Written 8/05/2007
County Asked to Take Another Step Toward Rocky Branch Upgrade
Chairman Melvin Davis has put on the agenda for late in the August 7 meeting of the Board of Commissioners an item that could have a big impact on Oconee County, and particularly on those who live along and care about Barber Creek.
The Board will be asked to "Consider approval of LAS Design Proposal and Sewer Policy Clarification."
This will come up after the Board considers eight rezones, including a controversial one on Old Barnett Shoals, and makes appointments to five County committees, including the Planning Commission.
This would seem to be an inappropriate time to decide on a project very conservatively estimated to cost $6 to $8 million and make decisions about how the sewage capacity gained from the proposed upgrade will be allocated between commercial and residential users.
Citizens will not get to see the bid until the meeting and will not know about the proposed sewage use policies until some proposal is announced at the meeting. It seems there will be little discussion of options.
I've written to Mr. Davis asking him to delay any decision on the important project. The text of my letter is below:
August 5, 2007
Dear Mr. Davis:
The draft of the Agenda for the Board of Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, August 7, indicates that, under Item 7, the Board will "Consider approval of the LAS Design Proposal and Sewer Policy Clarification."
I ask that the Board take no action at this time on these items.
At the July 31, 2007, meeting, Mr. Chris Thomas, assistant director of the Utility Department, indicated that he and his three designated reviewers would complete their evaluation of the three submitted bids for Engineering Design and Support for the Rocky Branch Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade only on August 2, and that he would not make his recommendation public until August 7.
As a result, citizens will not have had a chance to see the bids until the August 7 meeting. As is clear from the Request for Proposal itself and from the comments Mr. Gary Dodd, Utility Department director, at the July 31 meeting, the bid covers construction management and bidding, in addition to engineering design.
As a consequence, rather than merely making a decision on the bids, the Board is really being asked to make a decision on a project with an expected total cost of $6 to $8 million, according to the RFP.
In addition, the bid does not cover the full scope of work needed to upgrade Rocky Branch. As stated on page 7 of the RFP, it covers only work within "the treatment facility property boundary." The County must build a pump and pipe to get the treated water to Barber Creek, about a mile from the property, and the extensive water distribution network required to operationalize the "reuse" component of the plant.
As a result, the total cost for this project is going to be far in excess of $6 to $8 million.
In addition, on pages 1 and 6 of the RFP, bidders are advised that they should make provisions for an eventual upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage plant to a 2 million gallons per day capacity, not the 1 MGD covered in the bid. So the decision actually has ramifications beyond the bid itself.
Mr. Dodd said at the July 31 meeting that he wanted to ask the Board to provide policy regarding the use of the new sewage capacity that the Rocky Branch plant will produce. He suggested an even split between commercial and residential use of the new plant’s capacity. During the discussion that followed, however, a number of options were discussed, including setting aside some of the new capacity for existing subdivisions now on septic systems.
In fact, in an e-mail message from Mr. Dodd to County Administrative Officer Mr. Alan Theriault on March 21, 2007, Mr. Dodd indicated that 391,340 gallons per day out of the existing 400,000 gpd of capacity at the existing Rocky Branch plant has "been sold (committed)," with a breakdown of 60% commercial and 40% residential. To get to a 50-50 split for the whole plant, as he suggests in the memo, more of the new capacity would have to be set aside for residential use. But Mr. Dodd also said in that e-mail that the BOC could decide "that they do not want any of the upgrade allotted for residential."
Citizens, who will learn first on August 7 what the Utility Department proposes, should have a chance to review these options and offer comment on them before the Board votes.
At the July 31 meeting, Mr. Dodd also raised the question as to how the Utility Department will set up its financing so that water customers in the County do not subsidize sewage customers, since there will be many more of the former than the latter. This, in addition, is an important issue for the Board to debate.
The list of questions in need of debate, however, is even longer. As you know, Mr. Thomas informed you in an e-mail message of April 2, 2007, that the county has a new wasteload allocation for the Calls Creek sewage treatment plant, "allowing us to expand to 1.5 MGD pending an antidegradation review." So the County could decide to expand Calls Creek rather than Rocky Branch.
In addition, the County received in June of 2006 a wasteload allocation to discharge up to 2 MGD of discharge water from the Rocky Branch plant into the Apalachee River. This option was never explored, but it would seem to be appropriate to discharge into the Apalachee if the County goes forward with the Hard Labor Creek reservoir plans. That reservoir, as you know, would draw water from the Apalachee downstream from the proposed discharge site, meaning that the County truly would be recycling the water it uses.
The fundamental problem is that the County has never debated and adopted a version of the February 2005 wastewater master plan produced for the County. That plan calls for the upgrade of the Rocky Branch plant only as a short-term solution to the need for additional sewage capacity in the County. The report recommends that the County move its sewage treatment facilities to the Oconee River, an option that still remains viable if the County were to work with Clarke County or seek a waste load allocation for alternate locations along the river.
I wrote to you on July 17 and informed you that the Board of Directors of the Friends of Barber Creek wishes to have an opportunity for citizens to voice their requests to the full Board of Commissioners regarding the upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage plant. Specifically, we are asking that the Board of Commissioners:
1. Agree to hold discharge water from the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant in storage facilities when Barber Creek is flooding or threatening to flood, rather than discharge into the Creek;
2. Treat effluent from the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant to the highest level possible with the technology available and, at a minimum, to the level of treatment at the Hill Plant in Gwinnett County for water being discharged into Lake Lanier; and
3. Set up a system of independent monitoring of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, its effluent, and Barber Creek.
At this time, you have not responded to this request, other than acknowledge receipt of it via an e-mail message on July 27. If the Board of Commissioners approves one of the bids on August 7, it will mean that the County will have to go back to the bidder at a later time and ask for modifications to meet the first two requests above.
For all of these reasons, I ask that the Board of Commissioners take no action regarding the upgrade of the Rocky Branch LAS at the meeting on August 7.
I thank you for consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Lee Becker, President
Friends of Barber Creek
1050 Scott Terrace
Athens, GA 30606 (Oconee County)
706 548 1525
lbbecker@mindspring.com
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Written 7/31/2007
Some Things Missing
The Request for Proposals for the $6 to $8 million expansion of the Rocky Branch sewage plant has one interesting and significant exclusion.
