By Kent Kingsley
Last week I addressed the history of the Lamar County water authority and how Barnesville tried to prevent its “birth.” In addition, I discussed why it would be problematic for residents of the unincorporated part of the county if the water authority was transferred to Barnesville. Today I’d like to propose three alternatives that would allow Lamar to keep control of the water authority and its own future.
Comments
Sat, May 18, 2013 - 11:43 PM
Another awsome move backwards by our City officials. Hey I have a great idea, lets [...]
Sat, May 18, 2013 - 11:03 PM
These 24 names were collected in less than 4 hours near Collier Road (almost 1 mile [...]
Sat, May 18, 2013 - 09:52 PM
I do highly agree with the drug test! If almost every other government (or not) job [...]
Fri, May 17, 2013 - 08:44 PM
Tom........wake up to reality, we picked up a bag on our road with about 20 lotto ti [...]
Fri, May 17, 2013 - 06:22 PM
Just gotta clear up one little item in your post. Not all tea party groups are funde [...]
Recent Stories
- Organic vegetables thriving at Honeywood Farm
- Friday, May 17 2013
- Hunt still on for woman missing since July
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Farmer's Market offers pro cooking demo
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Matthews visits English race course
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Neighbors sick of noise from PGP plant
- Thursday, May 16 2013
Archives
I have spoken to many folks and pondered the reasons why we first needed county water and apart from bailing Barnesville out when Carter's closed and left them with extra water capacity the only benefit I see is to the developers of subdivisions in the county because those people cannot have wells and septic tanks.
So I see this whole issue as asking the majority of county residents to subsidize what should be developer costs. Any subdivision developer should be required to pay a fee to help defray the infrastructure and capacity costs AND guarantee the water usage levels over time (in other words xx gallons in year 1-3; more in years 4-7) that the developer would have to pay if they don't get xx number of customers using water to help defray cost of the system adding capacity.
Along with the profits these developers hoped to make on the subdivisions that have suffered due to economy should come some risks in case their sales plans don't materialize. As it stands county taxpayers would have to pay for the risk while a few developers get the eventual profits.
Can anyone answer this:"What benefit is county water to a homeowner who already has a well and septic tank, assuming the service is actually available?" We don't want their water even if they get around to laying pipe down our backroad.
Another question: From what I read BVille or County could require hookups for residents. Would that just apply to new builds or if new well or septic system is needed? I just don't understand how it would be legal for them to require an existing homeowner who already invested in well and septic system could be made to use their service.
screech, you make some valid points and I'll attempt to answer them for you. The reason the county went into the water business was because of failing wells during an extended very dry period. The question of development was not an issue at all, it was simply to help hurting people and frankly to improve the quality of life for county residents.
What benefit is county water to a homeowner with a well and a septic tank? None while the well is working and producing. It does provide you "insurance" in case of failure. One mistake the Water Authority has made is not giving a homeowner enough incentive to sign up when the water line passes their house. That could still be corrected if the Water Authority chose to do so.
Your second question could the city require "hooking up" for new builts or existing homes. The answer is once they are in charge they can do whatever they want as is writtin in the draft MOU. If that has been changed I am unaware of it.
Wells have failed ever since the first one was dug. Wells will continue to fail. Lakes dry up sometimes. Therefore, does the excuse of a few wells failing justify the county going millions of dollars in debt? Why didn't the authority just pay for new wells to replace the failed ones? They could still call themselves an authority if they felt it was necessary and the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for mismanagement and overspending. Just hypothetically speaking of course!
Additionally, some residents may have access to water if they choose but as far as I know, none have any kind of access to a county sewer system. That would just be millions more.
This may have all been well intended long range vision, however, it was not appropriate to visualize a water line on every county road until a viable profit margin could be determined and a near future need was established for the specified area it was to be installed. That is why the horse is in front of the cart.
Just an opinion that means nothing at this point.
Gary I respect your opinion very much. While we almost always agree on most issues, this one we may respectively disagree. I can't speak for the other commissioners when the Water Authority was created, but I started the process for two simple reasons as I have said in earlier posts. First due to the unually high number of wells that were or had failed. Secondly because I thought county water in general would improve the standard of living for all the county.
Was that a mistake? I don't think so but I will certainly be happy to shoulder the blame for those who do think it was a mistake. Did I ever envision the situation the Authority finds it in today? Of course not and I'll be happy again to take the blame for that also.
We are where we are and what now is the best course of action? I laid out my three ideas on how to proceed. I think each has merit. I would be happy to embrace any other idea that makes even more sense. The only idea I can't embrace is for our water system to be turned over to any outside source that the county citizens can't hold responsible.
Hope you have a great day Gary.
I just don't buy the argument that the county water was started because a few well dried up. That is unless they were certain people's wells and that would not be right.
Even then, I still don't understand how this benefits the majority of county residents or why all of us with working wells and septic tanks should be forced to subsidize those few with wells that dried up.
I still believe it has more to do with subdivision developers as they are the county residents who would not be allowed to have a well or septic tank.
