Internet Fax To Email - Unlimited
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
|
|
|
FORSYTH COUNTY'S GROWING WATER
SUPPLY NEEDS Forsyth County is experiencing rapid growth, which increases the demands on the County's water supply. The City of Cumming has proposed that the County agree to extending the expiration of a current 25 year water contract with the City from 2012 to 2022. That contract requires the County to buy at least 4.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of finished (treated) from the City. That ten year contract extension would cost the County $36 million more than if the County treated the water for itself. Therefore, it is obvious that the County should treat the water for itself. The County should make the following simple proposal to the City: 1. The County treat all the water for the County water system. 2. The City and County jointly expand the Lanier intake for the additional raw water withdrawal required by both the City and County water systems, with each paying its proportional share for the expansion. The City and County shared intake has to be expanded to satisfy the growing demands on both the County and City water systems, regardless of who treats the water for the water systems. The Cumming City Mayor claims the City has total control of the shared Lake Lanier raw water intake that supplies both the City and County water systems, which was paid for proportionately by both the City and the County. Therefore, it appears the Mayor is trying to convince the County that he can refuse to allow the County the raw water required for the County to provide all of its own finished water. The Mayor's position is that unless the County extends the 1987 contract for 10 more years (2012 to 2022), exactly as it is currently written, allowing the City to treat 4.5 MGD for the County, the City will not cooperate with the County in seeking an expansion of the Lanier raw water intake. The Mayor's stated reason for not working with the County to seek an expanded Lanier water intake is that he does not trust the County Board of Commissioners. However, I think his position is just part of an effort to blackmail the County. There are other nonsensical reasons given by some Forsyth County Commissioners for the contract extension, as follows: The County should buy water from the City because the price to the County is only $2.20 per 1000 gallons and the County sells water for $3.54 per 1000 gallons, allowing the County to make a good profit on the exchange. That statement ignores the County's cost of installing and managing the water distribution to its customers. And, isn't it just silly that the County would pay $2.20 for something it can get for $0.80 (the cost of the county treating its own water)? The County should extend the contract because that allows the County to buy water at today's prices for another ten years in the future. That statement ignores the CPI price escalator built into the current contract. The County should extend the contract because if it has too much water in the future it can sell the excess to others. That statement requires one to believe that if the City treats 4.5 MGD for the County the Corps of Engineers and Georgia will allow a Lake Lanier withdrawal that exceeds the total requirement of the County. However, that simply would not be allowed. The County should try harder to get along better with the City, and not anger the Mayor. The open secret of how to get along with the Mayor is to do exactly as he demands. That is not in the best interest of the County. The Mayor has refused to even have the City and County get together to discuss something different than the ten year extension of the current contract. The County should extend the contract because the County can get out of the Contract at any time. That statement ignores the penalties, stated in the current contract, that the County would have to pay the City if the County cancelled the contract. Penalties for the City expanding its water facilities, while the County would also have to pay again to duplicate those facilities to treat its own water. Conclusion: Because the arguments for extending the water contract with the City are so illogical I conclude that some of the County Commissioners are more interested in political and/or personal gain than in what is best for the County. It just does not make sense that the County give away $36 million to satisfy the irrational demands of the City. The County should push strongly forward to treat its own water and not give in to the Mayor's bullying and blackmailing attempts. Years ago the County took legal action against the Georgia EPD when it refused, as encouraged by the City, to give the County a Lake Lanier water withdrawal permit for the County water supply. That legal action resulted in the Georgia EPD reconsidering and issuing the County a withdrawal permit. It may be necessary once again for the County take legal action to achieve its rightful access to its raw water it needs.
CITY/COUNTY WATER CONTRACT EXTENSION
SOME ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ON MARCH 12, 2006 The raw water to satisfy both the County and the City in the future will most probably continue to come from Lake Lanier. Today the County and the City both get their raw Lake Lanier water from the same water withdrawal owned by the City and partially paid for by the County. So far the Corps of Engineers has denied the County its own withdrawal from Lanier, causing the County to continue its need to rely the City owned Lake withdrawal. That potentially gives the City the power to withhold additional withdrawal for County treatment if the City is inclined to exercise that power. If the County buys 5 million gallons per day (mgd) of finished water from the City in the years 2012 to 2022 it will cost the County about $36 million more than if the County produces its own finished water. I think its obvious that if the County had its own Lake water withdrawal the County would produce its own finished water and save the $36 million. So, as it stands today the City water withdrawal will be expanded to satisfy the growing need for both the City and the County if the contract extension allows the City to produce and sell about 5 mgd of finished water to the County for the years 2012 to 2022. If the City agreed, its Lake water withdrawal could be expanded (the County paying its share for the expansion) to satisfy the growing water needs of both the County and the City, allowing the County rather than the City to produce the 5 mgd finished water, at a savings of about $36 million. Another important observation made during the
Public Hearing was that there could be a water emergency in Forsyth County this
summer if there is a dry summer. My view is that actions should have been
taken before this year by the Board of Commissioners to avoid that potential
water emergency this year. However, the extension of the City/County water
contract from the year 2012 to the year 2022 offers no solution for an emergency
this year.
