Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Editor,

At the Board of Supervisor’s working group meeting on March 7, they requested input on the items that should be considered in the Dept. of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) agreement. Please keep in mind the only expenditures included in the County Administrator’s Return on Investment (ROI) calculation presented last month were the cost of the land $200,000 and the County’s share of utilities $500,000. As I previously stated, this ROI was a marginal-at-best calculation (really unprofessional) or meant to keep the taxpayers in the dark about the true cost to the County until it is truly a DONE DEAL.

Additional costs to the County on the Board’s list are:

1. “County shall raze all existing structures and remove all debris from the property” (not even an estimated cost).
2.  “County shall perform any necessary environmental remediation” (this one is SCARY; it is essentially a blank check, again no estimated cost).
3. “County shall close any existing on-site septic systems” (again, no cost estimate).
4. “County shall close all but one well,” (how many are there and again what is the cost?) “which shall remain in operation for temporary use during construction of the center” (what prevents the State from using it later and or drilling their own wells to reduce costs of buying water?).

These were all known items and should have already been on the table in the spirit of “Total Transparency.” Additionally, had a true and adequate analysis been done (this project has been known about since at least December 2017, so that is adequate time not to mention if we had been serious about attracting any economic growth activity we would have already done one), we could have been provided cost estimates for these NEW COST ITEMS or maybe it is just time to let this shoe drop.

Along the same lines I will ask yet again where is the DJJ and State’s schedule for facility construction and start of operation? Obviously, the County Administrator and Board of Supervisors do not have one or it is just not time for it to made public.

So with unknown and or additional costs for the county Ttaxpayers and limited revenue at best, this is good for who? By the way, after giving the land to the State and paying an additional $500,000, why do we have to contribute any additional county taxpayer funds?! Again, if this was a business going to a bank, based on the poor ROI and lack of a properly researched total business plan the project would not get the funds and OK to move forward. So if we do not know the full story and total cost, why has it already been decided to move forward?

 

Glen Little

Zuni