The RFP does not cover construction of the pipe and pump that will be needed to get the treated sewage water to Barber Creek or to the water distribution system required to carry the reuse-quality water to any customers the County may be able to line up for it.
The RFP stipulates that the project extends "only to the treatment facility property boundary." The RFP states that work beyond the 245-acre site off Rocky Branch road behind the new high school "will be addressed in a separate project."
The exclusion is interesting because the County originally planned to dump the water into an unnamed tributary at the edge of the County property, but the Georgia Environmental Protection Division has said it will not allow that, since the County sought and was granted permission to discharge into Barber Creek, not the unnamed tributary.
In addition, the County repeatedly has said discharge into Barber Creek will actually be less than the allowed 1.0 million gallons per day of treated sewage water because the County will sell the treated water to customers for irrigation. The County will have to build a separate distribution and metering system for the reuse water.
Chris Thomas, assistant director of the Oconee County Utility Department, told me in an e-mail message on September 6, 2006, that the Rocky Branch "discharge will be into the feeder creek," rather than Barber Creek itself. He copied his message to me to Utility Department head Gary Dodd. (Dodd will retire on August 6, and Thomas is set to replace him as director.)
At the December 12 hearing before the EPD, I argued that the draft permit was for the wrong stream, since it named Barber Creek and not the tributary.
The EPD in late March of 2007 informed me and others who questioned the County over its plans for the Rocky Branch plant that "The discharge is not to be occurring in the stream adjacent to the plant site, which is a tributary to Barber Creek."
On December 13–the day after the hearing--Curtis Boswell, from the Engineering & Technical Support Program at the EPD in Atlanta, sent an email message to Chris Thomas saying:
"We did a satellite view of the discharge location for the Rocky Branch facility. Looks like you guys are going to pipe approximately 1-mile to Barber Creek. I relayed this information to the Athens Banner this morning. Go ahead and submit the pump station and force main information with the plans and specifications for the wastewater facilities."
Gary Dodd e-mailed back to Boswell about an hour later, saying:
"This can gravity all the way and it is not a mile, what you sent ABH is ok with us, if they call we will tell them this is an option that we can use. Thanks for the heads up!!"
Boswell wrote back the following day (14th of December) saying:
"The application included a map showing a 1-mile radius essentially from the headworks. The proposed discharge location fell along the radius line. Am I missing something? This is the same location identified in the wasteload allocation. It did not look downhill all the way!"
The effort to convince the Athens Banner-Herald that the County had planned to pipe the water to Barber Creek all along was successful. The reporter never wrote about the issue and apparently did not know that the County was not even certain at that point whether it would have to pump the treated sewage to Barber Creek or whether it would flow by gravity.
One way or the other, the County has to get the water off the property. Unless it tries to use the unnamed tributary to do that, it will need to seek another bid for the pipe to Barber Creek as well as the distribution system for the reuse water.
That means the $6 to $8 million cost estimate is a low one.
Some Things Missing
The Request for Proposals for the $6 to $8 million expansion of the Rocky Branch sewage plant has one interesting and significant exclusion.
The RFP does not cover construction of the pipe and pump that will be needed to get the treated sewage water to Barber Creek or to the water distribution system required to carry the reuse-quality water to any customers the County may be able to line up for it.
The RFP stipulates that the project extends "only to the treatment facility property boundary." The RFP states that work beyond the 245-acre site off Rocky Branch road behind the new high school "will be addressed in a separate project."
The exclusion is interesting because the County originally planned to dump the water into an unnamed tributary at the edge of the County property, but the Georgia Environmental Protection Division has said it will not allow that, since the County sought and was granted permission to discharge into Barber Creek, not the unnamed tributary.
In addition, the County repeatedly has said discharge into Barber Creek will actually be less than the allowed 1.0 million gallons per day of treated sewage water because the County will sell the treated water to customers for irrigation. The County will have to build a separate distribution and metering system for the reuse water.
Chris Thomas, assistant director of the Oconee County Utility Department, told me in an e-mail message on September 6, 2006, that the Rocky Branch "discharge will be into the feeder creek," rather than Barber Creek itself. He copied his message to me to Utility Department head Gary Dodd. (Dodd will retire on August 6, and Thomas is set to replace him as director.)
At the December 12 hearing before the EPD, I argued that the draft permit was for the wrong stream, since it named Barber Creek and not the tributary.
The EPD in late March of 2007 informed me and others who questioned the County over its plans for the Rocky Branch plant that "The discharge is not to be occurring in the stream adjacent to the plant site, which is a tributary to Barber Creek."
On December 13–the day after the hearing--Curtis Boswell, from the Engineering & Technical Support Program at the EPD in Atlanta, sent an email message to Chris Thomas saying:
"We did a satellite view of the discharge location for the Rocky Branch facility. Looks like you guys are going to pipe approximately 1-mile to Barber Creek. I relayed this information to the Athens Banner this morning. Go ahead and submit the pump station and force main information with the plans and specifications for the wastewater facilities."
Gary Dodd e-mailed back to Boswell about an hour later, saying:
"This can gravity all the way and it is not a mile, what you sent ABH is ok with us, if they call we will tell them this is an option that we can use. Thanks for the heads up!!"
Boswell wrote back the following day (14th of December) saying:
"The application included a map showing a 1-mile radius essentially from the headworks. The proposed discharge location fell along the radius line. Am I missing something? This is the same location identified in the wasteload allocation. It did not look downhill all the way!"
The effort to convince the Athens Banner-Herald that the County had planned to pipe the water to Barber Creek all along was successful. The reporter never wrote about the issue and apparently did not know that the County was not even certain at that point whether it would have to pump the treated sewage to Barber Creek or whether it would flow by gravity.
One way or the other, the County has to get the water off the property. Unless it tries to use the unnamed tributary to do that, it will need to seek another bid for the pipe to Barber Creek as well as the distribution system for the reuse water.
That means the $6 to $8 million cost estimate is a low one.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Written 7/21/07
Letter Sent to Davis Requesting Barber Creek Meeting
The Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek has sent a letter to Melvin Davis, chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners, requesting a public meeting to present three requests regarding the proposed expansion of Rocky Branch sewage treatment, which will discharge treated sewage water into Barber Creek.
