A second public dialogue meeting on the Salisbury Safe Streets anti-crime legislation package is set for Tuesday, October 12, 6:30 p.m., in the training room of Fire Station 16 Headquarters on Cypress Street, Salisbury City Council Members Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen announced today.
After a packed-house public meeting on the proposals was held September 15 in council chambers downtown, the two officials chose a site with more seating capacity and accessibility to the Westside, with a different week night to accommodate additional members of the public.
“In the wake of this week’s shooting spree, it is vital that we keep public engagement moving forward on these and related issues,” Cohen said. “Some of this legislation disappeared four years ago, and our police officers are furloughed while lesser priorities are funded. The public has a key role in overcoming these impasses.”
“Our previous meeting showed that Salisbury can have a productive dialogue about tough issues,” Campbell stated. “We received input and questions from a variety of stakeholders, so this meeting on October 12 will give us an opportunity to address those matters and allow others to weigh in when they couldn’t due to the size of the crowd.”
As reported in the Daily Times, local landlords dominated the first meeting. A show of hands among the landlords, tenants, homeowners and students in attendance indicated that landlords as a whole opposed the package in its entirety, while most city residents either supported the entire package or supported it in part.
Campbell and Cohen said they would soon release details of the format for this meeting to ensure that the process takes a forward direction and the public benefits from accurate information. In the meantime, they again encouraged the public to read the actual text of the anti-crime proposals, which address one segment of crime reduction through better housing practices and property management.
The legislation can be found under the link “Neighborhood Legislation Pkg” on the city website homepage at left, www.ci.salisbury.md.us, and on the website the two council members share, www.OnYourSideSBY.blogspot.com. Hard copies can be obtained by calling the city clerk’s office at 410-548-3140.
A three-hour audio recording of the first public dialogue meeting is available for free download or online listening from Campbell and Cohen’s website, or on CD from the city clerk’s office for $5, which covers the office’s cost of production. For additional questions or comments, contact Debbie Cambpell, 410-860-0893 and debbiescampbell@comcast.net, or Terry Cohen, 410-845-0296 and Terry@TerryCohen.com.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
2010 Safe Streets Neighborhood Legislative Act
By Terry E. Cohen
On Monday, August 2, 2010, Mayor Jim Ireton released a package of legislation as part of the Maryland Safe Streets Program crime initiative, a partnership with the State of Maryland in which Salisbury became the second city (Annapolis being the first) to become a Maryland Safe Streets City.
My op-ed on the subject appears in today's Daily Times to inform the public about the history of this program and clarify my involvement. Later this week, I will repost that op-ed.
For now, I think it is most important that citizens have access to the actual proposals themselves. In the coming weeks, posts will be made here to clarify the process, correct misconceptions of the public and media, and stimulate productive debate.
Six items are new. The seventh is actually existing code that the mayor intends to "re-activate" through administrative enforcement. You can click the links in this post to view the documents now or download them for later reference. Note: the ordinance names may vary slightly in different media. Descriptive names are used here.
- Repeated Calls for Service
- Crime-free Lease Addendum
- Tenants' Rights
- Equitable Relief from Prostitution
- Amend BZA Procedures
- Amortization of Nonconforming Uses
- Periodic Area Search (current code to be "re-activated")
For those who checked this site earlier, thank you for your patience while we resolved uploader problems.
On Monday, August 2, 2010, Mayor Jim Ireton released a package of legislation as part of the Maryland Safe Streets Program crime initiative, a partnership with the State of Maryland in which Salisbury became the second city (Annapolis being the first) to become a Maryland Safe Streets City.
My op-ed on the subject appears in today's Daily Times to inform the public about the history of this program and clarify my involvement. Later this week, I will repost that op-ed.
For now, I think it is most important that citizens have access to the actual proposals themselves. In the coming weeks, posts will be made here to clarify the process, correct misconceptions of the public and media, and stimulate productive debate.
Six items are new. The seventh is actually existing code that the mayor intends to "re-activate" through administrative enforcement. You can click the links in this post to view the documents now or download them for later reference. Note: the ordinance names may vary slightly in different media. Descriptive names are used here.
- Repeated Calls for Service
- Crime-free Lease Addendum
- Tenants' Rights
- Equitable Relief from Prostitution
- Amend BZA Procedures
- Amortization of Nonconforming Uses
- Periodic Area Search (current code to be "re-activated")
For those who checked this site earlier, thank you for your patience while we resolved uploader problems.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Important Information About Council Audio Files
By Terry E. Cohen
Some of the most important discussion Salisbury's city council has on any given issue takes place at its work sessions, which are not televised on public access cable channel PAC14 or streamed over the Internet at PAC14.org's website, as are the Monday night legislative sessions. Council Member Campbell and I have suggested to council that work sessions be taped for later broadcast so that the public would have a better understanding of issues, some of which do not make it to the legislative agendas. We did not receive support from any other council member.
In the spirit of compromise and increased transparency, we then suggested that the audio from council sessions be placed on the City website, which is why the audio of each current Monday legislative session is now on the site (thanks to City Clerk Brenda Colegrove and Assistant City Clerk Kim Nichols). However, only the one current legislative session is posted at a time.
After a public input session we held in 2007, we suggested that work session audios also be posted on the City's website. We did not received support from any other council member.
Therefore, when we started this site, we decided that, for the public's information and convenience, it would have links to the audio of these sessions, maintaining a history for as long as space permitted.
The 2010 audio files from May, June, July and August to date have been posted now. As time permits, we will post the previous sessions for 2010.
You can look in the right column of this page, scrolling down to find the link to the session you want. Depending on your own computer's settings, a simple click on a link will allow you to save the file to your computer for later listening and/or allow you to listen to the session of choice immediately with your computer's media playing software.
With the limitations local media have in covering issues, we hope these files will be useful to our citizens when they want to understand more fully what is taking place. With the number of additional work sessions being held, mostly scheduled during City office hours when it is difficult for the majority of the public to attend, we feel this affords the public an opportunity that they may not have had otherwise, at least not without inconvenience or cost to obtain a CD from the city clerk's office.
Please let us know if you have any questions about the information you hear. Thank you for taking time to stay abreast of issues in Salisbury that affect you.
Some of the most important discussion Salisbury's city council has on any given issue takes place at its work sessions, which are not televised on public access cable channel PAC14 or streamed over the Internet at PAC14.org's website, as are the Monday night legislative sessions. Council Member Campbell and I have suggested to council that work sessions be taped for later broadcast so that the public would have a better understanding of issues, some of which do not make it to the legislative agendas. We did not receive support from any other council member.
In the spirit of compromise and increased transparency, we then suggested that the audio from council sessions be placed on the City website, which is why the audio of each current Monday legislative session is now on the site (thanks to City Clerk Brenda Colegrove and Assistant City Clerk Kim Nichols). However, only the one current legislative session is posted at a time.
After a public input session we held in 2007, we suggested that work session audios also be posted on the City's website. We did not received support from any other council member.
Therefore, when we started this site, we decided that, for the public's information and convenience, it would have links to the audio of these sessions, maintaining a history for as long as space permitted.
The 2010 audio files from May, June, July and August to date have been posted now. As time permits, we will post the previous sessions for 2010.
You can look in the right column of this page, scrolling down to find the link to the session you want. Depending on your own computer's settings, a simple click on a link will allow you to save the file to your computer for later listening and/or allow you to listen to the session of choice immediately with your computer's media playing software.
With the limitations local media have in covering issues, we hope these files will be useful to our citizens when they want to understand more fully what is taking place. With the number of additional work sessions being held, mostly scheduled during City office hours when it is difficult for the majority of the public to attend, we feel this affords the public an opportunity that they may not have had otherwise, at least not without inconvenience or cost to obtain a CD from the city clerk's office.
Please let us know if you have any questions about the information you hear. Thank you for taking time to stay abreast of issues in Salisbury that affect you.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Last Comprehensive Plan Meeting, Thurs., May 13, 6 p.m.
COMMUNITY INFORMATION SESSION
2010 Draft City of Salisbury Comprehensive Plan
The City of Salisbury will host a community information session on Thursday, May 13, 2010, starting at 6:00 P.M. in the training center of the Salisbury Fire Headquarters – Station 16, 325 Cypress Street, Salisbury, Maryland.
Over the past 22-months the City has conducted over thirty meetings open to the public to receive feedback about the various elements included in the Draft Plan. As part of the plan adoption process, State agencies had the opportunity to review the Draft Plan. The State review comments received to date are very positive and encouraging. Additionally as part of the plan adoption process, the Salisbury Planning Commission and the City Council have recently held Public Hearings to receive comments from the public. Both hearings had positive outcomes, with appropriate clarification included.
