A lot of money, time, and resources went into creating the Union County long-range plan, the 2050 plan. Thank you to those community leaders that participated in the process and its various committees. I understand they used a Cherat (sp) process. I call it a charade as it is designed to build consensus around a predetermined outcome.
Please read it. Then read it again. Consider where they are recommending taking the county and the resources required to achieve the result. I have read the document twice and found two gaping holes and a third that give me concern. Admittedly I could have missed it.
Schools are mentioned, but I read nothing about a comprehensive approach to school development and capital allocation for facilities. This plan bases its entire strategy on the population of Union county doubling in the next 20 years. With aging facilities located in the wrong places, Union County Taxpayers need the Board of Ed and BOCC to be transparent. The citizens can handle the truth, quit hiding it under a rock
Fire Funding - BOCC has spent considerable energy developing a more reasonable and comprehensive fire funding model that will continue to utilize the superior VFD network. What they fail to account for in the plan is the Capital and Personnel needs created by the population growth. I guess they assume ADVAL growth and DENSITY (a bad word in the western part of the county) will be enough to cover the additional costs.
The Concern - Union County has a water problem and the BOCC delivered a solution, an expensive one but a solution. There will be a growing need for countywide water. The plan argues for the creation of a Rural Water District to allow it to compete for State and Federal Grant money. That sounds good but it also puts UCPW in a position to serve two entities. The first being its customers and the BOCC. The second, being the Rural Water District Board. Will the board be elected? Will the board be appointed?
Get online and read it. Take the survey and make your opinion known. I have attached the link below.
Comentários