Those requests are that the Board of Commissioners:
1 Agree to hold discharge water from the Rocky Branch sewage plant in storage facilities when Barber Creek is flooding or threatening to flood, rather than discharge into the Creek;
2. Treat effluent from the Rocky Branch sewage plant not to discharge quality but to the highest level possible with the technology available and, at a minimum, to the level of treatment at the Hill Plant in Gwinnett County for water being discharged into Lake Lanier; and
3. Set up a system of independent monitoring of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, its effluent, and Barber Creek.
Oconee County announced in a public notice in The Oconee Enterprise on July 12 that it has begun the bidding process for engineering support and design work for an expanded Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant. Proposals are due on July 31, and, according to Oconee County Clerk Gina Davis, the bids will be opened and the names of submitting firms will be read at 2 p.m. on July 31 in an open meeting in either the Grand Jury Room or Room 103 at the Courthouse.
I have requested that the County send me a copy of the materials provided to bidders. Ms. Davis has indicated that she is "working with Gary Dodd to get the materials" that I requested. Dodd is the Utility Department director.
Chairman Davis has indicted repeatedly since October of 2004, when the County began the permitting process to start discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek, that no decision has been made to actually build the plant.
The County has never adopted a waste water master plan or indicated what plans it has for future expansion of the Rocky Branch plant or its second plant at Calls Creek, outside Watkinsville. The most recent draft master plan recommended that these two plants be phased out over time in favor of a plant on the Oconee River.
Here’s the full text of the letter I sent to Mr. Davis on behalf of the Friends of Barber Creek Board:
July 17, 2007
Mr. Melvin Davis, Chairman
Oconee County Board of Commissioners
Oconee County Courthouse
23 N. Main Street
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Dear Mr. Davis:
With this letter, I am formally requesting that you schedule a public meeting at which those of us concerned about the health of Barber Creek are given a chance to discuss with the Board of Commissioners announced plans to expand the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant and to begin discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek.
I am making this request on behalf of the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek, a citizen group created to preserve and enhance the attractiveness of Barber Creek and surrounding land in Oconee County and to protect and improve the ecological condition of the Creek.
The Board of Directors wishes to have the opportunity in a public meeting to ask the members of the Board of Commissioners, should they vote to expand the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant and begin discharging waste water into Barber Creek, that they also:
1 Agree to hold discharge water from the Rocky Branch sewage plant in storage facilities when Barber Creek is flooding or threatening to flood, rather than discharge into the Creek;
2. Treat effluent from the Rocky Branch sewage plant to the highest level possible with the technology available and, at a minimum, to the level of treatment at the Hill Plant in Gwinnett County for water being discharged into Lake Lanier; and
3. Set up a system of independent monitoring of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, its effluent, and Barber Creek.
I thank you in advance for your consideration of this request and look forward to hearing from you regarding the County’s plans for an open discussion of the proposed expansion of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant.
Sincerely,
Lee B. Becker
President
cc: Post 1 Commissioner, Jim Luke
Post 2 Commissioner, Don Norris
Post 3 Commissioner, Margaret Hale
Post 4 Commissioner, Chuck Horton
Mailing Address for Friends of Barber Creek:
1050 Scott Terrace
Athens, GA 30606 (Oconee County)
Tel. 706 548-1525
Letter Sent to Davis Requesting Barber Creek Meeting
The Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek has sent a letter to Melvin Davis, chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners, requesting a public meeting to present three requests regarding the proposed expansion of Rocky Branch sewage treatment, which will discharge treated sewage water into Barber Creek.
Those requests are that the Board of Commissioners:
1 Agree to hold discharge water from the Rocky Branch sewage plant in storage facilities when Barber Creek is flooding or threatening to flood, rather than discharge into the Creek;
2. Treat effluent from the Rocky Branch sewage plant not to discharge quality but to the highest level possible with the technology available and, at a minimum, to the level of treatment at the Hill Plant in Gwinnett County for water being discharged into Lake Lanier; and
3. Set up a system of independent monitoring of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, its effluent, and Barber Creek.
Oconee County announced in a public notice in The Oconee Enterprise on July 12 that it has begun the bidding process for engineering support and design work for an expanded Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant. Proposals are due on July 31, and, according to Oconee County Clerk Gina Davis, the bids will be opened and the names of submitting firms will be read at 2 p.m. on July 31 in an open meeting in either the Grand Jury Room or Room 103 at the Courthouse.
I have requested that the County send me a copy of the materials provided to bidders. Ms. Davis has indicated that she is "working with Gary Dodd to get the materials" that I requested. Dodd is the Utility Department director.
Chairman Davis has indicted repeatedly since October of 2004, when the County began the permitting process to start discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek, that no decision has been made to actually build the plant.
The County has never adopted a waste water master plan or indicated what plans it has for future expansion of the Rocky Branch plant or its second plant at Calls Creek, outside Watkinsville. The most recent draft master plan recommended that these two plants be phased out over time in favor of a plant on the Oconee River.
Here’s the full text of the letter I sent to Mr. Davis on behalf of the Friends of Barber Creek Board:
July 17, 2007
Mr. Melvin Davis, Chairman
Oconee County Board of Commissioners
Oconee County Courthouse
23 N. Main Street
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Dear Mr. Davis:
With this letter, I am formally requesting that you schedule a public meeting at which those of us concerned about the health of Barber Creek are given a chance to discuss with the Board of Commissioners announced plans to expand the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant and to begin discharging treated sewage water into Barber Creek.
I am making this request on behalf of the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek, a citizen group created to preserve and enhance the attractiveness of Barber Creek and surrounding land in Oconee County and to protect and improve the ecological condition of the Creek.
The Board of Directors wishes to have the opportunity in a public meeting to ask the members of the Board of Commissioners, should they vote to expand the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant and begin discharging waste water into Barber Creek, that they also:
1 Agree to hold discharge water from the Rocky Branch sewage plant in storage facilities when Barber Creek is flooding or threatening to flood, rather than discharge into the Creek;
2. Treat effluent from the Rocky Branch sewage plant to the highest level possible with the technology available and, at a minimum, to the level of treatment at the Hill Plant in Gwinnett County for water being discharged into Lake Lanier; and
3. Set up a system of independent monitoring of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, its effluent, and Barber Creek.