The Mayor and City Council encourage all members of the public with final questions and comments to join staff at this upcoming meeting to learn more about the final draft Plan. Prior to the meeting, we recommend reviewing the latest version of the final draft Plan, which is located on the City of Salisbury website at
http://www.ci.salisbury.md.us/SalisburyComprehensivePlan/tabid/621/Default.aspx.
Copies of the draft Plan are also available to the public in the following locations:
• City of Salisbury, City Clerk’s Office, Government Office Building, Room 305;
• Salisbury – Wicomico County Department of Planning, Zoning & Community Development, Government Office Building, Room 203; and
• The Wicomico Public Library, 122 South Division Street, Salisbury, Maryland.
Public input is an integral component of any comprehensive planning process.
If you are unable to attend the community information session or would like to schedule an individual meeting to learn more about the Draft 2010 City of Salisbury Comprehensive Plan, contact Keith D. Hall, Long-Range/Transportation Planner, Salisbury – Wicomico County Department of Planning, Zoning & Community Development at (410) 548-4860 or via e-mail Khall@wicomicocounty.org.
# # #
2010 Draft City of Salisbury Comprehensive Plan
The City of Salisbury will host a community information session on Thursday, May 13, 2010, starting at 6:00 P.M. in the training center of the Salisbury Fire Headquarters – Station 16, 325 Cypress Street, Salisbury, Maryland.
Over the past 22-months the City has conducted over thirty meetings open to the public to receive feedback about the various elements included in the Draft Plan. As part of the plan adoption process, State agencies had the opportunity to review the Draft Plan. The State review comments received to date are very positive and encouraging. Additionally as part of the plan adoption process, the Salisbury Planning Commission and the City Council have recently held Public Hearings to receive comments from the public. Both hearings had positive outcomes, with appropriate clarification included.
The Mayor and City Council encourage all members of the public with final questions and comments to join staff at this upcoming meeting to learn more about the final draft Plan. Prior to the meeting, we recommend reviewing the latest version of the final draft Plan, which is located on the City of Salisbury website at
http://www.ci.salisbury.md.us/SalisburyComprehensivePlan/tabid/621/Default.aspx.
Copies of the draft Plan are also available to the public in the following locations:
• City of Salisbury, City Clerk’s Office, Government Office Building, Room 305;
• Salisbury – Wicomico County Department of Planning, Zoning & Community Development, Government Office Building, Room 203; and
• The Wicomico Public Library, 122 South Division Street, Salisbury, Maryland.
Public input is an integral component of any comprehensive planning process.
If you are unable to attend the community information session or would like to schedule an individual meeting to learn more about the Draft 2010 City of Salisbury Comprehensive Plan, contact Keith D. Hall, Long-Range/Transportation Planner, Salisbury – Wicomico County Department of Planning, Zoning & Community Development at (410) 548-4860 or via e-mail Khall@wicomicocounty.org.
# # #
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Dump Truck Is Matter of Public Trust
Statement of Terry E. Cohen, Salisbury City Councilmember
Feb. 22, 2010
“The Public Trust”
Updated Feb. 24, 2010
Last Thursday (Feb. 18) in council work session, council and administration discussed the budget amendment needed for the acquisition of a 3-ton dump truck. The question was asked of me what it would take to move the amendment forward.
As of Dec. 21, 2009, I had been willing to move the budget amendments forward. That changed when I learned the truck had or may have been ordered without a budget amendment to legally appropriate the money, despite my having raised the issue the day after the award of bids and before the truck was ordered.
At the Feb. 18 work session, I was personally attacked for insisting that parties responsible be held accountable in some way because I think the City Charter and State Law are both clear about not making contracts for which the money is not appropriated. When I said I felt this had been a violation of the public trust, the response was laughter from a member of the council majority saying, “What public trust?”
To some, this may be a technicality or about one dump truck. It's really about the law and the public trust.
Some say it's just an honest mistake, but the question was raised before the truck was ordered and should have been resolved before the order was placed. A mistake had been made with a second truck as an accounting matter, but this truck is about more than an accounting matter. Expediency is not an excuse. “The ends justify the means” is not part of the sections of law I cite.
This is another instance in a pattern of moving forward without appropriate action being taken first. Without accountability, the pattern will continue, and the checks and balances legally in place to protect the public's money will fail when we most need them to work.
A chronology. the two sections of law and the contract signature page follow or are attached.
Oct. 26, 2009 – Council approves award of bid for dump truck. (An award of bid designates who the contract goes to. It does not authorize a purchase. An appropriation authorizes a purchase.)
Oct. 27, 2009 – Councilmember Cohen sends email to City Administrator John Pick, copied to Mayor Ireton and Director of Internal Services Pam Oland. (“Last night Pam said the S-3 vote was required because the purchase was not budgeted. Do we not, then, need a budget amendment? I realize the lease is already appropriated money, but the money was appropriated for another purpose....Thanks for looking into these questions and whether we need to make a budget amendment promptly....”)
Oct. 27, 2009 – Purchase order is cut.
Oct. 28, 2009 – Contract Agreement date.
Oct. 28 – Nov. 4, 2009 – Contract signatures obtained.
Nov. 6, 2009 – Executed contract and purchase order provided to vendor.
Nov. 16, 2009 – Email from Pick to Cohen that the budget needed to be amended two ways: 1. to accommodate new accounting rules and 2. to move appropriation from Sanitation division to Streets division. (First amendment was to have been presented at Nov. 30, 2009, work session, which was canceled.)
Dec. 21, 2009 – Budget amendment to adjust for accounting change discussed and consensus reached to move forward. However, no mention was made that the trucks were already ordered by those present who had signed the contract.
Jan. 11, 2010 – Budget amendment to adjust for accounting change brought for legislative vote. Cohen asked when the truck was ordered. Oland responded that she did not have the date on hand. Cohen asked if both trucks were ordered together. Oland responded she did not know. Councilmember Debbie Campbell asked, regardless of the date, if the truck had been ordered. Oland replied she did not have the answer to that question. No one present who had signed the contract mentioned that the trucks had already been ordered.
Feb. 12, 2010 – Date of Invoice to City.
Feb. 16, 2010 – Date of Actual Delivery to City (received)
Feb. 17, 2010 – Vehicle Tagged
Maryland Annotated Code Article 31, Section 3.
§ 3. Contracts not authorized by appropriation prohibited. An officer or agent of any county, township or municipal corporation who is charged or entrusted with the construction, improvement or keeping in repair of any building or work of any kind, or with the management or providing for any public institution, shall not make any contract binding or purporting to bind the county, township or municipal corporation to pay any sum of money not previously appropriated for the purpose for which such contract is made, and remaining unexpended, and applicable to such purpose, such officer or agent who wilfully or knowingly makes or participates in making a contract without such appropriation or authority, shall be personally liable thereon, and the county, township or municipal corporation in whose name or behalf the same was made shall be not liable thereon.
§ SC7-29. Overexpenditure forbidden.
No office, department or agency shall during any budget year expend or contract to expend
any money or incur any liability or enter into any contract which by its terms involves the expenditure of money, for any purpose, in excess of the amounts appropriated for that general classification of expenditure pursuant to this Charter. Any contract, verbal or written, made in violation of this Charter shall be null and void. Any officer or employee of the city who shall violate this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall cease to hold his office or employment. Nothing in this section, however, shall prevent the making of contracts or the spending of money for capital improvements to be financed in whole or in part by the issuance of bonds or the making of contracts of lease or for services for a period exceeding the budget year in which such contract is made, when such contract is permitted by law.
[1959 Code, sec. 365. ch. 534, sec. 84] [Renumbered 1-11-99 by Res. No. 629]
Feb. 22, 2010
“The Public Trust”
Updated Feb. 24, 2010
Last Thursday (Feb. 18) in council work session, council and administration discussed the budget amendment needed for the acquisition of a 3-ton dump truck. The question was asked of me what it would take to move the amendment forward.
As of Dec. 21, 2009, I had been willing to move the budget amendments forward. That changed when I learned the truck had or may have been ordered without a budget amendment to legally appropriate the money, despite my having raised the issue the day after the award of bids and before the truck was ordered.
At the Feb. 18 work session, I was personally attacked for insisting that parties responsible be held accountable in some way because I think the City Charter and State Law are both clear about not making contracts for which the money is not appropriated. When I said I felt this had been a violation of the public trust, the response was laughter from a member of the council majority saying, “What public trust?”
