Ambulance Committee Meeting 12 Jan. 2012

In a very unusual move it was reported that state auditors suggested that the Secretary from the Ambulance Service take notes of the committee meetings and keep a copy at the Ambulance Service and at the Courthouse. While county guidelines require a secretary be provided I have never heard of a state auditor requiring such a move.

The Ambulance Director presented a request to purchase "turn out gear" at a cost of $9,999.90 to replace worn gear being used now. This item was not in the budget and there wasn't enough money in the ambulance fund balance which was reported to only have $7,000.00 in it.

Everything seemed simple enough until Mrs Garner began to explain her expectations about incoming funds. Apparently Mrs Garner didn't read the newspaper or listen to WKSR report that Mrs Townsend had stated that tax collections were coming in slower than last year, because Mrs Garner reported that tax collections were the same or better than last year. The "hope" is that the money will be here when it comes time to pay the bill. Commissioner Jackson made the statement that when the ambulance fund balance comes up to $9,999.90 they can purchase the equipment. At that point Mr Griggs stated that he had another "fund balance" of $15,000.00 he could draw from. How a department could have two fund balances is beyond my understanding.

Questions: If Mr Griggs knew the equipment needed to be replaced why wasn't it put in the budget to begin with. If the budgets aren't followed what's the point of having them and where is the extra money coming from. If this money is given, based on the way budgets are made in the county this will be rolled into the next budget and announced as being the same as this year.

Property & Budget Committee Meeting 12 Jan 2012

There was a combined meeting of the Budget and Property Committees this morning. Three matters were brought under discussion.

1) After rejecting a bid of over $200,000.00 to replace the steps at the Courthouse a new proposal was discussed for repair of the steps for a cost of approximately $60,000.00. Agreement was reached to pursue this and bids will be sought.

2) Stevenson Bridge. The County Executive presented very convoluted information that left those present more confused than before the discussion which led to the matter being postponed until the 19th when the County Executive hope to have more complete information.

Basically CSX claims they gave the bridge to the county but there is no written record of the county having accepted it into the county system. There is a partial contract agreeing to re-build the bridge signed by a former Road Superintendent but no signature of a County Executive or any Commission official.

It seems the state is trying hard to stiff arm the county into building the bridge to nowhere by claiming that if it's not re-built the county will have to pay more than $112.000.00 this includes paying $1,000.00 a day to CSX for a flagman during demolition. The demolition also will have to be done under the supervision of CSX who will also determine what machinery can be used in the demolition. If the bridge is re-built the state claims that there will probably be no cost to the county because stimulus money will be used.

The question is if only four or five people are pushing for this bridge that no one on the Stevenson Road wants why would anyone be willing to spend more than a million dollars to build it? If CSX actually gave the bridge to the county why isn't there any record and why would CSX have any control of how it is demolished? If there is a contract that obligates the county to re-build the bridge why doesn't the county have a copy that was properly signed by county officials? The matter has been postponed until the 19th when hopefully more and better information can be gathered.

3) Waste water Treatment. To date approximately $90,000.00 of the 2.1 million obligated for the waste water facility at the interstate as been spent. Now a proposal has been made to abandon the 15 acres sought for the site in favor of 93 acres farther on down the road for a cost of $374,900.00. This proposal was defeated in the committee but plans were expressed to bring it up at the full commission.

Questions: While it sounds good on the surface should the county be in the speculative real estate business, especially with the terrible history we have in that area? With part of the new property having a creek running through it how much extra expense and time delays will be incurred dealing with development of wetlands and possible flood zones? Does it make sense to lose the $90,000.00 and the time that has already been spent on the 15 acre tract.