Hillside amendment to be revisited?

Now did anyone really believe the hillside issue would go away once the county commission approved the plan? Yeah, didn't think so.

During Monday's meeting, Commissioner Tony Norman noted that he's “trying to get a reconsideration of that amendment,” referring to a change initiated by Commissioner Richard Briggs and signed off by the board in November.

Briggs on Monday said “there's been a lot of misunderstanding about the intentions of the amendment" and again noted that he asked for it so that developers and the public would be guaranteed an appeals process.

Some, however, say the wording is superfluous.

I don't know. I quit caring in November when they supposedly passed this thing for the last time.
It's like a bad movie villain.

And it returns next Monday.

Commission passes Briggs Hillside plan

The Knox County Commission tonight approved the Richard Briggs Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan. (Or at least seven of them did.)

If you're confused, don't feel bad. That was one cluster-F of a meeting that was made worse because of all the hijacking that went on earlier in order to delay the meeting as late in the day as possible. (Hit me up on Twitter to see what I'm talking about. I'm about to get something to eat right now, so I'm too tired to bother with it.)

Anyhoo, a lot of folks want to know just what the Briggs amendment is.

Soooo, here ya go (and yeah, I'm typing this myself cause I love ya):

This plan and the principals, objectives, policies and guidelines included herein are advisory in nature and constitute non-binding recommendations for consideration in connection with development of steeply sloped areas. While this plan is being adopted as an amendment to the Knoxville-Knox County General Plan 2033, it is intended to provide background and supplemental information of an advisory nature and to serve as a guide to future MPC staff recommendations, but it not intended to form an official part of the General Plan which would be binding on future land use decisions by City Council, County Commission, MPC, the City or County Boards of Zoning Appeals pursuant to T.C.A 13-3-304. Any comparable provisions of the Knoxville-Knox County General Plan 2033 or any Sector Plan which relate to hillside and ridgetop protection shall also be considered advisory consistent with this plan.

Ridgetop plan tops commission agenda

The County Commission meets tomorrow at 2 p.m. in the Deathstar.

Here's the agenda - click right smack here.

It should be a fairly quick meeting. Until we get to that little thing called the Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan. From there, the same people will futilely make the same arguments. My favorite: "Don't tell me what to do with my land."

Uh, yeah, right. Government has been telling you what to do with your land, since there's been land. What do you think zoning restrictions are? Heck, some people can't even build a swimming pool in their yard because they happen to have a protected tree in the back lawn. (I'm all for tearing up that tree by the way.)

Anyhoo, this sucker is passing 8-3. That's my call (although it could possibly be 7-4).

Remember, though, that this is not over by a long shot. The MPC has to approve it, too, which it will. But, then it goes back to the commission again. So, tomorrow really isn't the final call.

And don't forget the ordinances both the city and county will have to approve.

This battle isn't ever going to end, is it?

'Modest Proposal' for hillside debate

The county commission and city council are supposed to hold the final meeting tonight to talk about the nefarious Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan. But let's not kid ourselves - they'll probably hold at least one more.

Workshop topics include costs, commercial development and overlay issues.

Additionally, Councilman Nick Della Volpe this morning sent officials his "modest proposal."

You can click right smack here for it.

It's not on the agenda and I'm not going to rehash it. The whole topic is about as interesting as watching paint dry. (Yeah, yeah, I know, it's important stuff. Whatever.)

But, you should check it out if you are interested. Nick spends much of his focus on the steeper slopes, saying it's too hard to regulate the 65 percent of the less steep stuff, so we should focus on the other 35 percent.

I just hope they make a decision soon.

Jeff Roth new MPC commissioner

There's been quite an uproar about Mayor Big Dog's appointment to the Metropolitan Planning Commission – a group of folks who are nothing more than a RECOMMENDATION panel.

A panel, I might add, that the county has pretty much dismissed in recent months. You know, the Midway business park proposal. Or that Ridgetop/Hillside protection plan thing. (I'm not saying it's a bad panel, but it makes makes only recommendations.)

Anyhoo, Big Tim Burchett decided he wasn't going to reappoint Rachel Craig, who was serving out the remaining two years of City Councilman Nick Pavilis' term. Craig posted her thoughts on "that obscure liberal blog," which you can read right here. She's not mad about the mayor stiffing her. But, she – and a lot of folks – are upset that Burchett didn't appoint someone who lives south of the river.