To some, this may be a technicality or about one dump truck. It's really about the law and the public trust.
Some say it's just an honest mistake, but the question was raised before the truck was ordered and should have been resolved before the order was placed. A mistake had been made with a second truck as an accounting matter, but this truck is about more than an accounting matter. Expediency is not an excuse. “The ends justify the means” is not part of the sections of law I cite.
This is another instance in a pattern of moving forward without appropriate action being taken first. Without accountability, the pattern will continue, and the checks and balances legally in place to protect the public's money will fail when we most need them to work.
A chronology. the two sections of law and the contract signature page follow or are attached.
Oct. 26, 2009 – Council approves award of bid for dump truck. (An award of bid designates who the contract goes to. It does not authorize a purchase. An appropriation authorizes a purchase.)
Oct. 27, 2009 – Councilmember Cohen sends email to City Administrator John Pick, copied to Mayor Ireton and Director of Internal Services Pam Oland. (“Last night Pam said the S-3 vote was required because the purchase was not budgeted. Do we not, then, need a budget amendment? I realize the lease is already appropriated money, but the money was appropriated for another purpose....Thanks for looking into these questions and whether we need to make a budget amendment promptly....”)
Oct. 27, 2009 – Purchase order is cut.
Oct. 28, 2009 – Contract Agreement date.
Oct. 28 – Nov. 4, 2009 – Contract signatures obtained.
Nov. 6, 2009 – Executed contract and purchase order provided to vendor.
Nov. 16, 2009 – Email from Pick to Cohen that the budget needed to be amended two ways: 1. to accommodate new accounting rules and 2. to move appropriation from Sanitation division to Streets division. (First amendment was to have been presented at Nov. 30, 2009, work session, which was canceled.)
Dec. 21, 2009 – Budget amendment to adjust for accounting change discussed and consensus reached to move forward. However, no mention was made that the trucks were already ordered by those present who had signed the contract.
Jan. 11, 2010 – Budget amendment to adjust for accounting change brought for legislative vote. Cohen asked when the truck was ordered. Oland responded that she did not have the date on hand. Cohen asked if both trucks were ordered together. Oland responded she did not know. Councilmember Debbie Campbell asked, regardless of the date, if the truck had been ordered. Oland replied she did not have the answer to that question. No one present who had signed the contract mentioned that the trucks had already been ordered.
Feb. 12, 2010 – Date of Invoice to City.
Feb. 16, 2010 – Date of Actual Delivery to City (received)
Feb. 17, 2010 – Vehicle Tagged
Maryland Annotated Code Article 31, Section 3.
§ 3. Contracts not authorized by appropriation prohibited. An officer or agent of any county, township or municipal corporation who is charged or entrusted with the construction, improvement or keeping in repair of any building or work of any kind, or with the management or providing for any public institution, shall not make any contract binding or purporting to bind the county, township or municipal corporation to pay any sum of money not previously appropriated for the purpose for which such contract is made, and remaining unexpended, and applicable to such purpose, such officer or agent who wilfully or knowingly makes or participates in making a contract without such appropriation or authority, shall be personally liable thereon, and the county, township or municipal corporation in whose name or behalf the same was made shall be not liable thereon.
§ SC7-29. Overexpenditure forbidden.
No office, department or agency shall during any budget year expend or contract to expend
any money or incur any liability or enter into any contract which by its terms involves the expenditure of money, for any purpose, in excess of the amounts appropriated for that general classification of expenditure pursuant to this Charter. Any contract, verbal or written, made in violation of this Charter shall be null and void. Any officer or employee of the city who shall violate this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall cease to hold his office or employment. Nothing in this section, however, shall prevent the making of contracts or the spending of money for capital improvements to be financed in whole or in part by the issuance of bonds or the making of contracts of lease or for services for a period exceeding the budget year in which such contract is made, when such contract is permitted by law.
[1959 Code, sec. 365. ch. 534, sec. 84] [Renumbered 1-11-99 by Res. No. 629]
Sunday, November 8, 2009
A Fuller Discussion on “The Bricks” – Part 3
Due to illness and travel, posting of the remainder of this series was delayed. We apologize for any inconvenience.
(Editorial Note: Debbie Campbell works for a financial network that funds affordable housing of various economic models throughout the country. Terry Cohen’s prior legislative advocacy efforts included programs focused on increasing economic self-sufficiency of women, families and lower income individuals.)
Below this post are the first two installments that chronicled the timeline of events concerning “The Bricks,” a property in the Church Street area accepted by the city as a donation. A number of citizens have expressed concern that $1.8 million dollars of state money may be spent on less than 10 units of affordable rental housing units and question whether governments should be landlords. Others are concerned about putting more rentals into a neighborhood already distressed by a serious lack of homeownership and job opportunity.
In our efforts to promote meaningful discussion on these issues, rehabilitation of the Bricks has moved forward without what we believe to be the requisite oversight and transparency by elected representatives that citizens expect and deserve. The timeline picks up after the October 6, 2008, work session where consensus was not taken on how to move forward with the Bricks.
October 7, 2008 – Daily Times article reports on October 6, 2008, work session (“Bricks to become temp housing”), erroneously stating that “The City Council agreed that they want to see ‘The Bricks’ turned into temporary housing to prepare low-income renters for homeownership.” No consensus was taken by Council President Smith to that effect, and one council member actually expressed concern about “incubators” (housing intended to prepare residents for the next step in self-sufficient housing).
December 17, 2008 – City administrator emails copies of proposed Bricks RFP and Lease Agreement to council with a request for comments by December 30. (NOTE: The request to supply this information to council was where the October 6, 2008, work session ended, not with a consensus to move the RFP forward. For differing reasons, neither of us had seen the email with the documents. If we had, we would have supplied comments or at least responded that we had none. Either way, it was our belief that Council President Smith would bring the RFP and lease for discussion and consensus prior to any official action, since council had not acted as a body on it yet.
Post December 17, 2008 – We heard nothing for months, but given the long lapses of information to council on the Bricks previously, this did not seem all that unusual. However, come summer, the silence did seem odd and inquiries resumed.
June 12, 2009 – Campbell emails Mayor Ireton and asks for a status report on the Bricks because an update on the Bricks is scheduled for a CSAFE neighborhood meeting. No response was received.
June 25, 2009 - Campbell emails Mayor Ireton again for an update on the Bricks. Mayor Ireton responds he will check with City Administrator John Pick and have him follow up.
August 4, 2009 – Assistant City Administrator Loré Chambers sends email to Council President Smith and Vice President Comegys about mapping revitalization plans for Church, including the Bricks, advising that Homes for America, Inc. is “proceeding with environmental assessment.” Mayor Ireton and City Administrator John Pick are copied on email. Mayor Ireton adds to email and asks that the email thread be copied to council.
August 4, 2009 – Chambers forwards email to three remaining council members, with copies to the mayor and Pick. Campbell sends a “Reply All” email to Chambers requesting that an update on the Bricks be put on a work session agenda. (Smith and Comegys accidentally not included on this email because they were not on recipient list of one sent by Chambers.) Chambers emails reply only to Campbell that she will ask Pick to get the update on an upcoming work session agenda.
August 8, 2009 – Chambers makes update presentation on the Bricks at CSAFE neighborhood meeting.
Post August 8, 2009 – The Bricks does not come to a work session agenda. The next council hears about the Bricks, a request comes in September 25, 2009, to place a resolution on the September 28, 2009, legislative session agenda as an “emergency item” to allow Homes for America to submit a grant application to the state on behalf of the City for funding predevelopment costs on rehabilitating the Bricks.
As you can see from this installment, the summer of 2009 was the first real indication for council as a whole that something was moving with the Bricks and that it was Mayor Ireton who started the information sharing after he received Councilwoman Campbell’s inquiries.
In our next post on the Bricks, we’ll start with the September 25, 2009, request to add the Bricks as an “emergency item.” This was when we learned what had transpired while council as a body received no updates.
(Editorial Note: Debbie Campbell works for a financial network that funds affordable housing of various economic models throughout the country. Terry Cohen’s prior legislative advocacy efforts included programs focused on increasing economic self-sufficiency of women, families and lower income individuals.)
Below this post are the first two installments that chronicled the timeline of events concerning “The Bricks,” a property in the Church Street area accepted by the city as a donation. A number of citizens have expressed concern that $1.8 million dollars of state money may be spent on less than 10 units of affordable rental housing units and question whether governments should be landlords. Others are concerned about putting more rentals into a neighborhood already distressed by a serious lack of homeownership and job opportunity.
