Jump to content
Anyone notice that the Village of Pinehurst did not care to use its R911 system to notify residents of the posted National Weather Service severe storm warning which included the possibility of high wind and HAIL.
It's a shame that Tom didn't mention in has article that the Village was cutting thte amount of streets it annually repaves (approximately 5%) in order to pay for some of the items he does reference such as the $252K bar parking lot referenced in the budget as a "spur road".
Another Aberdeen stop sign trap is at the side exit from the Harris Teeter parking on to Rt. 15/501. Interestingly, the patrolman didn't care to see my vehicle registeration or insurance cards, only my DL to give me a $200+ ticket.
"DEAD ON ARRIVAL" is certainly what all of the Moore County Commissioners are thinking after reading the eight conditions above. It was one thing for the Southern part of the county to subsidize Robbins via the original commissioner proposal; however, for Robbins to now suggest that it would sell water to Moore County and then expect the county to provide 150K GPD at no cost back to Robbins borders on insanity! It's one thing to provide a counter proposal in a negotiation; however, for the proposal to contain at least six deal breakers make's it a wast of everyones time to consider other than Attorney Gill who was paid to draft it. The sooner Robbins realizes that they are not the only game in town the quicker that Seven Lakes will get the much needed secondary supply it needs.
Just 3 easy payments of $333,333. What else could the village do with this amount annually other than pave the new Village Green parking lot with "blue stone"?
Mr. Strickland should have also included that the village will not incur the considerable infrastructure (water/land) expense for a performing arts center nor would it build or provide the 550-600 space parking facility required to support a center. The board that has been formed to direct the proposed center will need to step up to the Phase II expense if they are serious about the project and not rely on another village gift.
@bubbasmith: Sounds like a plan to me although in doing so, Robbins ends up with water rates that make the current rates appear to be a steal. Having said that, I repeat my prior comment that any bulk sale to Robbins or anyone for that matter should be based on a rate that captures all costs of production and not the suggested cost of just processing. Anything short of this would be a subsidy to Robbins at the expense of the remaining MCU customer base.
I think that when folks step back and look at a realistic bulk rate to Robbins that they'll realize that the net savings between the current supplier price and the proposed price isn't really significant. As such, it's foolish to remotely think that user rates in Robbins will decrease as a result of this plan or that Robbins will will incur significant savings to allow for reconstruction of its infrastructure.
The existing MCU customer base will indeed be providing a subsidy to Robbins until it is conclusively shown that the bulk rate proposed includes an approximate 27% prorata for ALL facilities used in the production. To suggest that the "cost of production" is only the internal plant cost of processing incorrectly ignores the absolute fact that the infrastructure cost of providing the raw water to the plant should be included in any proposed bulk rate.
To Chris: I accept that there are many complex issues included in this matter although it is a fair statment to say that the Commissioners are providing a subsidy to Robbins by their ignoring the other options that provide water to Seven Lakes at a lower unit rate than the suggested plan. I personally believe that the Commissioners will have a "tough nut to crack" with the existing MCU customers when it comes to financing approval unless they use the same form of creative financing used for the new jail.
The plan presented by the Commissioners is nothing but a subsidy program to Robbins funded by the current MCU customer base. It's clear that the majority of the commissioners don't care about the rate impact of their proposal to the MCU customers otherwise they would seriously consider the Harnett County option presented by Mr. Gould. Current MCU customers appear to be only represented by Commissioner Lea in this matter which is unfortunate, given that they are in essence being asked to fund the suggested plan. While the proposed plan is indeed a starting point it contains serious flaws that need to be addressed before the plan gains any more traction.
Can any of the Commissioners reasonably explain why the existing MCU customer base should subsidize Robbins under the proposed plan? At a minimum, any bulk sales to Robbins should be at an average cost now paid by MCU customers which is certainly not the cost of production. Chris Smithson stated in his last sentence above the major hurdle of any plan: "Equitably manage". The plan, as presented last evening, appears to significantly favor Robbins at the expense of the existing MCU rate base while at the same time ignoring other options, such as Harnett County, that are more favorable to existing MCU customers.
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