I thank you in advance for your consideration of this request and look forward to hearing from you regarding the County’s plans for an open discussion of the proposed expansion of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant.
Sincerely,
Lee B. Becker
President
cc: Post 1 Commissioner, Jim Luke
Post 2 Commissioner, Don Norris
Post 3 Commissioner, Margaret Hale
Post 4 Commissioner, Chuck Horton
Mailing Address for Friends of Barber Creek:
1050 Scott Terrace
Athens, GA 30606 (Oconee County)
Tel. 706 548-1525
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Written 6/21/2007
Giving Control over Oconee Taxes To Walton County
So many things are going on in the county at the moment that it is hard to keep track of them. Unfortunately, most of these need our attention.
A very big issue is the draft contract that the Walton County Board of Commissioners has approved and sent to Oconee County for approval. The contract–legally an intergovernmental agreement–defines how the two Counties will manage and finance the proposed reservoir on Hard Labor Creek, in Walton County.
Ownership is clear. Everything belongs to the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority, whose members are appointed by the Walton County Board of Commissioners.
The agreement calls for the creation of an Advisory Committee, made up of the Chairman of the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority, the General Manager of the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority, and the Chairman of the Walton County Board of Commissioners, which appoints the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority. Each could designate someone else to serve in his or her place.
Oconee County is to be represented by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and the Chairman of the Oconee County Utility Department, who is appointed by the Chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners. Or these two individuals can designate someone to represent them.
The Advisory Committee will advise the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority. This, by and large, means the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority will be advising itself. Oconee County will have little say about how things operate.
The Walton County Water and Sewage Authority will bill Oconee County for 28.8% of all costs. Oconee County will be obligated to pay the bills for land acquisition and construction of the reservoir based on property taxes. The County can use revenue from the sale of water to pay the annual project costs.
Oconee County has used very extreme estimates of water needs and sales to justify joining Walton County on the Hard Labor Creek project. If the estimates are wrong, as they are likely to be, the annual bills are going to have to be paid by property taxes as well. To pay the bills, the County has to sell water, so it is going to be promoting development to pay for this reservoir.
The more water that comes in to the County, the more that has to be treated at the County’s sewage plants. This means the Rocky Branch sewage plant is going to be expanded, pumping even more sewage water into Barber Creek.
At this point, the most important thing is that this agreement be discussed in an open meeting at which citizens have an opportunity to ask questions and state opinions. Two Commissioners–Margaret Hale and Chuck Horton–voted against joining with Walton County for the reservoir. We need one more vote to make sure that Oconee County doesn’t enter into a contract with disastrous results.
Write to the Commissioners today. If you feel comfortable surrendering control over your taxes to Walton County, please say so. If you want an open discussion in which the Commissioners have to justify putting Walton County in charge of Oconee County tax revenue, please write and say that.
Here is the contact information:
Melvin Davis, (Chairman), mdavis@oconee.ga.us
Margaret Hale, margarethale@oconee.ga.us and marghale@aol.com
Chuck Horton, chorton@oconee.ga.us
Jim Luke, jluke@oconee.ga.us
Don Norris, dnorris@oconee.ga.us
Giving Control over Oconee Taxes To Walton County
So many things are going on in the county at the moment that it is hard to keep track of them. Unfortunately, most of these need our attention.
A very big issue is the draft contract that the Walton County Board of Commissioners has approved and sent to Oconee County for approval. The contract–legally an intergovernmental agreement–defines how the two Counties will manage and finance the proposed reservoir on Hard Labor Creek, in Walton County.
Ownership is clear. Everything belongs to the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority, whose members are appointed by the Walton County Board of Commissioners.
The agreement calls for the creation of an Advisory Committee, made up of the Chairman of the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority, the General Manager of the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority, and the Chairman of the Walton County Board of Commissioners, which appoints the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority. Each could designate someone else to serve in his or her place.
Oconee County is to be represented by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and the Chairman of the Oconee County Utility Department, who is appointed by the Chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners. Or these two individuals can designate someone to represent them.
The Advisory Committee will advise the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority. This, by and large, means the Walton County Water and Sewage Authority will be advising itself. Oconee County will have little say about how things operate.
The Walton County Water and Sewage Authority will bill Oconee County for 28.8% of all costs. Oconee County will be obligated to pay the bills for land acquisition and construction of the reservoir based on property taxes. The County can use revenue from the sale of water to pay the annual project costs.
Oconee County has used very extreme estimates of water needs and sales to justify joining Walton County on the Hard Labor Creek project. If the estimates are wrong, as they are likely to be, the annual bills are going to have to be paid by property taxes as well. To pay the bills, the County has to sell water, so it is going to be promoting development to pay for this reservoir.
The more water that comes in to the County, the more that has to be treated at the County’s sewage plants. This means the Rocky Branch sewage plant is going to be expanded, pumping even more sewage water into Barber Creek.
At this point, the most important thing is that this agreement be discussed in an open meeting at which citizens have an opportunity to ask questions and state opinions. Two Commissioners–Margaret Hale and Chuck Horton–voted against joining with Walton County for the reservoir. We need one more vote to make sure that Oconee County doesn’t enter into a contract with disastrous results.
Write to the Commissioners today. If you feel comfortable surrendering control over your taxes to Walton County, please say so. If you want an open discussion in which the Commissioners have to justify putting Walton County in charge of Oconee County tax revenue, please write and say that.
Here is the contact information:
Melvin Davis, (Chairman), mdavis@oconee.ga.us
Margaret Hale, margarethale@oconee.ga.us and marghale@aol.com
Chuck Horton, chorton@oconee.ga.us
Jim Luke, jluke@oconee.ga.us
Don Norris, dnorris@oconee.ga.us
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Written 6/5/2007
Why We Don't Need Staggered Terms
Oconee County voters who turn out to vote on June 19 for the 10th Congressional race may be surprised to find another issue on the ballot.
Voters also will be asked if they want to stagger the terms of the members of the Board of Commissioners, instead of choosing all five members of the Board at the same time, as is now the case. In a given election year, two or three members of the Board would be up for election; two years later, the remainder would be elected.
