The County Council of Wicomico County, Maryland met in
Executive Session on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 at 10:00 a.m., Flanders Rooms,
Council members Anthony Sarbanes, Charles R. Dashiell, Jr., Edward T. Taylor, Stevie Prettyman, Gail M. Bartkovich, Marvin R. Long and Larry W. Dodd were in attendance.
Mr. Sarbanes brought the meeting to order. On motion of Mr. Dashiell, second by
Mr. Long, the Minutes of December 20, 2005 was approved as amended.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR
Theodore E. Shea, II, submitted the following items of business:
Mr. Taylor, second by Mr. Long, Council unanimously agreed to provide a formal Letter of Support.
CERT Training: During a recent work session, Council was briefed by Emergency Services personnel on the proposed Citizens Emergency Response Training program.
Today, at the request of Council member Dodd, Doug Jones and Ed Werkheiser, Emergency Management, gave a brief overview of the program, explaining that while 30 to 40 individuals are interested in participating, a volunteer Coordinator is needed to conduct training; this position requires Council authorization. Mr. Dodd thanked them for the overview and motioned to approve the request. Mr. Taylor provided a second to the motion, which was unanimously approved.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Patricia B. Petersen, Director, provided the Contingency Report, which reflects no change from the December 20, 2005 report of $8,200 used and a balance of $966,800.
As a matter of information, Council is advised that an Internal Revenue Service is performing a payroll audit and has found certain items that they believe should be changed; however, she is in disagreement with their assessment. This may result in a potential liability of $20,000 for the County and Council will continue to be apprised of the outcome. Mrs. Prettyman asked when Council would actually receive the completed independent audit, to which Mrs. Petersen replied that the document should be ready for presentation at the next Council meeting (January17).
Mrs. Prettyman also remarked that in November, she had requested an analysis regarding revenue lost due to the revenue cap. Mrs. Petersen responded that she had sent an email to Ms. Prettyman and Mr. Taylor (who had also requested that information) that she was
unable to determine an analysis method that would produce the information in a format that provided consistent information. For example, the result of such an analysis is based on the approach used; basing it on actual figures or budget estimates, the result could vary between $36 million and $46 million in lost revenue. In addition, an analysis using actual figures for fiscal years ended would reflect neither numbers that could “tie” into audit figures (unless one had a comprehensive understanding of the document) nor mathematically reproducible figures (i.e., you can't multiply the tax rate times the assessable base and get tax revenue because of adjustments from the State). Therefore, the end result of such a comparison could be confusing or misleading to the general public. Mrs. Prettyman then asked how the County would know where it stands. Mr. Long asked Mrs. Petersen if she could generate a Lost Revenue Report based on certain assumptions clearly defined in the report; Mrs. Petersen responded affirmatively, stating that a report covering the period 2002 to present would be prepared once the fiscal year 2005 audit was complete but cautioned it would only be one answer and other assumptions would yield a different result.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
P.
Paving Schedule: Mr. Sharma reviewed a comprehensive proposed road paving schedules for fiscal year 2005-2006, stating that there are budgeted funds to complete only one-fourth of the work that should be done. The breakdown is as follows:
Black Top Schedule reflects an actual need of $4.6 million, but paving projects have been reduced to expenditures of approximately $1.087 million.
The Chip Seal Schedule reflects that $599,741 is budgeted for this procedure.
Slurry Seal Schedules: The Department of Public Works has no funds within its current budget to meet the $230,000 cost of this treatment. Mr. Sharma further stated that the Roads Division has approximately $744,000 in its reserve fund and is requesting Council’s permission to utilize $230,000 to fund the treatment for about thirteen miles of road in the County. He also asked Council to consider appropriating more money during the next budget process. On motion of Mrs. Prettyman, second by Mr. Long, Council unanimously approved use of reserve funds in the amount of $230,000 as requested.
Mr. Sharma told Council that the department has diligently
sought a dredge spoil site for the proposed dredging of the
it is doubtful that an agreement
could be reached before the deadline. Another potential site would also be
pursued. In the interim, Mr. Sharma
plans to meet with
is ideally located, since it lies
within the preferred 1.5-2 mile distance of the dredge site. Mr. Sharma reasoned that since there are no
plans to develop the parcel, the property could ultimately be returned to a
condition suitable for a park site. It
should be noted that the referenced land was purchased in part, with Program
Open Space funds. Edgar Baker County Attorney, must research to determine whether
there are any State restrictions in using the property as a dredge spoil site.