We wrote a story about the issue (click right smack here) and county Commissioner Mike Brown stopped just short of calling the mayor a D-bag. The Metro Pulse wrote a story about it (click right smack here) and pretty much put a dunce cap on the mayor's head and sat him in the corner.

Of course it didn't help that, according to the story, the mayor admitted to getting a list of “potential South Knoxville replacements for Craig” and then “looked at the list but chose to ignore it.”

Personally, I don't think he ignored the list. I bet he looked at it; thought what a great paper airplane it would make and then threw it at Dean “The Emperor” Rice's head.

But, here's what's been bothering me: So far, no one has bothered to call the mayor's pick – Jeff Roth. So, he doesn't live in south Knoxville anymore. But, doesn't anyone want to hear what he has to say? Apparently not.

Sooooooo, I got bored, like I often do when I eat horse tranquilizers, and I called the guy last night. He was out, but he got back to me early this morning and we talked about his appointment and ties to south Knoxville.

Let me say that first off, sometimes tone gets lost in the printed word. So, if some of his comments seem sarcastic, they weren't. The guy was funny, sincere and a tad humble. Also, this post isn't about taking a side or not on Burchett's appointment, but rather a chat with Roth. (And as a disclaimer, I live in South Knoxville and do think that in the past few years local government has treated it like a turd.)

“It's a little funny that there's so much controversy about this – I didn't realize being a volunteer would bring that out,” said Roth, 47. “It's the MPC. We're not raising taxes or redistricting property lines. We're just a recommendation body.”

Roth said he was born in Baptist Hospital and attended South Knoxville Elementary (and spent sixth grade at Galbraith Elementary School).

His parents divorced when he was five. When his mom later remarried, they did move out of South Knoxville. After high school, he joined the Army and then went to UT where he earned a degree in business administration and marketing.

Yes, he has lived in Karns since 1985, he said, but “I'm not completely out of touch with South Knoxville.”

His uncle was the owner of Gravely Tractor, off John Sevier Highway, for more than 30 years. He has a cousin who teaches South Doyle (forgot to ask whether that was the middle or high school).

“I want to represent the whole county – that will be my goal,” Roth said. “I certainly don't want to go into any situation with a biased opinion or predisposition about how I'll vote on a particular issue. I want to walk in with an open mind.”

I asked why he'd want a thankless job like that.

He gave me the typical “I want to contribute and serve the community" answer.

“The bottom line is, I think, the reason Mayor Burchett appointed me is that he has faith in my ability to make decisions that are non-biased and based on what we hear in our meetings,” he said. “I don't think geography has a lot to do with that. I feel Knox County is all one group of people, so I don't tend to make a distinction between people who live in one area or another. I'm looking forward to serving. I told Tim I'd do a good job and do the best I can and do what needs to be done up there.”

I also asked him his thoughts on whether it's important – in his opinion – to have representatives (what are there? 15 on the MPC?) – from all parts of the county.

He responded: “Up until my appointment, I never gave it a whole lot of thought. The quick answer is 'no I don't think it's necessary.' It's set up so that the mayors make the appointments and I think you have to give those guys the benefit that they'll do a good job. I know several people on the commission and it's a good group, and I think we can make decisions based on education and not about being biased.”

Roth owns Knoxville-based Quality Machine and Welding Co, Inc., which his grandfather founded in 1966 and his father took over 10 years later. He grew up in the business and said at one point it employed 130 people, but is down to 66, mostly because of the economy. (Not the best time to be in construction, I suppose.)

Finally, I asked him his thoughts on the ridgetop/hillside issue.

“I'm going to have to educate myself a little more about the details,” he said. “Certainly, I'm not as familiar with the details (as other people are), but development is important in bringing businesses to Knoxville. My employees depend on us to do that – to have jobs. But having said that, we need to be cognizant of the communities, subdivisions, people and of the environment. We don't want to go paving paradise. But we also have to keep in mind that development is good for economic growth.”

So, those are Roth's thoughts.

I'm not saying Burchett was right or wrong about not appointing someone from the south. (Remember, the glass is always half-empty. He was probably wrong.) But, maybe there's still some South Knoxville in the boy.

I mean at this point, everyone will be squarely focused on what decisions he makes because it will reflect on the mayor.

