Jump to content
@Toda: Existing county debt, whatever the amount, plus any money already received by the BOE have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that another voter approved general obligation bond issue will be required to finance Phase II of the BOE construction program.
Phase II contains the new much needed 4th high school for Moore County plus, as my aging memory recalls, another middle school. It's entirely reasonable to expect that this will be $50M+ which will certainly get us to the $200M+ debt cap the commissioners established. Remember though, we're only a 3-2 vote away from the 2% cap being amended to 3% thereby adding another $100M or so debt capacity.
At some point, the commissioners that claim to understand "costs", might acknowledge that a tax increase is necessary to pay for the LR plan I earlier suggested plus the Phase II BOE construction program.
Here is one crystal ball version of the unannounced county LR plan for Carthage and the county.
Acquire LRK's #4723 & #6372 either through purchase or eminent domain and join with existing county owned property LRK's #6686 & #1501. In doing so, an approximate building envelop of 335' x 185' is created BESIDE the Grimm property allowing the desired easy interconnection to the new DC.
Construct new CH on above property and finance once again via non-voter approved limited obligation bonds.
Acquire property via any means across McNeil from new CH for new multi-story parking garage financed through revenue bonds as a fee will be charged for parking to pay off bonds.
Renovate now vacant CH for county office space and finance via non-voter approved bonds.
Try to think of some way to sell to Moore County residents that once again, above steps 1 - 4 have not caused a tax increase.
Finally, work with Board of Education to sell to residents the need of the likely $50M+ Phase II school construction program that's just over the hill but certainly in planning that will cause a tax increase.
Comments are appreciated especially from those that think the above won't happen.
@temperanceprudence: Developer proposed 16 unit/ac. density. Council didn't shoot it down for single reason that developer also proposed greater "green space" than the 35% his original approved plan provided. Process now requires that density request go before P&Z Board for their consideration which wll be most likely on 10/14 via special meeting. After P&Z, request will come back to council for final vote. Watch legal notices in Pilot for actual meeting dates.
Certain council members want the 4 acres developed regardless of how far they need to bend over backwards for the developer. Unfortunately, we now have a developer $3M in the hole that clearly intends to say whatever he thinks the council wants to hear that they in turn will use as justification for approving a 6 building 64 unit condo complex.
I didn't have problems with the proposed B&B given that I came from a small NJ town that had B&B's mixed in residential zoned areas. My problem was with the second proposed text amendment that quite clearly defined "spot zoning" which is against the law in NC. There is simply no valid reason why the P&Z Dept. should have presented the language to the P&Z Board let alone this board then approving the language and forwarding it to the village council.
The bigger travesty of the development ordinance took place in the morning council work session wrt the property off McCaskill know as the "Traditions". The developer was allowed to come in at the last minute and insert a non-announced agenda item concerning another development plan for the property. Unfortunately, this plan now proposes a density of 16 units per acre vs. the current 5.25 units per acre which would allow up to 64 units on the property each having a claimed 4 parking spots. 6 new apartment buildings on the property is far from what the original development intention of the property the council approved was which should concern everyone. I accept that the developer has a right to develop the property; however, this development should be consistent with the surrounding area and not create an eye sore across the street from the arboretum.
@Bflat: Your observation wrt "bits and pieces" will be seen as a gross understatement when the commissioners in the near future announce, AFTER THE PURCHASE, that the county has acquired LRK's #4723 & #6373 for the new court house site. Their announcement wrt the 1995 jail being torn down is also only a matter of time. Finally, everyone should also expect the new CH to also be financed with limited obligation bonds which once again, no one in Moore County will have the opportunity to vote on. At some point, you might think they would get the hint that a master plan for county facilities is long over due.
@Plumblevel: 4 LRK's I referenced are not now part of the Grimm property. Two are county owned fronting on Saunders with the other two being on McNeil. Joining the 4 as I suggest, provides a building envelop of approximately 330' x 185' adjoining the Grimm property which would be more than sufficient for a 3 or 4 story CH easily interconnected to new DC. Only issue would be that parking for the CH would need to be on Grimm which is achieved by simply joining the 4 lots I reference with the Grimm lot. Take a look in the county GIS system and you'll see what the Commissioners will be proposing once construction really gets underway on the DC.
Does anyone care to guess where the new court house will be located now that the three commissioners have securred their legacy via their ego driven $27M monument of excess? I think one needs to look no furthter than LRK#'s 4723, 6373, 6686 & 1501 which when combined, provide a more than sufficient adjacent site to the new DC allowing the interconnection needed for secure prisioner movement. Time will tell; however, this is my guess.
Does anyone really think that when the new DC is open and the current jail mothballed that the mothballed jail will ever reopen again? In 10 years, when Sheriff Carter estimated its 68 beds would be needed, you can darn well guess that another "Smoke & Mirrors" study will be done showing that it's more economical to just tear down the mothballed jail and build the second pod.
In the mean time Moore County residents will have sunk millions into maintaining a building simply to justify a prior study that is essencially worthless. It's truly a shame that three of the commissioner's forgot their pledge to "understand" the costs of the project that were spelled out for them by one speaker Monday evening.
Also, anyone want to bet that the almost $5M approved by the LGC, but not accounted for in identified bond usage, will be used to finance the cost over runs of the project for site prep?
Finally, can any of the supporters of the three commissioners, explain why the 3 were afraid to even touch on the MCU rate increase that is certain once the almost $9.2M tab for Pinehurst repairs comes due?
Wrt paving paradise, or in this case the $1.5M Grimm property, it should be noted that the DC plan Mr. Larkin presented on 9/7 only shows approximately 186 parking spots of which about 20 are secure and not accessible to the general public. This would indicate that another large area of the remaining undeveloped property will also be paved should the proposed second cell pod ever be built. It's a shame that the architect didn't show this and only chose to show the second pod - wonder why??
It's easily seen now why a second building won't fit on the property given the parking requirements.
With all the various postings, why hasn't anyone really looked at how the Grimm property was initially selected and by whom in 12/09 before it was brought to a vote by the commissioners?
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382