7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Livetweeting MSD meeting. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
The gang's all here. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
There will be no public comment allowed at MSD planning committee meeting. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Full MSD board meets Wed 12/12 2:00p to vote on the planning committee proposal. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Susan Fisher and Chuck McGrady present. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Tom Hartye will give presentation. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
The food here is great. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Elaine Lite is filming MSD meeting. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Scott Powell takes over the MSD presentation for the financials. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Powell: there is plenty of precedent for water system transfers without compensation. #avlgov
7h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Scott Powell is the MSD Finance Director. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Chairman Aceto not present this time.
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Developer-contributed amount: $17, 596, 559. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Cash transfers: $2,587,041. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
All figures will be available online after the meeting. http://is.gd/jJ8QI9 #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Developer contributions calculated from 2004 to present. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
This proposal is offered as a response to the option of a local solution. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Jon Creighton wants to hear more about the water system transfers without compensation. Some were voluntary. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Glenn Kelly wants to hear more about the possibility of not getting the watersheds. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer will speak as council member. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer takes the podium as visual aid. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer wants to speak to the compensation issue. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer emphasizes overwhelming referendum vote. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer: city will present proposal 12/11. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer: we will lose money from general fund if water system is lost. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer: Sullivan transfers "a bone thrown to us by GA" since we are treated differently. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer: compensation formula seems based on partisan consideration by adopting the county's model back when we were arguing. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Bill Stanley: we're gonna pass this thing and send it to the city and that's where the negotiations will take place. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Vote: Manheimer, Pelly: NO, everyone else: YES. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
13 members on this committee. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
They're still talking. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Going over legal and governance possibilities. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Root jokes: "let's just hand over the whole thing to Woodfin." #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady speaks. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: Moffitt is out of state today. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Mayor asked McGrady about rushing the process. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: we have to get something going, it's very complicated, can't just wait until last minute. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Henderson county already a part of MSD planning process. Include Cane Creek. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: the breadth of the solution is not fixed. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: may need greater Asheville representation in regional board. But let's not have a 40 member board. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: LRC recommendation does not contemplate compensation. My personal belief is that we HAVE to have compensation. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: we should stop spreading misinformation, esp. about AVL robbing the system. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: legislation will be introduced early in the next session. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: I expect the merger will be rolled out in an incremental fashion. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer: tell us more about Cane Creek. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
McGrady: Henderson County considering a sewerage operation. Should be a part of regional operation. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Manheimer: Cane Creek study should be rolled into Arcadis study. Tom Hartye: we have that study now but separately. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Susan Fisher speaks. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Fisher: 80% of AVL voters rejected the idea of a merger. (not true, actually) #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Fisher: I hope to be surprised after all studies and negotiations. #avlgov
6h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Meeting adjourned. #avlgov
5h Tim Peck @timothypeck
So, Barry Summers tried to pick a fight in the MSD lobby. What a piece of work. #avlgov
5h Tim Peck @timothypeck
The Sullivan transfer figure $2.6M is three years of legitimate transfers that should have stayed in the system. #avlgov
5h Tim Peck @timothypeck
The other deduction is $21,396,956 for "Direct Payments to the City Per Water Agreement." #avlgov
5h Tim Peck @timothypeck
Planning Committee Presentation - November 30, 2012 http://is.gd/jJ8QI9 #avlgov
Friday, November 30, 2012
The Evolution of a Shibboleth
Opposition to the water merger has strangely evolved over the last several months as each phony objection gets handily batted down.
First, the water merger was declared to be a bad deal because it was just plain ole THEFT.
Then it was a bad deal because it was a SEIZURE by a bully.
Then it was a bad deal because it might lead to PRIVATIZATION.
Then is was a bad deal because it would mean JOB LOSSES for city employees.
Then it was a bad deal because it would be COSTLY to ratepayers.
Then it was a bad deal because there was NO DEFINED COMPENSATION for the city.
Then it was a bad deal because NO DEFINED LEASE OPTION being considered in the studies.
Then it was a bad deal because the process is being RUSHED.
Now it's a bad deal because Henderson County leaders are pushing for undue representation on the regional board as part of a POWER GRAB.
Where it will go next is anybody's guess. We will be taking requests.
**UPDATE**
Now the water merger is a bad deal due to fears of WHO'S NEXT?
First, the water merger was declared to be a bad deal because it was just plain ole THEFT.