Roth is in the spotlight right now.

And so is South Knoxville.

And that might not be a bad thing.

A few notes before the meeting

A couple things before I head out to today's County Commission work session. Click here for the agenda.)

Over the weekend, Georgiana Vines wrote about a number of folks interested in taking (soon-to-be-former) state Sen. Jamie Woodson's seat. You can read about it here. Also, local blogger Dan Andrews makes a case why he should get the temporary gig here.

And this morning, I had a note forwarded to me from Jim Boyer, who left the House seat in 2002 after serving as Republican caucus chairman, saying that he, too, also is contemplating the seat.

And of course, county Commissioner R. Larry Smith says he might look into it, as well as commission Chairman Mike Hammond.

Note, however, that there's a difference between taking the seat early or waiting until the election. While there's an obvious advantage to getting your name on there now and running later, if you're a county commissioner – and you really like your job – you might be taking a chance to jump in now.

Since you'd have to resign and all. And you're not guaranteed a win.

The other thing. The commission work session starts at 2 p.m. today in the big room just past the metal detectors as you make your way through the Deathstar. So, unless you're a cop, deputy or Lumpy Lambert, don't bring a gun. (OK, bad joke.)

The first big items is a proposal to give control of the budgets for three of the non-judiciary fee offices – that means the register of deeds, the trustee and the county clerk offices – to the mayor and the commission. It looks like officials might drop the judiciary ones – clerk and masters, circuit court clerk and criminal court clerk.

This will be moved to the top of the agenda because Criminal Court Clerk Joy McCroskey needs to head to Nashville to meet with state Rep. Ryan Haynes. They're supposed to find a way to get her office under a state statute that will allow her to collect assessment fines that will go toward the helping the Knoxville Family Justice Center. (I wrote a story about that mess right smack here.)

Also, the Hillside Ridgetop Protection Plan item is on the agenda, although it's under the Planning and Zoning section. Presumably, officials won't talk about it.

But, you know how that went the last time chairman Hammond said no one was going to speak.

Heh.

Here's your hillside plan votes

Let's face it, these so-called meetings to discuss the Hillside Ridgetop Protection Plan (older story about it right smack here) are nothing more than dog and pony shows.

You got one side sending out bogus emails, riddled with untruths.

And you've got a few on the other side posting under fake names on message boards across the county, making it look like they have more support than they do.

Then you have 11 commissioners on the dais – all of whom more than likely know how they're going to vote.

Come on.

Let's get this over with.

Now supposedly, the commission isn't going to hold a public hearing during its work session next Monday to talk about it, but we all know how well that worked during today's so-called workshop.

Yup.

Turned into a public hearing.

So, even if they make it through next Monday – without everyone saying the same thing over, and over, and over, and over and whatever again – there's still April 25.

That's ostensibly when they'll vote.

But, let's be real.

There will be a public hearing. Then it gets tabled. Commissioners will want to hold a workshop with their counterparts in the city. Then there will be more workshops.

Whatever.

Eventually, this sucker is going to get shot down. At least by the commissioners. (I don't cover the city so I don't care what the council does. And yes, they can approve different plans.)

Once it's voted down, the commission will then amend the whole plan, or rather have county law director Joe Jarret do it.

Or the board will form a subcommittee.

Actually, that makes more sense. The commission – and the mayor for that matter – they all just love these subcommittees.

By the way, how is that subcommittee charged with coming up with alternatives to the business park in East Knox County working for you?

Heh.

Thought so.

Anyhoo, here's my predictions on how the commissioners are going to vote on the hillside protection plan based on comments made today at the workshop.

And remember: I'm never wrong.

Because if I was, I wouldn't admit it.

It's going to flop, more than likely 8-3.

Here ya go:

Sam McKenzie: He votes for the plan. During the meeting, McKenzie said he figures “something will happen, but I'm not sure what.” He also stressed that he's tired of the opponents complaining about how long the plan took to create (three years) and how much it costs (something like $350,000). “If it's a quality plan then it's going to take some time,” he said.

Tony Norman: Oh man, I don't even have to respond to this one. It's his freakin' baby. He's voting a big “Hell Yeah!” against those “rascals”. (In other words, he votes for the plan, too.)