The goal of the initiative is to keep voters from turning out all five members of the Board at any election.
Proponents are seeking consistency and predictability in Board decision-making.
Opponents aren’t afraid of change. They trust the voters.
The issue is on the ballot because the current Board said it was afraid of big changes. The resolution calling for staggered terms passed unanimously by the Board on October 4, 2005, said a “lack of continuity and loss of institutional knowledge would cause harm detrimental to the citizens of Oconee County.”
Oconee County Commissioners have talked about moving to staggered terms since at least 2001.
The Board finally decided to initiate the change after Jim Luke defeated incumbent Johnny Pritchett and Chuck Horton defeated incumbent Bubber Wilkes in the primary in 2004 and two other incumbents, Don Norris and Margaret Hale, were forced into a runoff. Hale and Norris survived the runoff (Norris by only 129 votes), but for the three weeks between the July 20 primary and the August 10 runoff, it appeared that Chairman Melvin Davis could be facing four new Commissioners.
Oconee County has a very strong Chairman system, and the four members of the Commission are the only real week-to-week check on the Chairman’s activities.
Davis has been particularly strong in arguing for staggered terms. He was quoted in the Athens Banner-Herald just before the Board voted in 2005 saying “One advantage of having staggered terms is that it provides continuity and experience on the Board.”
Had voters tossed out Norris and Hale, as they nearly did, they would have sent a strong signal that they didn’t want that kind of continuity and were seeking a different kind of expertise.
Expertise is of many sorts, of course, and one of them is expertise in how the system operates. If citizens toss out all the Commissioners, they are saying they want things done differently. They want “outsiders,” rather than “insiders,” making the decisions.
Commissioners get training in the basics of governance from the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, the Association County Commissioners of Georgia and other sources once they are elected. They learn how things are done locally from the other Commissioners and from the County’s department heads.
Chairman Davis likes to point out that a majority of Georgia’s counties have staggered terms. He’s right. Of the 150 counties with more than one member on the board, 108 have staggered terms, according to statistics compiled by the Association County Commissioners of Georgia for 2006.
All that says is that other Boards of Commissioners also don’t trust the citizens who elect them.
Davis doesn’t like to mention that an even larger majority of those counties (128 of 150) elect board members by districts. “We will not have districts,” Davis was quoted as saying in The Oconee Enterprise in September 22, 2005.
Davis and the Board did not hold a public hearing to ask voters how they felt about districts or staggered terms. They simply asked local state Rep. Bob Smith and then Sen. Brian Kemp to introduce legislation setting up staggered terms.
The legislation that was drafted in 2006 didn’t include the post of Chairman, for some reason, and it was never passed. Rep. Smith and current Sen. Bill Cowsert started over again this year.
Neither Smith, nor Kemp, nor Cowsert sought input from citizens.
The bill introduced in the state House of Representatives by Smith put the issue on the ballot in November of this year and is to take effect January 1, 2008. Cowsert moved the election date to June 19 in the Senate. That bill passed on April 10 and was signed by Governor Sonny Perdue on April 19.
The Commission Posts held by Hale and Norris would be filled for two years in the 2008 elections, according to the legislation; the Chairman and the Commission Posts held by Horton and Luke would be filled for four years.
A special election for the staggered term vote in November probably would have had low turnout, since only those favoring or opposing staggered terms would make the effort to vote. That could have led to its defeat.
The June 19 Congressional election is drawing a lot of attention, particularly among Republicans. Ten candidates--six Republicans, one Libertarian and three Democrats--are seeking the seat that was held by deceased Republican Congressman Charlie Norwood.
When the Oconee County Board of Education put a similar staggered term vote on the ballot in November of 2006, it was approved by 90 percent of the voters. It was tucked in with 11 other amendments and referenda at the end of the busy ballot.
Both Cowsert and County Attorney Dan Haygood said the switch to the June 19 ballot was made to save money.
Both the Banner-Herald and the Enterprise last wrote about staggered terms when they reported that the governor had signed the bill. Both noted that the U.S. Justice Department still needed to review the legislation to make sure it did not violate the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
According to County Attorney Haygood, the County still has not heard from the Justice Department.
The County ran legal notices in the Enterprise on May 10 and 17 announcing the election. The sample ballot on the County web site includes the question on staggered terms.
Haygood said if the Department of Justice does not approve the legislation in time for the June 19 election–he said he expects to hear two or three days before that–the vote on staggered terms on June 19 will be “void.” The County then will hold the election in November, as originally planned.
People who come out to vote in the hotly contested Congressional race may well pull the lever for what seems to be an innocuous change in the voting for members of the Board of Commissioners.
But a vote in favor of staggered terms weakens the hands of citizens by making it impossible to bring about big changes all at once.
It is a right we should retain.
Why We Don't Need Staggered Terms
Oconee County voters who turn out to vote on June 19 for the 10th Congressional race may be surprised to find another issue on the ballot.
Voters also will be asked if they want to stagger the terms of the members of the Board of Commissioners, instead of choosing all five members of the Board at the same time, as is now the case. In a given election year, two or three members of the Board would be up for election; two years later, the remainder would be elected.
The goal of the initiative is to keep voters from turning out all five members of the Board at any election.
Proponents are seeking consistency and predictability in Board decision-making.
Opponents aren’t afraid of change. They trust the voters.
The issue is on the ballot because the current Board said it was afraid of big changes. The resolution calling for staggered terms passed unanimously by the Board on October 4, 2005, said a “lack of continuity and loss of institutional knowledge would cause harm detrimental to the citizens of Oconee County.”
Oconee County Commissioners have talked about moving to staggered terms since at least 2001.
The Board finally decided to initiate the change after Jim Luke defeated incumbent Johnny Pritchett and Chuck Horton defeated incumbent Bubber Wilkes in the primary in 2004 and two other incumbents, Don Norris and Margaret Hale, were forced into a runoff. Hale and Norris survived the runoff (Norris by only 129 votes), but for the three weeks between the July 20 primary and the August 10 runoff, it appeared that Chairman Melvin Davis could be facing four new Commissioners.
