First, my apology for a month delay of my summary of the county commissioners’ April 6, 2015, meeting. The April meeting was another lengthy meeting principally due to a public hearing regarding a zoning amendment to govern the location and number of ‘solar farms’. Also on the agenda was a Vance County Board of Education’s request to spent $883,469 in Education Lottery Funds to build a multi-purpose room at Carver Elementary School. Six people spoke during the public comment period all favoring the multi-purpose building. Chairman Taylor said there would be no decision regarding the request adding that their voices had been heard. Regarding the zoning ordinance the commissioners heard some forty minutes of public comments; did they listen? Due to another commitment I missed the first thirty minutes of the meeting.
Public Hearings – Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Zoning ordinance amendments for ‘solar farms’ has become a critical issue for both the county and city governments. Three years ago the commissioners’ enthusiastically approved a quickly drafted ordinance permitting the building of large array solar energy collectors within Vance County. Three points emerged as the commissioners’ summarized the publics’ opinion of ‘solar farms’. Commissioner Wilder, now a ‘solar farm’ NIMBY, does not want to tell someone what to do with their land as long as that person is prevented from erecting a ‘solar farm’ near him. Commissioner Wilder had no such objections when he voted to approve the initial zoning ordinance allowing ‘solar farms’ in Vance County. Commissioner Hester’s said widening of the buffers that block the view of the solar arrays would hurt business. The only businesses benefiting in the long term from the erection of ‘solar farms’ are out of the county businesses than provide zero new long term employment to Vance County. Commissioner Brummitt logically shared Commissioner Hester’s view of impacting business. Commissioner Brummitt’s company is benefiting in the short term erecting the frame work to support the solar collectors. Chairman Taylor does not want to hinder a farmer from making money on their farm land. A noble view except the land will be out of service for agriculture usage for more than twenty years assuming the land can be returned to agricultural purposes following decommissions of the solar collectors. The zoning amendment was returned to the Properties Committee for further refinement before getting the Board’s approval.
Water District Board
The Water District Board portion of the meeting was all of twenty minutes in length. Commissioner Garrison is chair of the Water Committee. Commissioner Garrison passed the responsibility for presenting the committees’ report to Jordan McMillen. Mr. McMillen quickly summarized the committee meetings including a construction change in the last five miles of pipeline in Phase 2A. Commissioner Hester second the motion approving the one action item then quickly withdrew his second. He suddenly realized he is the proud owner of some property that ‘will benefit’ when the pipe is installed. He didn’t notice this conflict of interest a month ago when encouraging the others to extend Phase 2A by five miles. After the Water Board approved the changes for Phase 2A, Mr. McMillen verbally introduced the committees’ idea for rate changes that are intended to encourage property owners to commit to the water system. Nothing was presented in writing even though the water committee had reviewed and discussed in depth a significant change in the rate structure. Envirolink had prepared and presented a new rate structure to the Water Committee. The new structure includes a 1,000 gallons of water with the $30 base rate. Beyond that change is a tiered rate structure based on usage. The details of the rate structure are not ready for prime time. Commission Brown asked during their discussions, “you’re not expecting the taxpayers to support this system’. Commissioner Garrison said in reply to the question, “there is no way to get around it there will be a tax increase to pay for the system”. Commissioner Brown said, “I want to understand for those who do not have access for the water will they have to pay the taxes”. The answer is yes, unless those who have the water pay the full cost of the system; a system that less than 40% of the property owners favored. After the Water Board adjourned the Chairman realized he had not requested a vote to approve the resolution supporting the Inter Basin Water Transfer. The Board quickly approved the resolution without one question or comment supporting the resolution.
Committee Reports and Recommendations
The Properties Committee had approved granting a for profit business (Farm Bureau) free use of the land and building (farmers market) that the taxpayers money was required to buy the land and build the building. A location that three commissioners have told me is the wrong location. One commissioner personally profited through the sale of the land; not a gift a sale. Not one commissioner even wondered aloud how much the taxpayers would be paying for the operation and maintenance of the farmers market so a for profit company would have free usage. The Board mimicked the committee and approved the deal. Allowing for profit companies free usage of county owned property in perpetuity is good for business, not the taxpayers.
Before the Board entered into closed session Chairman Taylor formed an ad hoc committee to address property revaluation for the county. The actual objective of the ad hoc committee is an effort to protect commissioners’ jobs. The commissioners have known that the current property tax rate will be increased in 2016, and onward, to offset the decrease in the 2016 property values all in an effort to maintain a ‘revenue neutral’ tax base. The commissioners’ know that 2016 is an election year. This ad hoc committee will focus on developing a public relations campaign explaining why the property tax rate for 2016, and onward, will be higher although property values have declined since 2008. The committee could use a basic algebraic expression to explain the rate increase. It is the elephant sitting in the room that worries the commissioners. The elephant is the loan payment for a water system that 60% of the property owners have rejected. Three members of the Water Committee understand there are only two solutions to repay that loan. One is to require water customers to pay the whole cost of the system (around $100 per month). The second is a property tax increase within the water district and unrelated to the decline is property values. If you are a commissioner facing re-election in 2016 or even 2018, how do you explain that your build it and they will buy it business plan has cost your constituents a non-revenue neutral property tax increase. Is this another of those it’s good for business ideas?