Then it was a bad deal because it was a SEIZURE by a bully.
Then it was a bad deal because it might lead to PRIVATIZATION.
Then is was a bad deal because it would mean JOB LOSSES for city employees.
Then it was a bad deal because it would be COSTLY to ratepayers.
Then it was a bad deal because there was NO DEFINED COMPENSATION for the city.
Then it was a bad deal because NO DEFINED LEASE OPTION being considered in the studies.
Then it was a bad deal because the process is being RUSHED.
Now it's a bad deal because Henderson County leaders are pushing for undue representation on the regional board as part of a POWER GRAB.
Where it will go next is anybody's guess. We will be taking requests.
**UPDATE**
Now the water merger is a bad deal due to fears of WHO'S NEXT?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
MSD Merger Presentation
MSD PLANNING COMMITTEE
11/14/2012 12:00p
Agenda
The MSD presentation was fairly uneventful. You got a taste of it from the livetweets of David Forbes. But for some reason Forbes missed most of the meeting. We'll see what he writes up for the paper. He wasn't taking any notes. His "livetweets" were published on Mountain Xpress website the next day. The WLOS camera crew left early and I saw no other reporters. Board member Al Root was absent. Jerry Vehaun of Woodfin served as Chairman Pro Tem.
The presentation reiterated key points from the draft study. It was mainly all good news: better services, lower costs, better staff compensation packages, lower water rates, adequate debt service, etc. I was very impressed at the 5 and 10 year projections.
One thing struck me as peculiar is that people, especially Manheimer, were using terms like "potential merger" and "if the General Assembly chooses to do this" and so on.
I noticed at the end of the slide show a mention of a lease option with the city and I wondered why they were still talking about that.
During public comment, Barry Summers spend about 15 minutes at the podium after stating that he would make his comments brief. Summers complained that there is no hard information about the cost of a lease option or compensation. Mr. Aceto engaged Summers and kept him at the podium "if a lease option looks viable, we will address it" and asking him "what have we left out?" and "have we gone about this wrong?" and "if there are lingering questions, what are they?" Summers essentially had no quarrel with the study, the presentation, the methodology, the findings, or the numbers. Later that day on the Pete Kaliner radio show, Summers called in (28:42) to say that he had been dishonest in his praise of the study and told Kaliner that the whole thing was wrong.
After it appeared that Summers was completely out of gas I stood up and asked, "Isn't the lease option now off the table since the special election?" Mr. Aceto pushed back in his rocking executive chair, looked up at me and said, "That's a good question." Neither him nor anyone else responded to my question. However, Summers interjected that he could answer that question, saying, "the referendum only applied to the water distribution system and not the reservoirs." And that was the end of public comment.
[NOTE: David Forbes did not tweet my question to the board and it was omitted from the formal write-up on the meeting that Forbes published 11/15/2012 later on the Mountain Xpress website.]
Recall the original language of the referendum from 8/14/2012 when the referendum resolution was passed:
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
11/14/2012 2:00p
Agenda
Mr. Aceto introduced a discussion under New Business regarding the possibility of having staff explore the possibility of drafting proposal language to address the possibility of a lease option as part of a possible water system merger.
Most every board member equivocated and said they had no opinion. Bill Stanley said that the folks in Raleigh are more powerful since the election and that they should avoid making our legislators any madder than they are now. He said that the General Assembly has mandated that local government effect a merger or they will do it for us and we probably don't want them to do it for us so let's get a lease option proposal in place. Glenn Kelly, Biltmore Forest, stated that he's heard some folks claim that there is some kind of "carve out" for the reservoirs but he just doesn't see it. If there were a carve out, General Assembly would explicitly have said so. Someone said that he would be remaining objective; whatever we have to do, we'll do it, whatever that means.
Esther Manheimer made a motion to have staff create proposal language to address a possible lease in the event of a possible merger, up to and including a possible position statement against the merger if they conclude that "it just doesn't make sense." The motion was seconded by Stanley and was passed unanimously.
It seems odd that a board member would direct staff to develop a possible policy position that sounds strikingly similar to the board member's stated position.