Oconee County has a very strong Chairman system, and the four members of the Commission are the only real week-to-week check on the Chairman’s activities.
Davis has been particularly strong in arguing for staggered terms. He was quoted in the Athens Banner-Herald just before the Board voted in 2005 saying “One advantage of having staggered terms is that it provides continuity and experience on the Board.”
Had voters tossed out Norris and Hale, as they nearly did, they would have sent a strong signal that they didn’t want that kind of continuity and were seeking a different kind of expertise.
Expertise is of many sorts, of course, and one of them is expertise in how the system operates. If citizens toss out all the Commissioners, they are saying they want things done differently. They want “outsiders,” rather than “insiders,” making the decisions.
Commissioners get training in the basics of governance from the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, the Association County Commissioners of Georgia and other sources once they are elected. They learn how things are done locally from the other Commissioners and from the County’s department heads.
Chairman Davis likes to point out that a majority of Georgia’s counties have staggered terms. He’s right. Of the 150 counties with more than one member on the board, 108 have staggered terms, according to statistics compiled by the Association County Commissioners of Georgia for 2006.
All that says is that other Boards of Commissioners also don’t trust the citizens who elect them.
Davis doesn’t like to mention that an even larger majority of those counties (128 of 150) elect board members by districts. “We will not have districts,” Davis was quoted as saying in The Oconee Enterprise in September 22, 2005.
Davis and the Board did not hold a public hearing to ask voters how they felt about districts or staggered terms. They simply asked local state Rep. Bob Smith and then Sen. Brian Kemp to introduce legislation setting up staggered terms.
The legislation that was drafted in 2006 didn’t include the post of Chairman, for some reason, and it was never passed. Rep. Smith and current Sen. Bill Cowsert started over again this year.
Neither Smith, nor Kemp, nor Cowsert sought input from citizens.
The bill introduced in the state House of Representatives by Smith put the issue on the ballot in November of this year and is to take effect January 1, 2008. Cowsert moved the election date to June 19 in the Senate. That bill passed on April 10 and was signed by Governor Sonny Perdue on April 19.
The Commission Posts held by Hale and Norris would be filled for two years in the 2008 elections, according to the legislation; the Chairman and the Commission Posts held by Horton and Luke would be filled for four years.
A special election for the staggered term vote in November probably would have had low turnout, since only those favoring or opposing staggered terms would make the effort to vote. That could have led to its defeat.
The June 19 Congressional election is drawing a lot of attention, particularly among Republicans. Ten candidates--six Republicans, one Libertarian and three Democrats--are seeking the seat that was held by deceased Republican Congressman Charlie Norwood.
When the Oconee County Board of Education put a similar staggered term vote on the ballot in November of 2006, it was approved by 90 percent of the voters. It was tucked in with 11 other amendments and referenda at the end of the busy ballot.
Both Cowsert and County Attorney Dan Haygood said the switch to the June 19 ballot was made to save money.
Both the Banner-Herald and the Enterprise last wrote about staggered terms when they reported that the governor had signed the bill. Both noted that the U.S. Justice Department still needed to review the legislation to make sure it did not violate the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
According to County Attorney Haygood, the County still has not heard from the Justice Department.
The County ran legal notices in the Enterprise on May 10 and 17 announcing the election. The sample ballot on the County web site includes the question on staggered terms.
Haygood said if the Department of Justice does not approve the legislation in time for the June 19 election–he said he expects to hear two or three days before that–the vote on staggered terms on June 19 will be “void.” The County then will hold the election in November, as originally planned.
People who come out to vote in the hotly contested Congressional race may well pull the lever for what seems to be an innocuous change in the voting for members of the Board of Commissioners.
But a vote in favor of staggered terms weakens the hands of citizens by making it impossible to bring about big changes all at once.
It is a right we should retain.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Written on 4/2/07
EPD Grants Permit for Discharge into Barber Creek
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has granted a permit to Oconee County to begin discharging 1 million gallons per day of treated wastewater into Barber Creek.
As expected, the EPD made its decision on narrow technical grounds. Now the Oconee County Board of Commissioners must decide whether to build the Rocky Branch sewage plant for which the permit was issued.
The Commissioners can make a decision to address some of the key concerns citizens voiced about the plant. The Commissioners can decide to treat the water to a higher standard so that people can come into skin contact with it without danger. They also can agree to restrict the discharge into Barber Creek to times when it will not contribute to flooding.
It is pretty clear that the concerns raised by citizens did have impact on the EPD. First, it agreed to hold a hearing on December 12, 2006, after more then 60 of us requested that it do so.
Second, it announced its decision on March 30, or three and a half months after the hearing. County officials indicated they expected to get the permit four to six weeks after the hearing.
Third, the EPD stipulated that the County must discharge the treated wastewater directly into Barber Creek, which is about a mile from the plant site, rather into the small, unnamed tributary that flows along the back of the property line of the plant site.
In an email message to me on September 6, 2006, Assistant Utility Department Director Chris Thomas said: “The discharge will be into the feeder creek.” He copied the memo to Director Gary Dodd.
The EPD did not address one of the objections the Friends of Barber Creek raised about the application procedure. We provided the EPD with the advertisements the County used for its public hearing back in March of 2006. The County did not even identify the receiving stream (Barber Creek) for the treated sewage water discharge.
In addition, the EPD did not fully address the issue of the fecal coliform standard. The EPD said Barber Creek is not listed as an impaired stream by the state. But the data the County itself presented at the hearing, as well as data collected by others, indicate the stream has violated state standards for fecal coliform on more than one occasion in the past.
We also asked the EPD to conduct independent sampling of Barber Creek below the plant at least once every three months. “Due to resource constraints, the frequency of these sampling events cannot be as frequent as once every three months,” the EPD said in the documentation it provided explaining it decision. In other words, the EPD doesn’t have the resources to do its job.
The document justifying the decision also had some interesting observations about the difference between drinking water and the water that will come out of the treatment plant.
It confirmed that those who use the treated sewage water must post signs and use other means to inform the public that the water is coming from a sewage plant and that one should not drink the water or come into contact with it.
It also said that treating the water to “drinking water quality” would not be a good thing to do because drinking water contains chlorine and would be “toxic to small aquatic organisms in the creek.”
