THE CITY OF FREDERICK
101 NORTH COURT STREET
FREDERICK, MARYLAND 21701
UTILITY COMMITTEE
Minutes
9:00 a.m.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005, City Hall - Room 216
Aldermen Present: Alderman Bill Hall (Chairman), Alderwoman Marcia Hall.
City Staff Present: Saundra Nickols, City Attorney; John Leisenring, Chief Financial Officer; Thomas Davis, Manager – Utilities Planning-Engineering Department; Randy Connatser, Deputy Director of Public Works; Keith Brown, Water Superintendent; Fred Eisenhart, Director of Public Works; Sarah Stamper, Engineering Department Secretary.
Citizens/Representatives Present: Mr. Thomas Summers, VFW; Roy Whitehouse and Kenneth Parker, First Baptist Church of Frederick.
Alderman Hall continued approval of the minutes, as Alderwoman Marcia Hall was not present at the last meeting and could not vote on the minutes.
Item 2: Discussion of a request by VFW Post #3285 VFW Country Club to allow them to continue filling their swimming pool with well water, and a discharge permit.
Mr. Brown indicated that
his concern was that the church may need a permit from the State for discharge
of pool water onto the ground. In
addition, he thought that Gary Remsburg, Plumbing Inspector, had questions
about the cross connections. The City
code indicates that once the City runs water and sewer utilities in front of a
property, that property must hookup to City utilities.
Mr. Eisenhart stated that
he thinks there is a provision in the City Charter for the property to use its
well.
Ms. Nickols agreed to be
the lead person to followup with this project.
Alderwoman Marcia Hall
moved to recommend that this item go before the Mayor and Board for
determination, if necessary, to use the well water for the pool. Alderman Hall seconded the motion.
Mr. Summers asked if he
should appear before the Mayor and Board when the item is presented. Alderman Hall advised Mr. Summers to attend
the Mayor and Board Meeting.
Mr. Summers noted that he
had been contacted by Mr.Tim Keepers of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant
regarding using the gray water for the golf course.
Mr. Eisenhart stated that
the VFW would have to provide (pay for) the pipeline.
Item 3. Continued discussion regarding First Baptist Church and Municipal Water Source in Exchange for Access to City Sewer System.
Alderman Hall stated that
the City does not want to absorb any of the cost for this project.
Mr. Leisenring stated
that there had been no change in numbers. The analysis shows a deficit to the sewer and water fund. General fund money is not used to subsidize
the water and sewer fund. Residential
development is expected to create revenue on the general fund, but not a cost
to the water and sewer fund. His recommendation
to deny this project has not changed.
Mr. Whitehouse claims
there will be a $234,000 winfall from 70% of the impact fee from the hookups of
the 62 homes and the church. It will be
a positive income for 25 years. He is
asking Mr. Leisenring to show his computations indicating a negative number to
the water and sewer fund. Over a period
of 20 years there will be a $2 to 3,000 income to the general fund with the
water and sewer fund standing on its own.
He wants Mr. Leisenring to show the calculations showing a negative cash
flow to the water and sewer fund.
Mr. Leisenring responded
that the analysis provided by the applicant, and which was discussed at the
last meeting showed a negative in the water and sewer fund. The numbers have not changed.
Mr. Whitehouse said that
the church has provided an analysis with the calculations as requested by the
committee.
Alderman Hall questioned
if the numbers issue was “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Mr. Leisenring responded that in his opinion, it was.
Mr. Eisenhart stated that
the proposal would allow a set number of homes to be developed a bit sooner
than from the Potomac Water Agreement with the County. At best, if the numbers are correct, it
gives a marginal return (water provided 1 or 2 years sooner). The City will have water service to that
area in a few years anyway. The real
issue is if the City wants to allow setting the precedent of extending services
to the County for issues other than health issues. He feels the project is detrimental to the City as it goes
against the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Water and Sewer Master
Plan.
Alderwoman Hall stated
that when the City had requests for water service due to failing wells, the
policy from the State was that once the City supplied water; the City couldn’t
withdraw from supplying water. If a
well fails, the City must then supply water.
She was at the meeting when a booster system in that area was voted
down. She feels that the City has
enough of a problem with water without providing water service outside of the
City limits. She knows people who live
in the area (Eastview) with failing wells.
If the church property were annexed, she feels it would be a different
issue. This is not a health emergency.
Mr. Whitehouse noted that
the church is not opposed to annexing into the City.
Mr. Davis stated that it
is unknown what amount of allocatable water will be permitted by MDE for the
well, but the numbers being discussed are based upon the assumption of a set
amount of water being supplied from the well.
This project also is a matter of policy regarding how the City manages
water. In the revision of the City’s
Water Master Plan (to the year 2040) there is no provision for a proliferation
of small wells. The area in question is
not slated for future annexations. He
recommends a decision be made on this project.
Mr. Eisenhart stated that
the church must invest quite a bit of money, before they can request a permit
from MDE for allocatable water.
Mr. Whitehouse stated
that a 72 hour pump test must be performed before MDE would issue a
permit. At least 5 or 6 test wells
would have to be monitored in the community.
The well came in at 30 gallons per minute. The financial analysis being discussed is based on ˝ that amount
of water for the 62 homes and the church property. He noted that according to a quote in the Frederick News Post
which states that the Comprehensive Plan predicts that the population within
the City will double by the year 2025.
If that is correct, water from the Potomac agreement will not supply
enough water. The agreement with the
County is not assured. The church
project supplies water. The City will
always be looking for water sources.
Mr. Whitehouse responded
to Alderwoman Hall’s comment about wells drying up in the proposed area by
stating that the church would be agreeable to put into the legal documents a
stipulation that if the well for the project dries up, the Church will not look
to the City to provide water.
Alderman Hall stated that
if the well for the church dries up, water is not available from the project
for the 62 homes either.
Mr. Eisenhart stated his
belief that regardless of what agreement the City and Church makes, if the well
dried up, MDE would step in and mandate that the City provide water.
Alderman Hall feels that
the committee and the church representatives are at an impasse. He noted that the Utility Committee is an
advisory board only. He stated that the
church has two options: 1. Go before the current Mayor and Board of Aldermen
for a decision. 2. Wait until January when the next
administration is in place, and go before the new Mayor and Board of Aldermen
for a decision.
Mr. Parker feels that the
church has met all the requirements posed by the committee.
Mr. Eisenhart stated that
the church has submitted financial figures.
However, interpretations of the analysis vary.
Mr. Whitehouse stated
that he feels that the church was led to believe that the outcome of the
decision was based on the economic analysis.
The City should have to show that the economic analysis is flawed. Alderwoman Ramsburg stated that it was all
about taxes. He feels the church has
met every specified requirement and that the City (committee) keeps changing
the rules.
Alderman Hall agreed in
part. However, like it or not, setting
a precedent plays a big part in this project.
Money is not the only factor.
The church can take the issue before the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for
a final decision.
Mr. Whitehouse asked if
he could seek a decision by the counsel of the church and respond back.
Alderman Hall agreed.
Ms. Nickols asked for
clarification and stated that NO recommendation has been rendered from the
Utility Committee.
Alderman Hall stated that
NO recommendation was made by the Utility Committee.
Item 4: Discussion of a request by Nextel for a wireless telecommunications facility on city-owned property.
The applicant had emailed
Alderman Hall and requested a continuance until the December 14, 2005
meeting.
There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.