In our efforts to promote meaningful discussion on these issues, rehabilitation of the Bricks has moved forward without what we believe to be the requisite oversight and transparency by elected representatives that citizens expect and deserve. The timeline picks up after the October 6, 2008, work session where consensus was not taken on how to move forward with the Bricks.
October 7, 2008 – Daily Times article reports on October 6, 2008, work session (“Bricks to become temp housing”), erroneously stating that “The City Council agreed that they want to see ‘The Bricks’ turned into temporary housing to prepare low-income renters for homeownership.” No consensus was taken by Council President Smith to that effect, and one council member actually expressed concern about “incubators” (housing intended to prepare residents for the next step in self-sufficient housing).
December 17, 2008 – City administrator emails copies of proposed Bricks RFP and Lease Agreement to council with a request for comments by December 30. (NOTE: The request to supply this information to council was where the October 6, 2008, work session ended, not with a consensus to move the RFP forward. For differing reasons, neither of us had seen the email with the documents. If we had, we would have supplied comments or at least responded that we had none. Either way, it was our belief that Council President Smith would bring the RFP and lease for discussion and consensus prior to any official action, since council had not acted as a body on it yet.
Post December 17, 2008 – We heard nothing for months, but given the long lapses of information to council on the Bricks previously, this did not seem all that unusual. However, come summer, the silence did seem odd and inquiries resumed.
June 12, 2009 – Campbell emails Mayor Ireton and asks for a status report on the Bricks because an update on the Bricks is scheduled for a CSAFE neighborhood meeting. No response was received.
June 25, 2009 - Campbell emails Mayor Ireton again for an update on the Bricks. Mayor Ireton responds he will check with City Administrator John Pick and have him follow up.
August 4, 2009 – Assistant City Administrator Loré Chambers sends email to Council President Smith and Vice President Comegys about mapping revitalization plans for Church, including the Bricks, advising that Homes for America, Inc. is “proceeding with environmental assessment.” Mayor Ireton and City Administrator John Pick are copied on email. Mayor Ireton adds to email and asks that the email thread be copied to council.
August 4, 2009 – Chambers forwards email to three remaining council members, with copies to the mayor and Pick. Campbell sends a “Reply All” email to Chambers requesting that an update on the Bricks be put on a work session agenda. (Smith and Comegys accidentally not included on this email because they were not on recipient list of one sent by Chambers.) Chambers emails reply only to Campbell that she will ask Pick to get the update on an upcoming work session agenda.
August 8, 2009 – Chambers makes update presentation on the Bricks at CSAFE neighborhood meeting.
Post August 8, 2009 – The Bricks does not come to a work session agenda. The next council hears about the Bricks, a request comes in September 25, 2009, to place a resolution on the September 28, 2009, legislative session agenda as an “emergency item” to allow Homes for America to submit a grant application to the state on behalf of the City for funding predevelopment costs on rehabilitating the Bricks.
As you can see from this installment, the summer of 2009 was the first real indication for council as a whole that something was moving with the Bricks and that it was Mayor Ireton who started the information sharing after he received Councilwoman Campbell’s inquiries.
In our next post on the Bricks, we’ll start with the September 25, 2009, request to add the Bricks as an “emergency item.” This was when we learned what had transpired while council as a body received no updates.
Monday, November 2, 2009
A Fuller Discussion on “The Bricks” – Part 2
(Editorial Note: Debbie Campbell works for a financial network that funds affordable housing of various economic models throughout the country. Terry Cohen’s prior legislative advocacy efforts included programs focused on increasing economic self-sufficiency of women, families and lower income individuals.)
In our previous post (below) on “The Bricks,” the Church Street area property that the City accepted as a donation, we started a timeline of what was considered in making that acceptance. Although we are both strong supporters of affordable housing, we had a variety of concerns about what was proposed by the Tilghman administration.
This is a building in need of serious rehabilitation in a neighborhood desperately in need of the stability that comes from home ownership and business. What would be its most beneficial use and using what public-private model? What would be the best use of taxpayer dollars and should any be involved? How could we limit or eliminate liability for the City?
In this installment, our timeline picks up in October 2008:
October 6, 2008 – Daily Times pre-work session article
October 6, 2008 – Work session on how to move forward with the Bricks.
Assistant City Administrator Loré Chambers did the presentation and informed us she met with Homes for America, Inc., in May of 2008 for ideas on what to do with the building. (Homes for America, Inc., is a non-profit developer of affordable housing, which has done other projects in Salisbury.)
Mrs. Chambers presented three options to council:
1. Turnkey project turned over to a developer
2. Long-term lease for a company to manage
3. Combination of one and two, similar to Mitchell Landing (the only city-owned affordable housing complex, 24 units started as new construction about 20 years ago).
She covered specifics about the condition of the building and said that the administration wanted council to approve Option 3. (NOTE: Council took no action.)
Homes for America, Inc., provided cost estimates in the range of $1.8 million. Mrs. Chambers said that a representative from the Department of Housing and Community Development had visited the site and felt it was a $2 million project. The building would have to be reconfigured in order to accommodate about 10 units.
The council still had not reached consensus about how to proceed or what the best and highest use of the property would be.
While it was good to learn the costs and ideas associated with the concept the administration was pushing, it drove the focus away from a richer discussion about options for the Bricks. Instead of considering possibilities such as a mixed use of residential and commercial, government use rolling over into private sale, selling outright to a for-profit enterprise or non-profit, etc., the discussion centered around a long-term, city-owned affordable housing complex with a price tag of $1.8 million as if it were an actual proposal.
Although we raised important issues about liability and other logistical considerations, Council President Smith asked Mrs. Chambers if the matter was time-sensitive. Mrs. Chambers said “no” but that the administration wanted to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Campbell said it would be helpful to see the RFP and lease being proposed.
Council President Smith typically takes a straw vote poll to establish if consensus was reached to take a next interim step or to move something forward.
That did not happen.
Smith closed by asking the administration to get the documents back to council and said, “That’ll push it right along.”
In our next post, we’ll pick up the timeline from this point since October 6, 2008 was the last time council met to discuss the Bricks until council learned in late September 2009 that a contract to move ahead with development of “The Bricks” and two change orders had been signed by Mrs. Smith in her capacity as council president.
In our previous post (below) on “The Bricks,” the Church Street area property that the City accepted as a donation, we started a timeline of what was considered in making that acceptance. Although we are both strong supporters of affordable housing, we had a variety of concerns about what was proposed by the Tilghman administration.
This is a building in need of serious rehabilitation in a neighborhood desperately in need of the stability that comes from home ownership and business. What would be its most beneficial use and using what public-private model? What would be the best use of taxpayer dollars and should any be involved? How could we limit or eliminate liability for the City?
In this installment, our timeline picks up in October 2008:
October 6, 2008 – Daily Times pre-work session article
October 6, 2008 – Work session on how to move forward with the Bricks.
Assistant City Administrator Loré Chambers did the presentation and informed us she met with Homes for America, Inc., in May of 2008 for ideas on what to do with the building. (Homes for America, Inc., is a non-profit developer of affordable housing, which has done other projects in Salisbury.)
Mrs. Chambers presented three options to council:
1. Turnkey project turned over to a developer
2. Long-term lease for a company to manage
3. Combination of one and two, similar to Mitchell Landing (the only city-owned affordable housing complex, 24 units started as new construction about 20 years ago).
She covered specifics about the condition of the building and said that the administration wanted council to approve Option 3. (NOTE: Council took no action.)
Homes for America, Inc., provided cost estimates in the range of $1.8 million. Mrs. Chambers said that a representative from the Department of Housing and Community Development had visited the site and felt it was a $2 million project. The building would have to be reconfigured in order to accommodate about 10 units.
The council still had not reached consensus about how to proceed or what the best and highest use of the property would be.
While it was good to learn the costs and ideas associated with the concept the administration was pushing, it drove the focus away from a richer discussion about options for the Bricks. Instead of considering possibilities such as a mixed use of residential and commercial, government use rolling over into private sale, selling outright to a for-profit enterprise or non-profit, etc., the discussion centered around a long-term, city-owned affordable housing complex with a price tag of $1.8 million as if it were an actual proposal.
Although we raised important issues about liability and other logistical considerations, Council President Smith asked Mrs. Chambers if the matter was time-sensitive. Mrs. Chambers said “no” but that the administration wanted to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Campbell said it would be helpful to see the RFP and lease being proposed.