Bear in mind that opposition to the water merger has strangely evolved over the last several months. The evolution of a shibboleth: First, the water merger was declared to be a bad deal because it was just plain ole THEFT. Then it was a bad deal because it was a SEIZURE by a bully. Then it was a bad deal because it might lead to PRIVATIZATION. Then is was a bad deal because it would mean JOB LOSSES for city employees. Then it was a bad deal because it would be COSTLY to ratepayers. Then it was a bad deal because there was NO DEFINED COMPENSATION for the city. Then it was a bad deal because NO DEFINED LEASE OPTION being considered in the studies.
Now that the special election is over and a majority of citizens have voted no on a referendum that is binding only for the City of Asheville, there is now no lease option possible. This is a consequence of city council and the local progressive politburo urging people to VOTE NO on the lease option contained in the referendum in order to "gauge the mood of the people" regarding the inevitable water system merger.
Well, opponents of the merger now know the mood of the people and the consequences of their ill-considered political kabuki theater.
RELATED
Merger would cost customers money
Mark Barrett | Asheville Citizen-Times | Oct. 27, 2012
Report: MSD, water merger could save millions
John Boyle | Asheville Citizen-Times | Nov 12, 2012
Voters: No change to Asheville water
Mark Barrett | Asheville Citizen-Times | Nov 7, 2012
Pete Kaliner Show
11/13/21 Hour 3, Topic: MSD merger
Audio 16:02
Legislative Research Committee Report
Metropolitan Sewerage/Water System
April 19, 2012
11/14/2012 12:00p
Agenda
The MSD presentation was fairly uneventful. You got a taste of it from the livetweets of David Forbes. But for some reason Forbes missed most of the meeting. We'll see what he writes up for the paper. He wasn't taking any notes. His "livetweets" were published on Mountain Xpress website the next day. The WLOS camera crew left early and I saw no other reporters. Board member Al Root was absent. Jerry Vehaun of Woodfin served as Chairman Pro Tem.
The presentation reiterated key points from the draft study. It was mainly all good news: better services, lower costs, better staff compensation packages, lower water rates, adequate debt service, etc. I was very impressed at the 5 and 10 year projections.
One thing struck me as peculiar is that people, especially Manheimer, were using terms like "potential merger" and "if the General Assembly chooses to do this" and so on.
I noticed at the end of the slide show a mention of a lease option with the city and I wondered why they were still talking about that.
During public comment, Barry Summers spend about 15 minutes at the podium after stating that he would make his comments brief. Summers complained that there is no hard information about the cost of a lease option or compensation. Mr. Aceto engaged Summers and kept him at the podium "if a lease option looks viable, we will address it" and asking him "what have we left out?" and "have we gone about this wrong?" and "if there are lingering questions, what are they?" Summers essentially had no quarrel with the study, the presentation, the methodology, the findings, or the numbers. Later that day on the Pete Kaliner radio show, Summers called in (28:42) to say that he had been dishonest in his praise of the study and told Kaliner that the whole thing was wrong.
After it appeared that Summers was completely out of gas I stood up and asked, "Isn't the lease option now off the table since the special election?" Mr. Aceto pushed back in his rocking executive chair, looked up at me and said, "That's a good question." Neither him nor anyone else responded to my question. However, Summers interjected that he could answer that question, saying, "the referendum only applied to the water distribution system and not the reservoirs." And that was the end of public comment.
[NOTE: David Forbes did not tweet my question to the board and it was omitted from the formal write-up on the meeting that Forbes published 11/15/2012 later on the Mountain Xpress website.]
 | |
| Photo: Mountain Xpress |
Recall the original language of the referendum from 8/14/2012 when the referendum resolution was passed:
“Shall the City of Asheville undertake the sale or lease of its water treatment system and water distribution system, including the reservoirs, watershed lands, water lines, pump stations, storage tanks and other facilities used by the City of Asheville for the treatment and distribution of water?”It's hard to imagine a water distribution system with no source. I would contend that a "system" is inclusive of all essential elements that contribute to its functionality. This fact is recognized in the original referendum language. The language was simplified for the sake of voter comprehension and not to change its intent.
City Council meeting on water referendumHere, Bellamy is clearly stating that what is meant by the original language of the referendum is a reference to the whole system and not some of its parts. She acknowledges that the simplified language does not change the definition of the water system and that it should be "understood" by the voter that the referendum is making reference to all of the system's parts taken as a whole, which naturally would include watersheds and reservoirs as pointed out by Hunt.