Jeff Ownby: He's voting against the plan. Ownby is a big “property rights” guy. Plus he made some comments questioning whether the county needs more regulations.

Richard Briggs: The good doctor votes against the plan, too. He said there are “plenty of laws in this country (or county – can't read my handwriting) and it's just a matter of enforcement.” He also suggested that developer put up a “significant bond requirement” when a project starts, so if the builder “does go bankrupt or something untoward happens . . . then there's a way to compensate the people or communities that have been harmed.” He added: “I'm not necessarily in favor of more rules, but I am in favor of more enforcement.”

Mike Hammond: The chairman votes against the plan. He was already hinting at it today. Just the manner of his questions to Metropolitan Planning Commission officials. He wanted to know if had to be voted up or down. And whether it could be amended. He was told yes for both questions. He smiled. He's ready to say no.

R. Larry Smith: Ha ha. As easy as Tony Norman. But the opposite. Put him down for a big “Hell No!” In fact – in between taking shots at the developers for “leaving the table” during negotiations and the MPC for including what he described as misleading pictures in the plan – he said so. “It's a property rights issue,” he said. “I'm not going to beat around the bush. I'm going to vote against the plan. But I'm going to vote 'yes' for more enforcement.”

Dave Wright: He's voting against the plan even though he said “I have been extremely on the fence on this.” He said most of the people affected under it live in East Knox County. Those are his folks out there. And a lot of them don't want it. Plus, a lot of them know that one day they might want to sell all that land out there and a developer isn't going to buy something he/she/it can't build on. He was, however, curious about what the current administration wants to do. Which, I overhead someone say what Wright really meant to say was: “What does Steve Hunley (mortal enemy of county Mayor Tim Burchett and publisher of The Focus) want the current administration to do.” (Burchett is against the plan by the way, but he doesn't vote, so what does it really matter.)

Mike Brown: He's voting against it. He stuck his finger in the air; felt the direction public opinion is blowing (at least vocal public opinion) and decided he's against it. “The No. 1 solution to the problem is better enforcement,” he said, adding that 95 percent of the phone calls and emails he's received have been from folks against the plan. (Of course, the same people are sending the same emails over and over and over and whatever again. But I digress.)

Amy Broyles: She's voting for it. Broyles wasn't at the meeting. I'm going through experience on this one. She likes to go against the grain on major issues.

Brad Anders: The vice chairman is voting against it. Anders wasn't at the meeting. He's a big “property rights” guy, too.

Ed Shouse: He's voting against it. Shouse also wasn't at the meeting. He had a prior appointment. I can't remember what it was. I also can't remember why I said he's voting against it. But he is.

By the way, here's a link to the MPC plan, so you can make your own decisions about it.

Hold off on the Hillside statement

A couple days back R. Neal posted this on his blog (which kicks ass by the way) about the county commissioner’s workshop where members will discuss the Ridgetop Hillside Protection Plan. Click here.

Apparently, some folks from the Realtors world (I think the Knoxville Realtors and Builders) want to read a statement during Wednesday’s meeting, which starts at 8 a.m.

Now, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I have to say this is the wrong time to read the statement. That’s not taking a shot at anyone, but it’s a meeting for the commissioners. Yes, it’s open to the public, but they’re not taking public comments.

They've taken public comment a number of times. They've received all the emails and phone calls from folks. They know how you feel.

My thoughts?

Wait.

Sure, come to the meeting, but don’t try to speak on this one. It’s just going to upset the commissioners who want the chance to talk (publicly) amongst themselves and get the facts from the folks who put together the plan.

There will be a commissioner work session the following Monday. And then a regular meeting a week later. That’s the time to make a statement.

Plus, no one is going to go to the Wednesday workshop anyway. (or rather, there won't be a big crowd. Not like what you'll get at the work session and the regular meeting.)

Wait until you have a crowd to read the statement.

That’s just my advice. And, hey, I don’t always give out the best advice, so maybe you should ignore it.

Or maybe not.

Heh.

Also, keep in mind that the issue is probably going to be tabled again.

Why vote now, when you can deliberate later.

Right?

OK, seriously, it’s probably getting tabled so the commission can hold another meeting to talk about the proposal, this time with the Knoxville City Council.

And, hey, maybe that’s a good time to read the statement, too. If they have a public comments section.

Either way, I'll be at the meeting. So if it's read, we'll cover it.