Council President Smith typically takes a straw vote poll to establish if consensus was reached to take a next interim step or to move something forward.
That did not happen.
Smith closed by asking the administration to get the documents back to council and said, “That’ll push it right along.”
In our next post, we’ll pick up the timeline from this point since October 6, 2008 was the last time council met to discuss the Bricks until council learned in late September 2009 that a contract to move ahead with development of “The Bricks” and two change orders had been signed by Mrs. Smith in her capacity as council president.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
A Fuller Discussion on “The Bricks” – Part 1
(Editorial Note: Debbie Campbell works for a financial network that funds affordable housing of various economic models throughout the country. Terry Cohen’s prior legislative advocacy efforts included programs focused on increasing economic self-sufficiency of women, families and lower income individuals.)
As noted in today’s Daily Times, we are presenting a full discussion on “The Bricks” since Op-Eds have been limited to 500 words. The discussion is multi-faceted, so we were only able to touch on a few highlights in the newspaper space allowed.
Our first post on “The Bricks,” a property located at 502 E. Isabella St. (intersection with Church Street) provides some earlier background and timeline information to help citizens understand the discussions about what to do with the property and the context for later events. Because the information is extensive, additional posts will follow either today, tomorrow, or both, to make for more digestible reading.
Both of us are committed to stimulating sustainable affordable housing efforts, as demonstrated in many council discussions, such as ensuring affordable housing needs are addressed in annexation agreements. Like growth, however, how and where affordable housing is developed is critical to its success.
For example, we asked questions about zoning standards in November 2007. The issue of parking for nine apartment units still has not been properly vetted.
Prior to November 2007 – Various discussions, including administration talks with then-property owner Gee Dunsten about property donation and Cathedral of Love about making the building affordable housing (discussions as noted by then-Mayor Tilghman at November 26, 2007 legislative meeting).
November 5, 2007 – Council discusses donation of the Bricks at its work session. General discussion about City’s role in ownership, working with developers and/or non-profit agencies, and zoning questions, including setbacks and parking.
November 26, 2007 – Council unanimously passes Resolution 1598 as amended. The amendment, moved by Campbell and seconded by Cohen, stated that the City “will endeavor to partner with a housing nonprofit for renovation, management and ownership."
The amendment, which opened up options for the City to put the Bricks into an ownership opportunity for a private entity, passed with votes of support from Campbell, Cohen and Smith. Campbell and Cohen raised possibilities of working with Salisbury Neighborhood Housing (SNHS) and/or Habitat for Humanity, either to create an “incubator” for home ownership in the Church Street area or placing it in their ownership for rental or ownership opportunities. (Editorial note: ownership opportunities would include, for example, owner-occupied condo units, with or without commercial space on the first floor.)
Shields and Comegys abstained from voting for the amendment. Shields raised concerns about SNHS, and Comegys said council was there to accept a donation, not discuss what was planned for the building.
April 11, 2008 – Appraisal puts value of the Bricks, now in City ownership, at $227,000.
October 6, 2008 – The Daily Times publishes pre-council work session article, stating that then-Mayor Tilghman said the building could serve as transitional homes for first-time homebuyers who might later move into Habitat for Humanity homes.
(Note: In an email dated September 29, 2009, Assistant City Administrator stated that Habitat does not have an active role in the project. Therefore, it is speculated that individuals from the project might be eligible for home ownership through Habitat or SNHS, but there is no current plan in place nor does there appear to be any meaningful discussions yet held for encouraging that to happen.)
In our next post, we’ll start with the October 6, 2008, work session discussion. Please feel free to call us or email us with any questions using the links and contact information on the right side of this web page.
As noted in today’s Daily Times, we are presenting a full discussion on “The Bricks” since Op-Eds have been limited to 500 words. The discussion is multi-faceted, so we were only able to touch on a few highlights in the newspaper space allowed.
Our first post on “The Bricks,” a property located at 502 E. Isabella St. (intersection with Church Street) provides some earlier background and timeline information to help citizens understand the discussions about what to do with the property and the context for later events. Because the information is extensive, additional posts will follow either today, tomorrow, or both, to make for more digestible reading.
Both of us are committed to stimulating sustainable affordable housing efforts, as demonstrated in many council discussions, such as ensuring affordable housing needs are addressed in annexation agreements. Like growth, however, how and where affordable housing is developed is critical to its success.
For example, we asked questions about zoning standards in November 2007. The issue of parking for nine apartment units still has not been properly vetted.
Prior to November 2007 – Various discussions, including administration talks with then-property owner Gee Dunsten about property donation and Cathedral of Love about making the building affordable housing (discussions as noted by then-Mayor Tilghman at November 26, 2007 legislative meeting).
November 5, 2007 – Council discusses donation of the Bricks at its work session. General discussion about City’s role in ownership, working with developers and/or non-profit agencies, and zoning questions, including setbacks and parking.
November 26, 2007 – Council unanimously passes Resolution 1598 as amended. The amendment, moved by Campbell and seconded by Cohen, stated that the City “will endeavor to partner with a housing nonprofit for renovation, management and ownership."
The amendment, which opened up options for the City to put the Bricks into an ownership opportunity for a private entity, passed with votes of support from Campbell, Cohen and Smith. Campbell and Cohen raised possibilities of working with Salisbury Neighborhood Housing (SNHS) and/or Habitat for Humanity, either to create an “incubator” for home ownership in the Church Street area or placing it in their ownership for rental or ownership opportunities. (Editorial note: ownership opportunities would include, for example, owner-occupied condo units, with or without commercial space on the first floor.)
Shields and Comegys abstained from voting for the amendment. Shields raised concerns about SNHS, and Comegys said council was there to accept a donation, not discuss what was planned for the building.
April 11, 2008 – Appraisal puts value of the Bricks, now in City ownership, at $227,000.
October 6, 2008 – The Daily Times publishes pre-council work session article, stating that then-Mayor Tilghman said the building could serve as transitional homes for first-time homebuyers who might later move into Habitat for Humanity homes.
(Note: In an email dated September 29, 2009, Assistant City Administrator stated that Habitat does not have an active role in the project. Therefore, it is speculated that individuals from the project might be eligible for home ownership through Habitat or SNHS, but there is no current plan in place nor does there appear to be any meaningful discussions yet held for encouraging that to happen.)
In our next post, we’ll start with the October 6, 2008, work session discussion. Please feel free to call us or email us with any questions using the links and contact information on the right side of this web page.
"The Bricks" Information Coming at Noon
In coordination with our Op-Ed in today's Daily Times, we will be posting more information about the Church Street area property known as "The Bricks" at noon today. We apologize for any inconvenience this causes early morning readers.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you for your patience.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Debbie Campbell's Full Comment to the Daily Times
"Against my objections and the caution of countless citizens, the council majority has been determined to borrow and spend for years. They did so with little regard for the burden being placed on the average taxpayer. As an example, millions of dollars in developer reimbursements (subsidies) were paid for with borrowed money - adding the additional expense of interest.
"Meaningful operating cuts that will result in long-term savings need to be
made. At the same time we must maintain our infrastructure and provide
core services at the most efficient level possible. We need to create a 5-year budget forecast to use as a road map and live within our means as a community.
"As the economy rebounds we need to pay down debt and rebuild the financial
strength of the city."
"Meaningful operating cuts that will result in long-term savings need to be
made. At the same time we must maintain our infrastructure and provide
core services at the most efficient level possible. We need to create a 5-year budget forecast to use as a road map and live within our means as a community.
"As the economy rebounds we need to pay down debt and rebuild the financial
strength of the city."
Special Trash Pickup Sept 14 thru Sept 18
This week, on your regular trash pickup day, the city will collect large
items that would normally require paying an additional fee, such as
furniture and the like. No appliances, automotive stuff or construction
waste. To take advantage of this twice yearly offer, Salisbury Public Works
must be notified of your request. Just call (410) 548-3170 and leave a
message before your trash pickup day comes to get on the list. Put your
stuff on the curb the night before and breathe a sigh of relief as it leaves
your life the next morning.
items that would normally require paying an additional fee, such as
furniture and the like. No appliances, automotive stuff or construction
waste. To take advantage of this twice yearly offer, Salisbury Public Works
must be notified of your request. Just call (410) 548-3170 and leave a
message before your trash pickup day comes to get on the list. Put your
stuff on the curb the night before and breathe a sigh of relief as it leaves
your life the next morning.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Debbie Campbell Press Conference
Debbie Campbell held a press conference Thursday, September 10, 2009 in the lobby at the Government Office building.