At the hearing on December 12, EPD officials acknowledged, however, that Gwinnett County is treating its sewage plant effluent to a standard that is higher than what Oconee County is being required to do because that Gwinnett water is going into Lake Lanier, where people swim and from which drinking water is drawn.
Oconee County could be required–or could agree on its own–to meet that standard.
I’ll be talking with legal advisers about whether we can force the EPD to reconsider its decision.
In the meantime, the spotlight is on the Board of Commissioners. We’ll need to do everything we can to keep it there.
EPD Grants Permit for Discharge into Barber Creek
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has granted a permit to Oconee County to begin discharging 1 million gallons per day of treated wastewater into Barber Creek.
As expected, the EPD made its decision on narrow technical grounds. Now the Oconee County Board of Commissioners must decide whether to build the Rocky Branch sewage plant for which the permit was issued.
The Commissioners can make a decision to address some of the key concerns citizens voiced about the plant. The Commissioners can decide to treat the water to a higher standard so that people can come into skin contact with it without danger. They also can agree to restrict the discharge into Barber Creek to times when it will not contribute to flooding.
It is pretty clear that the concerns raised by citizens did have impact on the EPD. First, it agreed to hold a hearing on December 12, 2006, after more then 60 of us requested that it do so.
Second, it announced its decision on March 30, or three and a half months after the hearing. County officials indicated they expected to get the permit four to six weeks after the hearing.
Third, the EPD stipulated that the County must discharge the treated wastewater directly into Barber Creek, which is about a mile from the plant site, rather into the small, unnamed tributary that flows along the back of the property line of the plant site.
In an email message to me on September 6, 2006, Assistant Utility Department Director Chris Thomas said: “The discharge will be into the feeder creek.” He copied the memo to Director Gary Dodd.
The EPD did not address one of the objections the Friends of Barber Creek raised about the application procedure. We provided the EPD with the advertisements the County used for its public hearing back in March of 2006. The County did not even identify the receiving stream (Barber Creek) for the treated sewage water discharge.
In addition, the EPD did not fully address the issue of the fecal coliform standard. The EPD said Barber Creek is not listed as an impaired stream by the state. But the data the County itself presented at the hearing, as well as data collected by others, indicate the stream has violated state standards for fecal coliform on more than one occasion in the past.
We also asked the EPD to conduct independent sampling of Barber Creek below the plant at least once every three months. “Due to resource constraints, the frequency of these sampling events cannot be as frequent as once every three months,” the EPD said in the documentation it provided explaining it decision. In other words, the EPD doesn’t have the resources to do its job.
The document justifying the decision also had some interesting observations about the difference between drinking water and the water that will come out of the treatment plant.
It confirmed that those who use the treated sewage water must post signs and use other means to inform the public that the water is coming from a sewage plant and that one should not drink the water or come into contact with it.
It also said that treating the water to “drinking water quality” would not be a good thing to do because drinking water contains chlorine and would be “toxic to small aquatic organisms in the creek.”
At the hearing on December 12, EPD officials acknowledged, however, that Gwinnett County is treating its sewage plant effluent to a standard that is higher than what Oconee County is being required to do because that Gwinnett water is going into Lake Lanier, where people swim and from which drinking water is drawn.
Oconee County could be required–or could agree on its own–to meet that standard.
I’ll be talking with legal advisers about whether we can force the EPD to reconsider its decision.
In the meantime, the spotlight is on the Board of Commissioners. We’ll need to do everything we can to keep it there.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Written on 3/21/07
A Wild Guess and a Bet
A positive outcome of the Board of Commissioners 3-2 vote on March 6 to join Walton County in the Hard Labor Creek reservoir project is that Chairman Melvin Davis was forced to vote.
Davis does not like voting, which he only does in the case of a tie. When Commissioners Chuck Horton and Margaret Hale voted in two different motions against joining with Walton County in the $350 million project, Davis voted with Don Norris and Jim Luke to create the majority.
So Davis, Luke and Norris now will have to defend this decision going in to the 2008 elections.
Davis had been pushing hard for the BOC to select one of two massive reservoir projects, and the only reason for any decision at this time was the desire on the part of those behind the Walton County project to get Oconee County on board.
Davis said the County needed to act because it was running out of water, but that claim is based on estimates of growth in water demand that are tied to what are almost certainly overestimates of population growth.
The County estimated that Oconee’s population will grow by 30.6% from 2005 to 2010 and again by that same percentage from 2010 to 2015. This is a high-end estimate that ignores the more modest growth rate of 13.4% that the Census Bureau has used to project the County’s 2005 population based on the actual count in the 2000 Census.
If the 30.6% growth rate is used, the County would have 67,065 residents in 2015. If the more modest–and realistic–growth rate of 13.4% is used, the County would have 38,275 residents in 2015. The County was estimated to have a population of 29,748 in 2005.
The County estimated water demand by multiplying the current usage figures by the 30.6% growth rate figure. Estimates of the County’s ability to pay for the new reservoir are based on selling that much water. This means the County either needs to find customers for the water or to find some other source of revenue–such as taxes–to pay for the reservoir project.
A second positive outcome of the BOC meeting on March 6 was a unanimous vote to deny a rezone request for a gas station and convenience store on US441 in southern Oconee County. One reason this project made no sense was that the County doesn’t run water lines into the southern part of the County.
As significant as the rezone denial was, it almost certainly will be rendered meaningless in the long run because of the vote on Hard Labor Creek. The County almost certainly is going to have to run water lines down US441 to encourage development and pay for the Hard Labor Creek decision.
In the weeks before the Hard Labor Creek vote, Davis and Luke argued that the County needed to build a big reservoir even if the population growth rates were inflated because of expected commercial and industrial demand. No effort was ever made to estimate that demand, however, though it certainly is possible to do that.
On February 25, 2007, I sent an e-mail message to Davis asking him for information that could be used to make such a projection. Specifically, I asked for the following:
1. Audited figures for the number of water customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
2. Audited figures for actual water usage by customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
3. Water rates for residential, industrial and commercial customers of the Oconee County Water Department for each year since creation of the department.
4. Sources of water sold by the Oconee County Utility Department since its creation, broken down by year.
5. A map of the service area for water of the Oconee County Utility Department and the proposed service areas as far into the future as such projections exist. If possible, please provide this map as an overlay of the 10 census blocks in the County.