Just some thoughts.

Hillside plan and upcoming talks

The county commission next Wednesday (that's April 13 if you're really taking notes) plans to hold a workshop to talk about the Hillside Ridgetop Protection Plan.

It's at 8 a.m.

I'll be there. (Maybe. I'm not sure I'm even human at that hour.)

Anyhoo, you might want to sit this one out. Because they're not going to let you talk.

Uh, uh. Not this time.

(Which means I'll probably be back at the office by 9 a.m. I hope.)

I'll let the commission's big dog explain:

“We've had a lot of calls from people, saying that we're holding the meeting at 8 a.m., so the public can't participate, but that's not the case,” said Chairman Mike Hammond. “It's not designed to be a public hearing. This is a workshop for the commission. If I've got a question and need to get it answered, well, that's what we're holding it for.”

In other words, this one time, they want to get the facts without the emotion and the personal attacks.

However, it is open to the public.

So come on down. Just don't say anything.

Additionally, the commissioners will talk further about the issue at the regular work session ( 2 p.m. April 18) and again on April 25 during the regular meeting.

Please note – because I understand people are spreading all kinds of rumors about this thing – that the commission will talk about it at 6 p.m. during the REGULAR meeting. No, it will NOT be moved to 2 p.m.. It is part of the zoning agenda. That means 6 p.m.

Now, with that said, expect it to get tabled. Again.

Heh.

Because a number of commissioners want to hold a joint workshop with the City Council, which also has to sign off on this mess.

And of course, these things never, ever can get done without getting tabled two, three, four, whatever, times.

Commissioners plan to talk. A lot.

The Knox County Commission hosts its monthly work session 2 p.m. tomorrow at the City County Building (that's 400 West Main St. for those who wants to take advantage of Mapquest, which I don't recommend)

The agenda is nine pages long and - on first glance - it looks like the 11 members could quickly run through it. Until you get down to those discussion items.

• Commission Chairman Mike Hammond told me last week that some folks want to talk about the Karns Volunteer Fire Department and its subscription-based service plans. Apparently, the department, which serves Northwest Knox County, is hurting for money. Much of its funding in the past has come from donations and grants, but the well is running dry (so to speak).
• Commissioner Amy Broyles wants to talk about the structure, function and funding of the Knox County Drug Court. This is a discussion item that the commission had planned to talk about previously but - for reasons I no longer remember - tabled it. I say this because the discussions started before the TBI investigation in Judge Richard Baumgartner, although I'm sure his name will come up tomorrow.
• Commissioner Mike Brown plans to ask his peers for input into the "scope of authority and oversight" of the Public Building Authority. The word I'm hearing around the county is that folks aren't quite so sure we need the PBA anymore. Officials there, of course, will tell you otherwise.
• Commissioner Richard Briggs tomorrow will continue his efforts to shake-up the county's Ethics Committee. Briggs, who also serves on the panel, wants it to consist solely of county residents to avoid conflicts of interest among elected leaders. He also wants to more clearly define just want the panel is supposed to preside over. The committee's chairwoman, Elaine Davis, however, says the panel should include at least one commissioner with institutional knowledge to serve as a liaison between the panel and the commission.
• Commissioner Briggs also wants to talk about whether to pay former Commissioner Paul Pinkston's legal fees he incurred while defending himself in a 2008 ouster lawsuit. That's a lawsuit he won, by the way. Pinkston told us in January that former Law Director John Owings told him that the county would pay the fees if he won the case. I talked to Paul last week and he told me it was about $20,000.
• Chairman Hammond also wants to talk about the area's Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. Officials earlier this month decided they wanted to "restart" it, whatever that means. About the only thing that really happened is that TYP Director Jon Lawler and his right-hand-man, Robert Finley, said they would step down. Officials also put on hold off on any efforts (which there weren't any at this point) to pursue additional permanent supportive housing under the plan. In the meantime, a committee is looking into how to tweak the program's efforts. It's hard to say what will happen. My guess? It will probably be taken out from under the auspices of the city and county.

The county commission at 4 p.m. tomorrow (or following the work session) will host a workshop to go over the Knoxville Knox County Hillside and Ridgetop Protection Plan. I've written all I plan to on that today. Here's a copy of the MPC's plan.

Until tomorrow . . . .