Debbie Campbell on Bill Reddish Show
Debbie Campbell is interviewed by WICO Morning Show host, Bill Reddish. Hear the interview in it's entirety. Click Here
Thursday, September 10, 2009
COUNCILWOMAN DEBBIE CAMPBELL RESPONDS TO POLITICAL ATTACKS
SALISBURY, MD – Salisbury City Councilwoman Debbie Campbell held a press conference this afternoon to respond to the baseless, manufactured, charges lobbed at her by political detractors:
“In an attempt to put some of this foolishness to rest, I am here today to answer questions regarding this matter. I have decided to stand up for myself and refute the false accusations and half-truths that the Daily Times feels are worthy of multiple front page stories. I am confident that my answers will allow the public to gain a better understanding of the lengths to which some groups will go to avoid honest, civil debate AND to prevent meaningful change for Salisbury and her citizens.”
Campbell responded to false allegations that she was in possession of a surveillance by categorically stating:
“I do not have this surveillance tape in my possession. I have never seen this tape. I do not even know that such a tape exists.”
Campbell attributed these malicious and fabricated attacks to a desire to intimidate her and put a stop to positive change for Salisbury and her citizens:
“Are we getting close enough to substantive, positive change in Salisbury that those who oppose reform have nothing left but to resort to these types of attacks?”
Today, Laura D'Alessandro of the Daily Times contacted Campbell and accused her of lying and criminal conduct. Campbell responded to the allegation:
“According to her (D'Alessandro), Mark Tyler of the Salisbury Police Department claims to have handed over the tape to me. Let me be perfectly clear about this. Mark Tyler never gave me any tape at any time whatsoever. I have not seen the April 3, 2009 memo in which Capt. Tyler allegedly makes the statement, though my attorney has requested a copy from the reporter. Because I have not seen the memo, or heard Capt. Tyler make such a statement, I can only hope that the reporter is mistaken, or has misinterpreted the memo, because it would have very, very serious implications if a member of the police department misrepresented the truth concerning an investigation or official police matter.”
Campbell, serving her second term as a Salisbury council member and representing District 2, was reelected by a 2 – to – 1 margin this past spring. During her tenure on council she has been a relentless advocate for her constituents, particularly in the areas of crime, neighborhood blight, lower taxes, and financial accountability.
To view a copy of Campbell’s prepared remarks as well as the supporting documents, Click Here
“In an attempt to put some of this foolishness to rest, I am here today to answer questions regarding this matter. I have decided to stand up for myself and refute the false accusations and half-truths that the Daily Times feels are worthy of multiple front page stories. I am confident that my answers will allow the public to gain a better understanding of the lengths to which some groups will go to avoid honest, civil debate AND to prevent meaningful change for Salisbury and her citizens.”
Campbell responded to false allegations that she was in possession of a surveillance by categorically stating:
“I do not have this surveillance tape in my possession. I have never seen this tape. I do not even know that such a tape exists.”
Campbell attributed these malicious and fabricated attacks to a desire to intimidate her and put a stop to positive change for Salisbury and her citizens:
“Are we getting close enough to substantive, positive change in Salisbury that those who oppose reform have nothing left but to resort to these types of attacks?”
Today, Laura D'Alessandro of the Daily Times contacted Campbell and accused her of lying and criminal conduct. Campbell responded to the allegation:
“According to her (D'Alessandro), Mark Tyler of the Salisbury Police Department claims to have handed over the tape to me. Let me be perfectly clear about this. Mark Tyler never gave me any tape at any time whatsoever. I have not seen the April 3, 2009 memo in which Capt. Tyler allegedly makes the statement, though my attorney has requested a copy from the reporter. Because I have not seen the memo, or heard Capt. Tyler make such a statement, I can only hope that the reporter is mistaken, or has misinterpreted the memo, because it would have very, very serious implications if a member of the police department misrepresented the truth concerning an investigation or official police matter.”
Campbell, serving her second term as a Salisbury council member and representing District 2, was reelected by a 2 – to – 1 margin this past spring. During her tenure on council she has been a relentless advocate for her constituents, particularly in the areas of crime, neighborhood blight, lower taxes, and financial accountability.
To view a copy of Campbell’s prepared remarks as well as the supporting documents, Click Here
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Cohen on Reddish Monday Aug 17
Terry Cohen will be a guest on The Morning Show with Bill Reddish on WICO 1320 AM at 8:10. Many topics will be covered.
Monday, July 13, 2009
CITY OF SALISBURY CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Meeting #14 July 13, 2009 6:00 p.m.
City/County Government Office Building Room 301
Times shown for agenda items are estimates only.
6:00 p.m. CONVENE – LORD’S PRAYER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:06 p.m. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION – Mayor James Ireton, Jr.
• Recognizing the Maryland Municipal League-Police Executives
Association “2009 TOP COP” award recipient
• Recognizing Wicomico EXILE award recipients
6:15 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA – City Clerk Brenda Colegrove
• June 22, 2009 minutes 1a
• Resolution No. 1801- accepting Maryland Energy Administration EmPower Energy Grant funds 1b
6:20 p.m. AWARD OF BIDS – Internal Services Director Pam Oland 2
6:30 p.m. MANUFACTURING EXEMPTION REQUEST – Internal Services Director Pam Oland
• Delmarva Printing, Inc. 3
7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING – Attorney Skip Cornbrooks 4
• Ordinance No. 2080 - amending Chapter 15.32, Plumbing Standards,
of the Salisbury Municipal Code to adopt fats, oils and grease regulations
7:30 p.m. ORDINANCE – Attorney Skip Cornbrooks 5
• Ordinance No. 2081 - 1st reading – reallocation of 2003 Series A
Infrastructure Bond proceeds
7:45 p.m. RESOLUTIONS – City Administrator John Pick
• Resolution No. 1802 - amending the tax deferral plan awarded to Salisbury Housing II, LLC for Gateway Village, to reflect a change in the name of the ownership entity 6a
• Resolution No. 1803 – accepting funds awarded through a grant from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention for the Church Street/Doverdale CSAFE areas 6b
8:15 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS
8:30 p.m. ADJOURN
Copies of the agenda items are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office
Room 305 - City/County Government Office Building 410-548-3140
or
on the City’s web site
www.ci.salisbury.md.us
The City Council reserves the right to go into closed session as
permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
Proposed agenda items for July 27, 2009 (subject to change)
• Resolution – supporting Community Legacy application (Downtown Master
Plan design)
• Public Hearing – reallocation of bond proceeds Ordinance
• Ordinance No. 2080 – 2nd reading – amending Chapter 15.32, Plumbing Standards,
of the Salisbury Municipal Code to adopt fats, oil and grease regulations
City/County Government Office Building Room 301
Times shown for agenda items are estimates only.
6:00 p.m. CONVENE – LORD’S PRAYER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:04 p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6:06 p.m. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION – Mayor James Ireton, Jr.
• Recognizing the Maryland Municipal League-Police Executives
Association “2009 TOP COP” award recipient
• Recognizing Wicomico EXILE award recipients
6:15 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA – City Clerk Brenda Colegrove
• June 22, 2009 minutes 1a
• Resolution No. 1801- accepting Maryland Energy Administration EmPower Energy Grant funds 1b
6:20 p.m. AWARD OF BIDS – Internal Services Director Pam Oland 2
6:30 p.m. MANUFACTURING EXEMPTION REQUEST – Internal Services Director Pam Oland
• Delmarva Printing, Inc. 3
7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING – Attorney Skip Cornbrooks 4
• Ordinance No. 2080 - amending Chapter 15.32, Plumbing Standards,
of the Salisbury Municipal Code to adopt fats, oils and grease regulations
7:30 p.m. ORDINANCE – Attorney Skip Cornbrooks 5
• Ordinance No. 2081 - 1st reading – reallocation of 2003 Series A
Infrastructure Bond proceeds
7:45 p.m. RESOLUTIONS – City Administrator John Pick
• Resolution No. 1802 - amending the tax deferral plan awarded to Salisbury Housing II, LLC for Gateway Village, to reflect a change in the name of the ownership entity 6a
• Resolution No. 1803 – accepting funds awarded through a grant from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention for the Church Street/Doverdale CSAFE areas 6b
8:15 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS
8:30 p.m. ADJOURN
Copies of the agenda items are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office
Room 305 - City/County Government Office Building 410-548-3140
or
on the City’s web site
www.ci.salisbury.md.us
The City Council reserves the right to go into closed session as
permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland 10-508(a)
Proposed agenda items for July 27, 2009 (subject to change)
• Resolution – supporting Community Legacy application (Downtown Master
Plan design)
• Public Hearing – reallocation of bond proceeds Ordinance
• Ordinance No. 2080 – 2nd reading – amending Chapter 15.32, Plumbing Standards,
of the Salisbury Municipal Code to adopt fats, oil and grease regulations
Friday, July 10, 2009
COHEN CORRECTS AND CLARIFIES DAILY TIMES ARTICLE REGARDING CHIEF WEBSTER
PRESS STATEMENT BY
TERRY E. COHEN, SALISBURY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
JULY 10, 2009
COHEN CORRECTS AND CLARIFIES
DAILY TIMES ARTICLE REGARDING CHIEF WEBSTER
The Daily Times today did another disservice to the citizens of Salisbury by crafting a front-page of alleged news out of the newspaper’s speculation about vague rumors. This drains time, resources and attention away from important work and issues of the City, including crime, blight, and problems at the wastewater treatment plant.
