Why Does Salisbury Need a Sewer Rate Hike? …
July 10, 2007 by Cato
Filed under Fiscal Policy, Maryland, Salisbury Politics, Taxes
… And why is Salisbury borrowing money to reimburse developers for projects that they haven’t even built yet?
Monday’s Salisbury City Council meeting proved that Councilwoman Debbie Campbell doesn’t need to be present for either Mayor Barrie Tilghman or City Administrator John Pick to make fools of themselves. Rookie Councilwoman Terry Cohen handled them both just fine.
Ms. Cohen had a raft of questions regarding the 10% increase in city and water rates.
Since the new city water meters are supposed to be more accurate, did the Tilghman administration take that into account when asking for the rate hike? After about three minutes from both Pick and the Mayor the answer seemed to be NO. Why bother, let the citizens pay!
What about the Marley Manor lift station? It seems that certain developers don’t want to hook up to it and share in the cost. John Pick really thought he had Ms. Cohen on that one. “They haven’t even built the lift station yet?”
Well, Terry demanded an answer to the question that many of us have been asking for some time. Why did Barrie Tilghman push through a developer reimbursement bond ordinance (for Rinnier Development – the Marley Manor developers) through the city council earlier this year if the project isn’t complete? This begs a series of other questions as well.
The city could borrow money in smaller increments, and at a lower cost, through the Maryland state underwriting pool. Why don’t they? Because Barrie Tilghman has some bizarre need borrow large chunks of cash and then sit on it. The state pool demands that the money be spent in a timely fashion. This is equivalent to you borrowing the money a house in January and then deciding to move in next November, or three years later!
The response from DIS Director Pam Oland and the Mayor was that they were earning interest on the money. SO WHAT! IRS regs prohibit them from making a profit on tax-exempt borrowings and I seriously doubt that the great minds of the Tilghman administration are any more capable of breaking even on this deal that they are of curtailing city spending (or getting an audit done on time for that matter).
Don’t worry. The taxpayers are picking up the tab.
Of course it could also mean that money being borrowed for one purpose is being used for something that it wasn’t intended for. ???????????
Technorati Tags: Salisbury, politics, salisbury politics, salisburypolitics, John Pick, JohnPick, BarrieTilghman, Barrie Tilghman, Terry Cohen, TerryCohen, fiscal policy, fiscalpolicy, taxation
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sphere: Related Content
“Of course it could also mean that money being borrowed for one purpose is being used for something that it wasn’t intended for. ???????????”
Nawwwwwwwwwwwww!
Couldn’t be!
And what did that goofy Shanie bring to the discussion last night: she let us all know that she is doin’ her part by not flushing after every use! That’s a real good contribution to our dilemma, Shanie. Typical of her intellect.
Makin’ a list checkin’ it twice gonna fing out
who’s switchin’ the price. SP is comin’ to town
SP is comin’to town.
The really important question is how much more will the rates going need to be increased to fund the debt for upgrade/expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Barrie Tilghman should be able to answer that question now that the contract is in place and the costs are predictable with reasonable certainty (assuming no shenanigans in the process).
The main purpose (and most of the expense) is for increased capacity to serve new development. With that way down, the City’s fees on new homes, etc., will also be lower (remember what was said a couple months ago during the budget debacle), so it will be necessary to generate more revenue from the comsumption charges. Higher sewer and water rates — and a higher property tax rate, too — are dead ahead, but Barrie doesn’t want to talk about that.
And Mr. Pick gave yet another non-answer to the query about the 10% increase in water use registered by the new meters, saying that they didn’t have a way of measuring it, that they relied just on the revenue stats. Just look at the water bills and compare them to the histories of water use for those properties. Duh!
8200 meters replaced with 1700 to go. The scrap value of the old meters (at $1.30 per pound and a conservative guess at a weight each of ten pounds each)is about $128,000. Mr. Pick says that the contractors were allowed to salvage these meters as part of the contract price. Did they assign a dollar amount to this as part of the negotiation, or was it a “gift” to the contractor? More investigation of this is needed to determine the true cost to taxpayers for the new meter installation. Anyone feeling up to a bit of sleuthing?
Salisbury’s water supply is scheduled for an upgrade, and that expense will have to be shouldered by the taxpayer, in addition to the TIF for the Old Mall redevelopers, as well as the waste-water treatment improvements. We need to demand an accounting of the entire system and costs to meet growth: supply and effluent both. Wastewater has received most of the attention in Salisbury because the flawed system is most evident. But a failure in the supply will be just as disastrous, and it’s a possibility.
One might be forgiven for thinking that Salisbury is deliberately being run into the ground, by the Mayor and her allies on the Council. None of the financial gifts to developers make sense unless they are interpreted in the most damning light. The “elephant in the living room” is the Old Mall TIF: a promise of a highly inappropriate TIF to delinquent property owners who will now tie Salisbury up in the Circuit Court. It really is pressing to know exactly who are the LLC members involved in every property now received Salisbury taxpayer subsidies. It’s the sane thing to ask for this, Mrs Smith’s opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Do what Shannie does, “If it’s yellow, leave it for the next fellow, if it’s brown, flush it down.” Phew
Above is Salisbury’s new slogan, “If it’s yellow, leave it for the next fellow, if it’s brown, flush it down.”
The elephant in the livingroom is the Old Mall TIF, highly inappropriate given the delinquency of the owners in demolishing their hazardous buildings. Also given that they are about to tie SBY up in Circuit Court fighting the demolition fines. I imagine that this time the City will choose not to fight the appeal.
The money intended for the $15 million TIF should be earmarked for the coming upgrade to the water supply. People know about the problems with the effluent, but those problems may inadvertently be solved by the water failure we are courting: no influx, no effluent. Simple.
I wouldn’t call Terry Cohen a “Rookie,” more like a good “Free agent” acquisition : )