Hillside plan and steep concerns

I really don't like explaining myself, but I don't like to be rude, either. I got an email this morning about I story I wrote today. I'll share it here, although I won't include the MPC commissioner's name. I will, however, say this person did in fact post a similar note on the KNS message board, so I feel that it's note unfair to republish the email here. On a side not, the county commission will hold a workshop tomorrow at 4 p.m. At the City County Building to further discuss the plan designed to protect the area's hillsides and ridgetops.

Here is the email (my response follows):

Mr. Donila,

As an MPC Commissioner and a supporter of the Hillside/Ridgetop Plan, I have been following the KNS coverage of this closely. And I’ve been VERY disappointed. There have been story after story about the opposition (including the new story in today’s edition), but still no story explaining just what the plan IS. How do you expect your readers to evaluate the positions of either the opponents or the supporters if you don’t explain what the plan is and is not, and identify which objections are completely bogus (as in, not in the plan) versus those that have merit?

I talked to (editorial writer) Scott Barker about this six weeks ago and he talked to (Metro Editor) John North about it, but nothing ever happened. Two weeks ago I called John North myself and left a voice mail.He never called me back, but after the 2/10 MPC meeting (KNS business writer) Ed Marcum came up to me and told me he would be working on a story about plan content. However, as of Friday 2/18 neither Joe Hultquist nor Tony Norman had been interviewed by Mr. Marcum, so I’m assuming that story isn’t happening.

I’ve lost count of how many stories on the opposition to this plan you guys have published, yet you failed to even print a story about the MPC passage of the plan by a vote of 11-2 in Dec. But another story focusing on opposition the day before the Commission workshop - THAT you’ll print.

I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but I’m beginning to think the KNS wants the plan to fail and that’s bleeding over into the news coverage. At the very least, reporters are letting the opponents shape the coverage.

I’m not asking for a story focusing on all the people and organizations that support the plan, although that would be nice.All I want is a story simply explaining what the plan does and does not, is and is not. It might not be as easy as getting developers to whine to you, but it would do your readers a big service.

Here is my response:

Good morning.

I can speak only on the story I wrote today, but I hope we can agree to disagree.

I'll try to address each of your points as best I can.

I feel we explained what the plan is. In addition to running a box with the story in today's paper that had some “details,” we also ran a resignation letter AND we linked to the MPC plan. Further, I included the following graphs in the story:

“The proposed guidelines are designed to protect the aesthetics and deal with water quality, erosion and flooding. A joint 23-member city-county task force began developing them in March 2008 after the Knoxville Utilities Board built a water tower across Fort Loudoun Lake from downtown.

The plan, which could have an impact on a third of the county, restricts development on slopes beginning at 15 degrees and gets more restrictive as slopes get steeper.”

I feel by including the information (the plan, the box, the resignation letter and touching on the plan and why it exists) we have done a good job at explaining the plan.

Regarding Mr. Barker and Mr. North. I would try calling them again. Both take a ton of calls every day, so it's possible you were overlooked. Also, two weeks ago John was out of town.

Regarding Ed Marcum. I can't speak to that. I don't know what Ed is working on.

On a side note, it has bean reported that the MPC passed the plan. Regardless, it's not an issue because I was reporting that it's now headed to the commission and the council, which therefore means the plan was passed.

As far as focusing on the opposition. My first phone call was to Tony Norman (a plan supporter). He started focusing on the opposition. Not me. With that said, I quoted three supporters – Tony, Lisa and Carberrry. I quoted two opponents. I also quoted Mike Hammond and Dean Rice, but neither had an opinion.

Additionally, the focus of this story is not to explain the plan detail by detail, but rather to let people know that there is a commission workshop to discuss it, and to let the residents get engaged in these discussion. Also, a big part of this – whether you agree or not – it the request by some to have letters mailed to the property owners. That is an issue that will be debated in the upcoming weeks, possibly months. The commissioners are weighing in on this proposal as is the mayor's office.

Again, I hope this helps and we can agree to disagree. There's no conspiracy in the news coverage. I do not own property that would be affected under the plan. I don't have a dog in this fight.

Please feel free to call me.

Thanks,

Mike Donila

I am not sure what more the letter writer wanted. I hope I answered the person's questions. If not, perhaps the county commission will. This is a hot issue right now, so public discussion is always encouraged.