Today, I hope to correct and clarify information about actions of which I have direct knowledge in an effort to maintain the public trust with transparency to the greatest possible degree allowed by law.
First, I did not collaborate with Council Member Debbie Campbell on any document concerning Salisbury Police Chief Alan Webster. I cannot speak for what Councilwoman Campbell may or may not have done, but can only speak for my own actions.
I wrote (under my own signature alone) and hand-delivered to Mayor Jim Ireton a letter reporting concerns raised in a meeting with constituents about crime, law enforcement and quality of life issues. The letter also addressed other citizen complaints. It included issues raised at the Mayor’s Crime Task Force open meeting, which I attended in June. I advised the Daily Times reporter of these facts.
Some details in the letter constitute personnel issues. Therefore, I cannot answer questions about them or provide more about the letter’s contents than the information above.
Second, I simply did my job as an elected representative of the people of Salisbury to inform the mayor of constituent issues and complaints concerning law enforcement and one or more city employees, as well as my own concerns based on this information. An elected representative relaying such concerns to the elected chief executive officer who administers operations and staff is a normal process of government. It is the mayor’s job, by charter, to decide what, if any, action is needed.
I cannot speak for what Mayor Ireton has or has not done with my letter, or will or will not do with it. Mayor Ireton is the only person to whom I’ve provided the letter. Again, by charter, it is his decision what, if anything, is to be done next regarding the information.
In the future, if there is newsworthy action or information concerning personnel or operations that can be provided to the public within the limits of the law, I trust that will be provided. Until then, I look forward to returning my attention to the important job I have of representing the citizens of Salisbury and working on their behalf.
TERRY E. COHEN, SALISBURY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
JULY 10, 2009
COHEN CORRECTS AND CLARIFIES
DAILY TIMES ARTICLE REGARDING CHIEF WEBSTER
The Daily Times today did another disservice to the citizens of Salisbury by crafting a front-page of alleged news out of the newspaper’s speculation about vague rumors. This drains time, resources and attention away from important work and issues of the City, including crime, blight, and problems at the wastewater treatment plant.
Today, I hope to correct and clarify information about actions of which I have direct knowledge in an effort to maintain the public trust with transparency to the greatest possible degree allowed by law.
First, I did not collaborate with Council Member Debbie Campbell on any document concerning Salisbury Police Chief Alan Webster. I cannot speak for what Councilwoman Campbell may or may not have done, but can only speak for my own actions.
I wrote (under my own signature alone) and hand-delivered to Mayor Jim Ireton a letter reporting concerns raised in a meeting with constituents about crime, law enforcement and quality of life issues. The letter also addressed other citizen complaints. It included issues raised at the Mayor’s Crime Task Force open meeting, which I attended in June. I advised the Daily Times reporter of these facts.
Some details in the letter constitute personnel issues. Therefore, I cannot answer questions about them or provide more about the letter’s contents than the information above.
Second, I simply did my job as an elected representative of the people of Salisbury to inform the mayor of constituent issues and complaints concerning law enforcement and one or more city employees, as well as my own concerns based on this information. An elected representative relaying such concerns to the elected chief executive officer who administers operations and staff is a normal process of government. It is the mayor’s job, by charter, to decide what, if any, action is needed.
I cannot speak for what Mayor Ireton has or has not done with my letter, or will or will not do with it. Mayor Ireton is the only person to whom I’ve provided the letter. Again, by charter, it is his decision what, if anything, is to be done next regarding the information.
In the future, if there is newsworthy action or information concerning personnel or operations that can be provided to the public within the limits of the law, I trust that will be provided. Until then, I look forward to returning my attention to the important job I have of representing the citizens of Salisbury and working on their behalf.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Cohen on Reddish
Councilwoman Terry Cohen on WICO 1320 AM at 8:05 a.m. Monday
Terry Cohen will be Bill Reddish's guest on WICO 1320 AM at 8:05 a.m. Monday, June 8.
Cohen was cleared of any ethics violation, as was Councilwoman Debbie Campbell, by the Salisbury Ethics Commission in an opinion released Friday, June 5. The commission held a hearing last Wednesday on a citizen's complaint concerning votes and discussion involving council members' health insurance and found no wrongdoing by either councilwoman in the performance of her official duties.
Terry Cohen will be Bill Reddish's guest on WICO 1320 AM at 8:05 a.m. Monday, June 8.
Cohen was cleared of any ethics violation, as was Councilwoman Debbie Campbell, by the Salisbury Ethics Commission in an opinion released Friday, June 5. The commission held a hearing last Wednesday on a citizen's complaint concerning votes and discussion involving council members' health insurance and found no wrongdoing by either councilwoman in the performance of her official duties.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Budget Detail and Comparison Analysis Available Here
In one of his first acts in office, Mayor Jim Ireton had the large Budget Message book put on the City's website at www.ci.salisbury.md.us.
As before, we are placing the planned year's Budget Detail Report and Next Year/Current Year Analysis reports on our website. These reports offer the level of detail needed for a fuller understanding of the proposed budget.
Please contact us if you have any questions. The public hearing on the FY2010 budget will be held at the Monday, May 11, council legislative session, beginning at 6 p.m., along with the public hearing on the Constant Yield Tax Rate.
Please attend this important meeting so that the council will know your feelings, concerns and questions on the budget that will affect you not only for the year it covers, but also budget years to come.
As before, we are placing the planned year's Budget Detail Report and Next Year/Current Year Analysis reports on our website. These reports offer the level of detail needed for a fuller understanding of the proposed budget.
Please contact us if you have any questions. The public hearing on the FY2010 budget will be held at the Monday, May 11, council legislative session, beginning at 6 p.m., along with the public hearing on the Constant Yield Tax Rate.
Please attend this important meeting so that the council will know your feelings, concerns and questions on the budget that will affect you not only for the year it covers, but also budget years to come.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Today's Work Session Has Meaty Agenda
The briefing packet for today's work session is now up on our site for download. You will find a link on the right side of this page as you scroll down. More discussion will take place on funding Urban Salisbury. Impact fees and the Comprehensive Plan for the City are also on the agenda. Since a special meeting will be held first today at 4:30 p.m. to hear a claim on a water bill, the work session itself will start later, perhaps enabling more of the public to attend.
The meeting will be held in Room 305, the conference room beside the city clerk's office, in the Government Office Building downtown.
The meeting will be held in Room 305, the conference room beside the city clerk's office, in the Government Office Building downtown.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Public Hearing Rescheduled
Public Hearing Rescheduled
The City of Salisbury Department of Community Development wishes to announce that the Public Hearing concerning the draft of the new 5-year Consolidated Plan and the 2009 CDBG Action Plan has been rescheduled. The hearing, which was originally scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers (Room 301) of the City / County Government Office Building, will now be held on Tuesday, May 5, 2009. The time frame and location remain the same.
The draft Consolidated Plan and 2009 CDBG Action Plan are expected to be ready for public review by April 20, 2009. Another notice will issued when the documents are completed and the 30-day public comment period begins.
Contact: Deborah J. Stam
Director of Community Development
(410) 334-3031
April 1, 2009
The City of Salisbury Department of Community Development wishes to announce that the Public Hearing concerning the draft of the new 5-year Consolidated Plan and the 2009 CDBG Action Plan has been rescheduled. The hearing, which was originally scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers (Room 301) of the City / County Government Office Building, will now be held on Tuesday, May 5, 2009. The time frame and location remain the same.
The draft Consolidated Plan and 2009 CDBG Action Plan are expected to be ready for public review by April 20, 2009. Another notice will issued when the documents are completed and the 30-day public comment period begins.