FORSYTH
COUNTY WATER TOWN HALL MEETING 3/11/06 The following three page document was
given to the Forsyth County board of Commissioners and used as notes for my oral
presentation during the March 11 Town Hall Meeting A VIEW OF
SATISFYING FUTURE FORSYTH COUNTY WATER SUPPLY NEEDS The Board of Commissioners voted during a Work Session in
February to extend the water contract with the City to the years 2012 to 2022.
The extension of the contract is now scheduled for a vote during the
regular April 13 Board of Commissioners Meeting.
The Board of Commissioners voted for the contract extension without
having a new written contract for Commissioners and the County attorney to
review. It strikes me that the Board jumped to a conclusion without
doing the necessary preparation to reach that conclusion. A comprehensive and logical process should be used to
determine how to best satisfy the future water needs of Forsyth County.
Following are my suggestions in approximate sequence. 1)
Determine the future County water supply needs 2)
Investigate possible solutions to satisfying the needs 3)
Determine the advantages and disadvantages of each practical solution 4)
Select the best solution 5)
Act to implement the best solution ------------------------- A VIEW OF
SATISFYING FUTURE FORSYTH COUNTY WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ********************************************* The
County can produce its own water for the 10 years of 2012 to 2022 for
approximately $36
million less than it will cost to buy 5 mgd from the City by extending
the current contract(s). ******************************************* The City price to
the County is now $2.21 per 1000 gallons, with a provision in the current
contract allowing the City to increase its price annually in line with the CPI
increase. It now costs the
County less than $1.00 per 1000 gallons to produce its own water, and the cost
per 1000 gallons will possibly decline as the volume increases. Assuming the County
buys 5 MGD of water from the City
the Cost to the County for 10 years (2012 to 2022) would be $51
million (2% annual CPI growth) to $57
million (3% annual CPI growth). The comparable cost to the County of producing its own water would be about $18 million (Assuming County cost of $1.00 per 1000 gallons) -------------------------- A VIEW OF
SATISFYING FUTURE FORSYTH COUNTY WATER SUPPLY NEEDS The Current contracts for the City to sell water to the
County allow the City to increase its price at the rate of the CPI increase.
Following are examples of rate increases based on annual CPI increases of
2% and 3%. The current 2006 price
is $2.21 per 1000 gallons. Year 2% Increase 3% Increase 2006
$2.21 $2.21 2007
$2.25 $2.28 2008
$2.30 $2.34 2009 $2.35 $2.41 2010
$2.39 $2.49 2011
$2.44 $2.56 2012
$2.49 $2.64 2013
$2.53 $2.72 2014
$2.59 $2.80 2015
$2.64 $2.88 2016
$2.70 $2.97 2017
$2.75 $3.01 2018 $2.80 $3.15 2019 $2.86 $3.25 2020 $2.92 $3.34 2021 $2.98 $3.44 2022 $3.04 $3.55 Average
Following is an email sent to all Forsyth County Commissioners March 2, 2006 Forsyth County Board of Commissioners Dear Forsyth County Commissioners, I am writing about the water agreement with the City of
Cumming that three of you voted to extend during a work session last week. I have several concerns about your action. 1) At least two Commissioners did not see the contract prior to the vote. 2) The County Attorney did not know which contract you were voting on, and did not give an assessment of the contract to the full Board of Commissioners. 3) Part of your work session vote last week was to put the agreement on the consent portion of the next regular Commission meeting agenda. I suspect that it was put in the consent category to hopefully avoid public discussion among Board Members during a regular public Board meeting. 4) If this is the same contract (agreed to in 1987) I was familiar with when I was on the Board of Commissioners, the contract language is very loose allowing the City, as they have done in the past, to claim contract interpretations favorable to them and getting away with it. See my website at www.ronseder.com, click on ”Water/Sewer” and then click on “Cooperation” for some of my past observations. 5) There was an urgency advanced by some Board members saying the City has to be able to plan its future water needs. I agree that the city needs to have information to plan future water needs, but the contract extension voted on does start until the year 2012. Surely that time frame does not require immediate action now. I understand that the County is on the verge of obtaining a Lake Lanier water withdrawal permit from the Corps of Engineers, which might have a profound impact on the future need of the County for City water. I think this is more likely the reason for the City insisting on an immediate contract extension. Because of my past experience with this subject I believe the County can produce its own water for about one half the price demanded by the City. 6)
If what I presented above is factual, it smells to me like there is
overriding politics pushing this move on the part of the three Commissioners who
voted to extend the agreement without a full airing of everything involved, and
I would bet the agreement favors the City to the County’s detriment. I welcome your response to my statement of the facts and/or
my conclusions. For the sake of the
County I would like to be shown why I am wrong. Ronald Seder |