Video: 8/14/2012
02:07:00
Hunt: "I have a slight variation on the language if council is willing to consider. I don't think any of it is substantive:
Shall the City of Asheville undertake the sale or lease of its water treatment system and water distribution system, including the reservoirs, watershed lands, water lines, pump stations, customer service functions, storage tanks and other facilities used by the City of Asheville for the safe treatment and distribution of water to the community?”
Bellamy: "I think it's too long. I think it should say, "Shall the City of Asheville undertake the sale or lease of its water treatment system and water distribution system" Period. Because I think it's kind of a given what the other things are. And we want people not to get lost..And if we get too lost in describing what our system is, people won't take the time, spend as much time on it, and it's an easy YES or NO answer. Do we want to sell it or not."
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
11/14/2012 2:00p
Agenda
Mr. Aceto introduced a discussion under New Business regarding the possibility of having staff explore the possibility of drafting proposal language to address the possibility of a lease option as part of a possible water system merger.
Most every board member equivocated and said they had no opinion. Bill Stanley said that the folks in Raleigh are more powerful since the election and that they should avoid making our legislators any madder than they are now. He said that the General Assembly has mandated that local government effect a merger or they will do it for us and we probably don't want them to do it for us so let's get a lease option proposal in place. Glenn Kelly, Biltmore Forest, stated that he's heard some folks claim that there is some kind of "carve out" for the reservoirs but he just doesn't see it. If there were a carve out, General Assembly would explicitly have said so. Someone said that he would be remaining objective; whatever we have to do, we'll do it, whatever that means.
Esther Manheimer made a motion to have staff create proposal language to address a possible lease in the event of a possible merger, up to and including a possible position statement against the merger if they conclude that "it just doesn't make sense." The motion was seconded by Stanley and was passed unanimously.
It seems odd that a board member would direct staff to develop a possible policy position that sounds strikingly similar to the board member's stated position.
Bear in mind that opposition to the water merger has strangely evolved over the last several months. The evolution of a shibboleth: First, the water merger was declared to be a bad deal because it was just plain ole THEFT. Then it was a bad deal because it was a SEIZURE by a bully. Then it was a bad deal because it might lead to PRIVATIZATION. Then is was a bad deal because it would mean JOB LOSSES for city employees. Then it was a bad deal because it would be COSTLY to ratepayers. Then it was a bad deal because there was NO DEFINED COMPENSATION for the city. Then it was a bad deal because NO DEFINED LEASE OPTION being considered in the studies.
Now that the special election is over and a majority of citizens have voted no on a referendum that is binding only for the City of Asheville, there is now no lease option possible. This is a consequence of city council and the local progressive politburo urging people to VOTE NO on the lease option contained in the referendum in order to "gauge the mood of the people" regarding the inevitable water system merger.
Well, opponents of the merger now know the mood of the people and the consequences of their ill-considered political kabuki theater.
RELATED
Merger would cost customers money
Mark Barrett | Asheville Citizen-Times | Oct. 27, 2012
Report: MSD, water merger could save millions
John Boyle | Asheville Citizen-Times | Nov 12, 2012
Voters: No change to Asheville water
Mark Barrett | Asheville Citizen-Times | Nov 7, 2012
Pete Kaliner Show
11/13/21 Hour 3, Topic: MSD merger
Audio 16:02
Legislative Research Committee Report
Metropolitan Sewerage/Water System
April 19, 2012
Sunday, November 04, 2012
The Local Thinking: Asheville BID
THE LOCAL THINKING
With Host John Green
FM 95.7
November 3, 2012
"Cleaner, Greener, Safer: Asheville & the Business Improvement District."
Guests: Peter Alberice, Tim Peck.
On October 9, at its biweekly Regular Meeting, Asheville City Council held a hearing on something called "the BID": the downtown Business Improvement District. After a presentation by the interim board responsible for developing the BID's implementation plan, as well as more than two hours of often impassioned public comment, City Council voted 5 to 2 to implement the BID.
This vote was the culmination of almost three years of hearings, public debates, refinements to the implemenation plan and - at times - rancor. This since the BID in emerged from the Downtown Master Plan, approved by City Council in December 2009. During that time the BID's interim board, under the direction of the City Manager, guided the refinement of an implementation plan into the form finally approved by City Council on the 9th.
But what is the BID? . . .
Audio/Video
RELATED
BID Timeline
Below is a summary of the provenance and development of the Asheville Business Improvement District proposal, or BID.
Op-Ed: To BID or not to BID
Tim Peck | Mountain Xpress | August 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)