On February 27, Davis sent me the following note:
"Your request is very detailed and frankly, I do not think we can provide that detail without significant research. We are required to keep records for a certain period of time by EPD. Audits are financial audits including revenues and expenditures, etc."
The grammar is his, as is what I take to be an acknowledgment that the County has never made projections based on anything other than population projections.
I’ve never heard more from Davis on the topic.
Among the data that were not used by the County are those on the web site of the Oconee County Planning Department. The Planning Department shows population trends and projections for each of the 10 Census blocks. The Census Bureau projects growth from 2005 to 2010 of 10.0% for the County, rather than 13.43% growth rate from 2000 to 2005. In other words, even before the current slowdown in the housing market, the Census Bureau was projecting a slowdown in County population growth.
Davis did find the time on March 5 to send a two-page, rambling response to a one paragraph note from County resident Luke Naeher written on February 26. In that message, Davis said:
"I believe our water need estimate is accurate. The RDC (Regional Development Center with the Department of Community Affairs) assists the Oconee region (12 counties) with regional planning. One of their responsibilities is to prepare population projections for planning purposes. For Oconee County long range planning purposes, we have consistently used the high population projections. (We prefer to err on the side of excess rather than on the side of shortfall). Remember, the population projections that are used to plan for future water needs do not include commercial, retail, industrial, institutional, office or school use."
As I read this, Davis is saying "we made a wild guess."
Unfortunately, Davis, Norris and Luke also made a "bet" based on that "guess." And they used taxpayer money to make the bet.
This is a decision that Davis, Norris and Luke deserve to be asked to defend come election time.
A Wild Guess and a Bet
A positive outcome of the Board of Commissioners 3-2 vote on March 6 to join Walton County in the Hard Labor Creek reservoir project is that Chairman Melvin Davis was forced to vote.
Davis does not like voting, which he only does in the case of a tie. When Commissioners Chuck Horton and Margaret Hale voted in two different motions against joining with Walton County in the $350 million project, Davis voted with Don Norris and Jim Luke to create the majority.
So Davis, Luke and Norris now will have to defend this decision going in to the 2008 elections.
Davis had been pushing hard for the BOC to select one of two massive reservoir projects, and the only reason for any decision at this time was the desire on the part of those behind the Walton County project to get Oconee County on board.
Davis said the County needed to act because it was running out of water, but that claim is based on estimates of growth in water demand that are tied to what are almost certainly overestimates of population growth.
The County estimated that Oconee’s population will grow by 30.6% from 2005 to 2010 and again by that same percentage from 2010 to 2015. This is a high-end estimate that ignores the more modest growth rate of 13.4% that the Census Bureau has used to project the County’s 2005 population based on the actual count in the 2000 Census.
If the 30.6% growth rate is used, the County would have 67,065 residents in 2015. If the more modest–and realistic–growth rate of 13.4% is used, the County would have 38,275 residents in 2015. The County was estimated to have a population of 29,748 in 2005.
The County estimated water demand by multiplying the current usage figures by the 30.6% growth rate figure. Estimates of the County’s ability to pay for the new reservoir are based on selling that much water. This means the County either needs to find customers for the water or to find some other source of revenue–such as taxes–to pay for the reservoir project.
A second positive outcome of the BOC meeting on March 6 was a unanimous vote to deny a rezone request for a gas station and convenience store on US441 in southern Oconee County. One reason this project made no sense was that the County doesn’t run water lines into the southern part of the County.
As significant as the rezone denial was, it almost certainly will be rendered meaningless in the long run because of the vote on Hard Labor Creek. The County almost certainly is going to have to run water lines down US441 to encourage development and pay for the Hard Labor Creek decision.
In the weeks before the Hard Labor Creek vote, Davis and Luke argued that the County needed to build a big reservoir even if the population growth rates were inflated because of expected commercial and industrial demand. No effort was ever made to estimate that demand, however, though it certainly is possible to do that.
On February 25, 2007, I sent an e-mail message to Davis asking him for information that could be used to make such a projection. Specifically, I asked for the following:
1. Audited figures for the number of water customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
2. Audited figures for actual water usage by customers of the Oconee County Water Department since its creation, broken down by category of residential, industrial and commercial user.
3. Water rates for residential, industrial and commercial customers of the Oconee County Water Department for each year since creation of the department.
4. Sources of water sold by the Oconee County Utility Department since its creation, broken down by year.
5. A map of the service area for water of the Oconee County Utility Department and the proposed service areas as far into the future as such projections exist. If possible, please provide this map as an overlay of the 10 census blocks in the County.
On February 27, Davis sent me the following note:
"Your request is very detailed and frankly, I do not think we can provide that detail without significant research. We are required to keep records for a certain period of time by EPD. Audits are financial audits including revenues and expenditures, etc."
The grammar is his, as is what I take to be an acknowledgment that the County has never made projections based on anything other than population projections.
I’ve never heard more from Davis on the topic.
Among the data that were not used by the County are those on the web site of the Oconee County Planning Department. The Planning Department shows population trends and projections for each of the 10 Census blocks. The Census Bureau projects growth from 2005 to 2010 of 10.0% for the County, rather than 13.43% growth rate from 2000 to 2005. In other words, even before the current slowdown in the housing market, the Census Bureau was projecting a slowdown in County population growth.
Davis did find the time on March 5 to send a two-page, rambling response to a one paragraph note from County resident Luke Naeher written on February 26. In that message, Davis said:
"I believe our water need estimate is accurate. The RDC (Regional Development Center with the Department of Community Affairs) assists the Oconee region (12 counties) with regional planning. One of their responsibilities is to prepare population projections for planning purposes. For Oconee County long range planning purposes, we have consistently used the high population projections. (We prefer to err on the side of excess rather than on the side of shortfall). Remember, the population projections that are used to plan for future water needs do not include commercial, retail, industrial, institutional, office or school use."
As I read this, Davis is saying "we made a wild guess."
Unfortunately, Davis, Norris and Luke also made a "bet" based on that "guess." And they used taxpayer money to make the bet.
This is a decision that Davis, Norris and Luke deserve to be asked to defend come election time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)