There has been an accusation made that selling bonds to raise money to make needed improvements in the county's water systems is tantamount to consolidating the systems' finances, something county commissioners rejected.
County staff requested that all the water systems be combined for coverage of debt payments to avoid issuing a bond for each of the six water companies.
In her written report to commissioners, Comptroller Claudette Springmeyer said combining the water systems for coverage purposes will reduce the cost of issuing the bonds.
Commissioners may well save money by consolidating the bond, but there is a question why the change in the ordinance isn't going through the traditional two readings.
The line "providing for the adoption as if an emergency exists" is a red flag for anyone who's scanning the agenda, particularly when the very same ordinance with the same language appeared on the commission agenda of July 15.
We have to ask if it was OK to delay the items a meeting, which is what happened last month, why isn't it OK to give them a first and second reading, going through the process established by state law?
Approving an ordinance change that includes more than 100 pages of documentation in a manner that circumvents the traditional means makes people question the county's motives.
The county should reserve this process for instances where an emergency actually exists.