Following Council discussion, Mr. Dodd motioned that if the
Mr. Sharma should pursue naming the County property as a suitable dredge spoil site to meet the Army Corps of Engineers’ deadline. Following brief discussion,
Mr. Dodd motioned to proceed with the suggested plan, if there are no legal restrictions barring its use as a spoil site. Mr. Long asked Mr. Sharma if time had permitted, would he have preferred to pursue the proposed site near the Red Roost property. Mr. Sharma responded affirmatively, stating he would still pursue other sites for future projects.
Mr. Long then asked Mr. Dodd if he would accept an amendment to the motion, to which Mr. Dodd agreed. Mr. Long then asked the motion to include that Mr. Sharma is authorized to pursue additional sites for future use. The amended motion was unanimously approved by Council. There was additional discussion as to the merit of addressing the option of overboard disposal with the Army Corps of Engineers for future projects.
On a final note, Mr. Sharma reported that ENGENCO, the company contracted to utilize methane gas produced at the Landfill, would be receiving its permit from the Public Service Commission soon; the company hopes to begin construction of its facility in February and have the plant operating by June. This operation would generate
$50,000 to $100,000 annual revenue for the County, while heating approximately
5,000 homes.
The Executive Session was recessed until 11:00 a.m.
Executive Session was reconvened at 11:00 a.m. Edgar A. Baker, Jr., County Attorney, conducted a public hearing, whereby the County Council proposes to grant to the City of Salisbury, a Deed of Easement for the construction, repair, maintenance and inspection and/or removal of a permanent and perpetual bike path across a strip of land having an approximate width of fifteen feet, running parallel to the North East Collector Road
(
Mr. Sharma stated the City has already a built a portion of
the bike path up to
President Sarbanes called for and received the following public comments:
Newell “Chip” Messick, Salisbury City Public Works, stated the City is currently working with the State Highway Administration to design the remainder of the bike path.
One design would require the removal/relocation of an existing berm and fence near Route 50, which is not the most desirable solution, since the bike path would be in close proximity to the collector road. The City would prefer to see the remainder of the bike path constructed to allow access through Nick Meyer Park. This provides bike path access to the area neighborhoods, connects with existing greenways and is safer for all users. City Council member Gary Comegys also voiced his support for constructing the remaining path through the park, reiterating Mr. Messick’s comments.
Council comments from Mrs. Bartkovich and Mrs. Prettyman reiterated their concerns for certain safety issues for residents as well as bikers, both stating that the existing fencing and berm should remain. Mr. Dodd expressed his support for the bike path and encouraged the City and County to work together to find a safe and desirable solution.
On motion of Mr. Long, second by Mr. Taylor, Council unanimously approved the Deed of Easement for the permanent bike path. The public hearing was concluded.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Mr. Sarbanes again announced the public hearing for the FY
2007-2011 Capital Improvements Program/Budget, to be conducted Tuesday, January
17, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., Flanders Rooms,
Mr. Long wished to acknowledge the recent retirement of Frank Buob and to publicly thank him for his assistance with the new Pittsville WILL site of the Public Library.
Mrs. Prettyman asked Mr. Shea for an update on the work release facility. Mr. Shea stated that work continues on required modifications to the building, primarily to accommodate visitation. When asked, Mr. Shea estimates that the facility would be
in operation by the end of the
month. Mrs. Prettyman expressed her
disappointment at the delays. Mrs.
Bartkovich stated she had not seen much activity during a recent visit and
asked if the County anticipates that all capital funds would be utilize for the modifications; Mr. Shea responded
affirmatively. Mr. Long suggested that
Council find an alternative name, rather referring to it as the former
Mr. Taylor added that while there have been delays in making the facility operational, once completed, ten additional inmates would be housed and progress is being made.
Mr. Dodd acknowledged City Council members Gary Comegys and Debbie Campbell, thanking them and the public for attending today’s meeting.
Mrs. Prettyman questioned the need to hold a closed work session since the issue was discussed in the local newspaper. Mr. Baker reiterated that the discussion would involve an ongoing contract negotiation.
The meeting was then adjourned.
______________________________________
Anthony Sarbanes, President
______________________________________
Charles R. Dashiell, Jr., Vice President
______________________________________
Edward T. Taylor, District 1
______________________________________
Stevie Prettyman, District 2
______________________________________
Gail M. Bartkovich, District 3
______________________________________
Marvin R. Long, District 4
______________________________________
Larry W. Dodd, District 5
___________________________
Theodore E. Shea, II
Administrative Director