Jump to content
@Toda: You've kept many of us enlighened for several days on your position that a conflict of interest occurred by Messrs. Caddell & Picerno wrt SS, Inc. As a new topic and one that has the potential of being real, why don't you report on how the two gentlemen with the tax administrator selected the Grimm property in 12/09 over all other properties available and brought it to the other commissoners to vote on?
@Mark106: The now planned $9M for Pinehurst work will be paid for by all Moore County Utility (MCU) customers through rate increases to in either their respective water or sewer monthly bills. It's how we're all paying now for the ongoing sewer plant work at Addor.
This is one area that has been lost in all the discussion on the $42M bond which I'm sure the commissioner's are grateful for. There is little they can actually do on the matter other than not doing the necessary work as their previous pay-as-you-go strategy simply doesn't work wrt major projects.
Not that it is any consolidation but Pinehurst will essentially be paying the cost of this portion of the bond given the percentage of use they represent (approx. 80%) in the total MCU system.
I didn't think it would happen, however, I must admit that I agree with the comments Chris posted above. Anyone reading the proposed study would see that it in no way obligated the county or for that matter, any of the participating communities to turn over or sell existing facilities should an authority actually be formed.
The rejection by the commissioner clearly shows that they don't recongize the unstated foundation of the McGill Report - cooperation between the county and communities is absolutely required for the recommendations in the McGill Report to work. Cooperation, either in the form of community agreements and/or a regional authority, is necessary if ALL of Moore County is to have a reliable water source into the future.
There simply is no valid reason why the proposed study and the current county efforts wrt Pinehurst, Seven Lakes, Robbins, etc. could not be done in parallel.
This decision should cause everyone to question why the county returned to the Water Summit meetings and if they will show up for the September meeting.
Mr. Larkin spent 1/3 of his time discussing differences between the proposed Moore DC and Harnett DC. What was overlooked is the fact that of the six sites mentioned in his presentation that Sampson County has by far, the best per bed cost. Nothing, as I remember, was said about the Sampson ability to build a bed at about $28.9K per while Moore is coming in at about $93.5K.
Further, how has Sampson achieved an approximate sqr. ft. cost of $130.28 while Moore is at an approximate $185.20?
Finally, why is Sampson able to construct a compliant facility of 222 sqr. ft. per bed while the Moore design is at 505 sqr. ft. per bed?
The commissioners should answer these questions before voting. They opened the door by presenting the data and now they have an obligation to explain why the Moore County proposed DC can't achieve what Sampson County was able to do.
Everyone should expect to see at the 9/7 meeting numerous comparison slides between the proposed Moore DC and the DC in Harnett County that are favorable to MC. No one should be surprised to see a conclusion I predict that has considerable questionable math to justify why the Moore design is better.
Also, can anyone explain why the proposed DC in Sampson County has not been compared to MC? Although smaller, its bed cost of $28.9K makes the MC cost of $93.5K questionable. Someone also needs to explain why SC can get by with an average of 222 sqr. ft. / bed while MC required 505 sqr. ft. / bed. Harnett County was a convenient target although it appears that Sampson County was the real benchmark to compare from a cost standpoint.
The question of the higher interest rate for the proposed DC limited obligation bonds has been posted before, however, as best I remember, the actual rate the county expects to pay has not been stated. The answer is 4.048% and is found on page 13 of the LGC Agenda for their 9/7 meeting. Not much more than what banks are paying on CD's these days - WRONG! This is clear reason why MC should have a "Special Financing" policy with stated guidelines as to usage and limits as opposed to the apparent mushroom policy now used by the commissioners.
Everyone should be prepared to see a cost comparison at the Tuesday commissioner meeting of probably 5 - 6 different detention sites. Anyone care to guess who will come out the winner of the county financial analysis???
It's time to move on wrt any suggested "conflict of interest" as that horse is so far out of the barn that they're already building a new barn for the next real issue - "special financing" methods that don't require voter approval. Further limited obligation bond and/or certificate of participation financing in Moore County is an issue that everyone paying property tax in MC needs to voice an opinion on to their respective commissioner.
@MooreNorth: Good summation of prior comments. Wrt emu, I believe best method is to roast.
@ coffecreme: I don't know Mr. McAllister but what I do know is how the village has adamantly maintained the larger lot size (R210 - 5 ac min) in the ETJ area thereby raising the question as to why the P&Z Board would even consider a potential development of 40+ homes. I accept that anyone can pay the necessary fee for the rezoning application, however, this matter should raise a red flag with the board let alone the village council when the matter makes it to them. There are plenty of lots available for building already having utilities in Pinehurst further making this issue questionable. Attend the meeting and be prepared for what will be another smoke and mirrors presentation just as the "Traditions" was.
@JAP: Current village zoning map reflects that property is currently zoned R210 which is a 5 acre min. lot size. Obviously, requested change is being sought for future development at a higher density than now allowed.
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