as to the operating cost.
Water District Board
Before the Water District Board entered their close session to discuss the purchase and leasing of lands, the Commissioners met Hobbs & Churches new project engineer for the project. The engineer said that almost all of the areas have sufficient signups to proceed with opening the bidding for construction of 2A & 2B anticipating awarding of those bids in mid-April 2013. Commissioner Hester asked if everything will be completed. The engineer said yes, even for areas without sign-ups. Commission Brummitt asked if sign-ups were adequate to determine the cost basis for the water. The answer was yes, without any elaboration. Spoiler alert: will customer’s be outraged when they learn of the real cost for water?
VFD Contracts and Audit
The Commissioners held true to their word regarding withholding funding to individual volunteer fire departments who failed to submit scheduled audit reports when due. Drewry and Epson fire departments have failed make the due date. Mr. Asycue defended Drewry saying they have reported trying to get the auditor’s report. Commissioner Wilder defended Epson saying he was surprised they had not communicated with the Mr. Asycue. Commissioner Hester asked for a point of clarification, two are overdue so their funding for November should be withheld. Chairman Garrison seeking a compromise requested the chief to obtain a statement from the auditors or allow the Board to obtain the statement. As a former auditor this is topic I do understand. Two reasons an audit report is not released on expected due date. First is the auditor’s concern of non-payment of audit fees; and second that the audit is not completed. Time will tell, in the meantime November funding for Drewry and Epson fire departments are in jeopardy while the same Commissioners approved letting a bid for a half million dollar building on a rough estimate and no idea on its operating costs.
Public Comments
Personally, this is a much anticipated part of the monthly Board meeting. Will anyone signup to speak their mind, argue for or against some issue? I was not disappointed. Ms. Seneca Nicholson addressed the Board of her grievance on a recent article in the paper about Flint Hill. This is the same Ms. Nicholson-Pitts who is a pro-se plaintiff in a Federal case against the City Council and others. Chairman Garrison interrupted Ms. Nicholson-Pitts, first to say he hasn’t read the article in the paper because of no delivery for two or three days. Then he informed Ms. Nicholson-Pitts that her issues should be addressed with the City Council since Flint Hill is in the city. In light of the Mr. Pitts’ railings on HiH and the illogic of their lawsuit, hearing Ms. Nicholson-Pitts said in her polished New York City or Jersey City ancient, ‘oh I must be at the wrong place’, was priceless.
My Thanks
Commissioner Pegram, thank you, for your dedication to the County and the best to you.
Chairman Garrison, thank you for your dignified management of the Board this past year.
priceless indeed !!!