Appearance Commission Recognition of Adopt a highway
Terri Hedrick’s presentation of awards was not the first appointment of the meeting although listed first. Ms. Hedrick’s presentation was the highlight of the first meeting of the Board of Commissioners for 2014; a good start for another year of commissioners’ meetings. Ms. Hedrick introduced and recognized all those who volunteer their time and effort to adopt a highway and try to keep that roadway clean and neat. Many honorees were absent; those present were recognized and applauded for their efforts.
NC DOT Secondary Road Program
Steve Winstead presentation was the first for the evening. The disappointing news contained in his presentation was much easier to digest with Ms. Hedrick’s presentation. In less words than Mr. Winstead used and more direct it is fair to say that Vance County is one among other counties low on the list for secondary road improvements. The visionaries in Raleigh have seen fit to allow Vance County $263,241.04 in highway funds. I’m hoping that some of those funds could be used to paint the lines on the five interstate bridges. Chairwoman Brown asked how many secondary roads in Vance County are unpaved. Do you know? Answer, 25 roads or 10 – 11 miles. Some must be very short roads into developments the developer was to pave and didn’t. An aside did you ever wonder how the much it costs to maintain accounting records for highway projects down to the penny? Of course if not then four cents here and three cents there over tens of millions of dollars in spending will add up to a nice some of spare change, I digress.
Public Comments
The only one to make a public comment was me. I offered three suggestions for the commissions to consider during the annual planning retreat. Later in the meeting Mr. Asycue informed the commissions they had until January 20th to submit their suggestions for inclusion in the planning retreat. Last year almost two hours of the four working hours were dedicated to one commissioner’s campaign to change the zoning ordinance to allow some investors to erect solar farms. Hopefully, this year’s retreat will be more comprehensive and less focused on just one commissioner’s item. This is possible with a more aggressive campaign to meet the number three goal of previous retreats: “Encourage citizen input and promote awareness of issues to improve decision-making within the county government.” (Source: Vance County Board of Commissioners Annual Planning Retreat for 2013, page 3 paragraph 3, bullet point 3)
County Manager Report
The big items in this segment were two. First the use of $1,381.53 additional taxpayers’ money (a grant) for the construction of a ground sign at the farmers market. Does it actually cost that much to build an A-frame sign like the one advertising the for profit privately owned fresh produce market on Dabney Drive? Second big item was Commissioner Taylor’s too little too late questions about the advisory board membership, allotment of the 18 stalls, and the business objectives of the farmers market. Commissioner Taylor pointedly asked Pete Burgess, a local businessman and farmer, how the farmers market would cover expenses and costs without burdening the county’s taxpayers. Mr. Burgess’s replay was void of details and specifics. My concern is that the farmers market like the two million tax dollars spent for the neighborhood stabilization project, and the county wide water project all started with the best of intentions and woefully inadequate or no business plans.
Water Board
A sub-committee of the Water Board met for two and half hours earlier in the day. Part of the sub-committee’s meeting was a discussion without a resolution of the public’s disapproval of the recently established consumer water rates. Somehow the county’s administration is unable to realize or understand there is a difference between a promised (approximate to use their word) 5,000 gallons a month for about $35 – $45 dollars a month and reality 3,500 gallons a month for $57 dollars a month. Additionally the administration is miffed at customers objection to the ‘promised’ $20 a month for a connectionless tap and the $30 a month reality. As the sub-committee meeting progressed another difference between the promise and the reality emerged. All funding work is based on an illusionary customer base of 1,950 – 2,150 occupied roof tops. The reality, based on known signups, is currently only 950 paying customers. Based on known signups there is not a sufficient customer base to repay the loan without dipping into the county’s general fund for thousands of dollars or for the customers to pay more, a lot more. I digress again. With all the water project issues, some very costly to the county wide water customers, why do the commissioners and the county administrators allow the project engineer to speak about progress without having first submitted written reports for review by the commissioners and the citizens?