“Hey, let’s not pay Kingsley his commission, his rent, his fee, or his cut under our lease or contract. Who knows what good old Kent will do if we default on our payment to him? Maybe he’ll ask me to pay what I owe him, or maybe he’ll offer me an even better deal if he feels like I won’t pay him at all? Will he evict me? Will he sue me? He might… but maybe he won’t? Maybe Kent will take over my payments and let me stay in the house?!?! Probably even with the worst case scenario, I can force Kingsley to renegotiate our deal for better terms for me. I just don’t know what Kingsley will do, so the best thing to do is to not pay him and find out.”
Maybe all of the people walking away from their mortgages in the real estate industry has jaded Mr. Kingsley, but right is right and wrong is wrong. If you borrowed money and promised to pay it back, you dang well should. To see such an esteemed political figure publicly suggest something so clearly wrong is just mind-numbing. It’s no wonder NO ONE in this county respects our local politicians.
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ga/lamarwater.htm
(August 31, 2004) A ceremonial big check for $4,921,500 was presented today by Stone Workman, state director of USDA-Rural Development, to Richard McCreary, chairman of the Lamar County Water and Sewer Authority, to extend water lines in the north central and northwestern parts of the county.
The new project will include approximately 75,700 linear feet (l.f.) of 6" PVC, 98,800 l.f. of 8" PVC, 4,000 l.f. of 6" ductile iron pipe, 5,200 l.f. of 8" ductile iron pipe, 184 fire hydrants provided at 1,000 foot intervals and erosion and sedimentation control materials and devices as required to meet regulations.
The Lamar County Water and Sewer Authority was created in 1989 and activated in 2000. In 1999, voters approved a special purpose local option sales tax issue for the initial water system improvements in the unincorporated areas of Lamar County. They also received a loan from Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority to extend the initial project lines.
I can’t say that we “respectively disagree”. We obviously are discussing the water authority's situation of now rather than the past and personally I think your solutions to the present situation are good ones. I especially like the second one because I too have always considered combining governments and operations a good idea. Duplication of services always translates into duplication of cost and usually a much higher cost. Eliminating duplication means eliminating cost. Of course combining means stepping on some people’s struggle to maintain a power hold of sorts and will surely be met with opposition from those attempting to hold on to that power. I know that you are familiar with the term, “resistance to change” and everyone must overcome that resistance to overthrow the self appointed authority figures of the county. Yes I know, perhaps a poor choice of words on my part!
Regarding the water authority’s present situation, and after considering what you have said, and based on my limited knowledge of the real situation, I would have to side with you on “do nothing”. After all, the easiest way to step into a big pile of ugly is to take a step without looking and knowing where you want to go and not knowing what lies in front of you.
May I suggest a course in reading comprehension? You apparently have a bone to pick with Mr. Kingsley. I went back and reread the piece and at no time did I see where he personally advocated default. It was presented more as a “what if” scenario with clear answers of, “we don’t know”. All of the answers were correct answers to the “what if” question? Perhaps you have a solution to throw into the pot! Condemning someone for suggesting viable solutions is much worse than offering suggestions yourself.
Wow, you certainly took me to task and after reading your post, frankly I agree with you that I certainly had one part of option one wrong. That part is the possibility of GEFA writing down part of the debt. That may be a correct action, but I agree with you it is not both moral and CORRECT. We owe the money and should pay our debt.
Make no mistake, the water authority will not have the funds to make thir spring 2012 loan payment. Taking the drastic action contempated by the county commission to give away the county water system without vigerous public debate and considering other alteratives is to much to soon.
Thank you for pointing out the error I made. Certainly I make mistakes like anyone else and I do appreciate your constructive correction.
Lastly, don't lose faith in those who represent you at the local, state or national level. I'm convinced many serve for the right reasons and do the very best they can. But always keep them under a watchful eye as you did me. That's what will make government work in a manner we can be proud .
I still believe a major driver for the county water was to support the subdivisions, since they cannot put in wells.
The explanation of dried up wells just doesn't hold water (pun intended). It makes no sense to put in water when a few wells went dry while in past county residents would just drill another.
How many wells were dry? I would be shocked if the count was 5% of county residents, more likely under 1%. Does anyone have the numbers? I don't recall hearing all that much about drying wells (I could be mistaken as that was quite a while back). And I would think it would be the talk of the town if enough wells went dry to justify having everyone pay for county water.
It just sounds very, very fishy.
Think of the savings by eliminating duplication of services and personnel. The water authority would cease to exist and the consolidated government would operate the system as one system. All residents would be able to hold elected officials accountable and all citizens could have input about water bills and service."
No, no, no and no some more. I have also lived in consolidated communities and I did not like it at all. I like living "out in the county" in Lamar County.
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't we get rid of one court and it's expenses?
It seems to me the City of Bvl has a much better negotiator than anyone we have in the county. It takes a sharp person to not be on the short end of deal with a negotiator like the city has!
At least county officials have put a hold on this for now.
I do not think it is possible for the county and city to merge. The city enjoys too many benefits to give them up.
I'm just happy we did not leap into another bad deal, like we got into with the Ag Authority or worse.
It would be better to renegotiate the debt of the water authority than default on it, a move that could conceivably affect the interest rates paid for other county projects. Perhaps it can be amortized over a longer period. Apparently, there is still time for an audit, however.
Let's proceed carefully rather than precipitously. We do not have enough facts before us to make a decision at this point, so scaring folks into doing something quickly suggests that someone has an ulterior motive.