Contact: Deborah J. Stam
Director of Community Development
(410) 334-3031
April 1, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Bill Reddish Asks About The WWTP
During the interview this morning Debbie Campbell was asked unanticipated questions by the host, Bill Reddish. To clarify further, we offer the following for your information.
March 13, 2009 Stover Group Proposal
March 16, 2009 Memo Request Stover
E. Stover's Resume
The e-mails that accompanied the letters are provided as context.
From: John Pick [mailto:jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:55 PM
To: ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman
Cc: Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Pamela Oland; Karen Reddersen; Chip Messick
Subject: WWTP Consultant Services
All – As you are aware we have been experiencing difficulties in getting all of the new components of the waste water treatment pant operating as they were designed. Since the last work session update, we have continued working with the design engineer, the construction manager and the contractor to resolve these problems. We have come to a point, however, that we feel it is necessary to bring in a specialized consultant to help us specifically with the biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes because the design engineer is apparently unable to make any further progress in determining how to fix this problem and because we have a deadline by which this process needs to be working in order for us to be in compliance with our permit. Accordingly, we have retained the services of Dr. Enos Stover, of Oklahoma State University, who is a specialist in this field and who has submitted a proposal to consult with us on this problem. Attached is a copy of the memo from Public Works requesting that we retain Dr. Stover’s services. Attached also are copies of Dr. Stover’s proposal and his resume. Retaining Dr.Stover’s services would qualify as specialized professional services under Section SC 16-3 (3) of the Charter allowing exceptions to competitive bidding for this type of service. Public Works is confident that this cost can be charged to the loan we received from MDE on this project and they are working with MDE to determine if it qualifies for grant funds. As you can see, Dr. Stover estimates this work to cost approximately $20,000. John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debbie S Campbell [mailto:debbiescampbell@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM
To: John Pick; ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman
Cc: Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Pamela Oland; Karen Reddersen; Chip Messick
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
Why would we be paying for the services? Wouldn’t this be the responsibility of the design engineer firm?
Debbie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Pick [mailto:jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 7:24 AM
To: Deborah S. Campbell; ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman
Cc: Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Pamela Oland; Karen Reddersen; Chip Messick
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
Debbie -The design engineering firm, O’Brien & Gere (OBG) may be responsible for this cost. OBG has been advising the City on start-up and we have temporarily suspended that effort from them. John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debbie S Campbell [mailto:debbiescampbell@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:50 AM
To: John Pick
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
John –
When was this decision made? Was it in writing? If so, I would like a copy. Who made the decision to suspend OBG? What is the state compliance deadline? Is the new contractor taking the place of OBG? In the absence of OBG who is managing the project? Thank you n advance for your prompt response to these questions.
Deb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Pick
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:11 AM
To: James Caldwell
Subject: FW: WWTP Consultant Services
Jim – please see Ms. Campbell’s questions below. I know the answer to most but I’m not sure about the compliance deadline. John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Pick [mailto:jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Deborah S. Campbell
Cc: ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman; Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Paul D. Wilber
Subject: FW: WWTP Consultant Services
Debbie – please see the following e-mail from Jim Caldwell in response to your follow-up questions concerning the additional WWTp consultant services. John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Caldwell
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:48 PM
To: John Pick
Cc: pwilber@webbnetlaw.com
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
The decision to recommend a contract with a specialist to assist in plant startup was made on March 13, 2009 during a conference call including Public Works, City Attorney and Aqualaw. The City Attorney and SPW staff had conducted a phone interview with Dr. Stover on March 12th. The City Administrator was briefed on March 16th prior to the submittal of the memo of request to the Internal Services Department.
The decision to suspend the efforts of OBG relating to the Nutrient Removal Process startup was made on March 17th. This decision was a result of a conference call involving SPW staff, City Attorney and Aqualaw. A copy of the notice to OBG is attached. It is pointed out that the notice to OBG only impacts their startup advice for the Nutrient Removal Process. OBG remains fully engaged with all other services of the design engineer in their construction phase contract. Also, Arcadis (Construction Dynamics Group) remains fully engaged as the Construction Manager
The plant discharge permit for Nitrogen at a level of 6.6 mg/l will become effective May 1, 2009. We have verbally asked MDE for an extension of this date and will be formalizing this request immediately.
March 13, 2009 Stover Group Proposal
March 16, 2009 Memo Request Stover
E. Stover's Resume
The e-mails that accompanied the letters are provided as context.
From: John Pick [mailto:jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:55 PM
To: ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman
Cc: Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Pamela Oland; Karen Reddersen; Chip Messick
Subject: WWTP Consultant Services
All – As you are aware we have been experiencing difficulties in getting all of the new components of the waste water treatment pant operating as they were designed. Since the last work session update, we have continued working with the design engineer, the construction manager and the contractor to resolve these problems. We have come to a point, however, that we feel it is necessary to bring in a specialized consultant to help us specifically with the biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes because the design engineer is apparently unable to make any further progress in determining how to fix this problem and because we have a deadline by which this process needs to be working in order for us to be in compliance with our permit. Accordingly, we have retained the services of Dr. Enos Stover, of Oklahoma State University, who is a specialist in this field and who has submitted a proposal to consult with us on this problem. Attached is a copy of the memo from Public Works requesting that we retain Dr. Stover’s services. Attached also are copies of Dr. Stover’s proposal and his resume. Retaining Dr.Stover’s services would qualify as specialized professional services under Section SC 16-3 (3) of the Charter allowing exceptions to competitive bidding for this type of service. Public Works is confident that this cost can be charged to the loan we received from MDE on this project and they are working with MDE to determine if it qualifies for grant funds. As you can see, Dr. Stover estimates this work to cost approximately $20,000. John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debbie S Campbell [mailto:debbiescampbell@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM
To: John Pick; ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman
Cc: Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Pamela Oland; Karen Reddersen; Chip Messick
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
Why would we be paying for the services? Wouldn’t this be the responsibility of the design engineer firm?
Debbie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Pick [mailto:jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 7:24 AM
To: Deborah S. Campbell; ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman
Cc: Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Pamela Oland; Karen Reddersen; Chip Messick
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
Debbie -The design engineering firm, O’Brien & Gere (OBG) may be responsible for this cost. OBG has been advising the City on start-up and we have temporarily suspended that effort from them. John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debbie S Campbell [mailto:debbiescampbell@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:50 AM
To: John Pick
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
John –
When was this decision made? Was it in writing? If so, I would like a copy. Who made the decision to suspend OBG? What is the state compliance deadline? Is the new contractor taking the place of OBG? In the absence of OBG who is managing the project? Thank you n advance for your prompt response to these questions.
Deb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Pick
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:11 AM
To: James Caldwell
Subject: FW: WWTP Consultant Services
Jim – please see Ms. Campbell’s questions below. I know the answer to most but I’m not sure about the compliance deadline. John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Pick [mailto:jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Deborah S. Campbell
Cc: ALL City Council Members; Barrie Tilghman; Brenda Colegrove; Lore Chambers; James Caldwell; Paul D. Wilber
Subject: FW: WWTP Consultant Services
Debbie – please see the following e-mail from Jim Caldwell in response to your follow-up questions concerning the additional WWTp consultant services. John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Caldwell
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:48 PM
To: John Pick
Cc: pwilber@webbnetlaw.com
Subject: RE: WWTP Consultant Services
The decision to recommend a contract with a specialist to assist in plant startup was made on March 13, 2009 during a conference call including Public Works, City Attorney and Aqualaw. The City Attorney and SPW staff had conducted a phone interview with Dr. Stover on March 12th. The City Administrator was briefed on March 16th prior to the submittal of the memo of request to the Internal Services Department.
The decision to suspend the efforts of OBG relating to the Nutrient Removal Process startup was made on March 17th. This decision was a result of a conference call involving SPW staff, City Attorney and Aqualaw. A copy of the notice to OBG is attached. It is pointed out that the notice to OBG only impacts their startup advice for the Nutrient Removal Process. OBG remains fully engaged with all other services of the design engineer in their construction phase contract. Also, Arcadis (Construction Dynamics Group) remains fully engaged as the Construction Manager
The plant discharge permit for Nitrogen at a level of 6.6 mg/l will become effective May 1, 2009. We have verbally asked MDE for an extension of this date and will be formalizing this request immediately.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Campbell on Reddish
Debbie Campbell will be on WICO 1320 AM the Bill Reddish morning show at 7:40 a.m. WICO 1320 AM
Friday, March 20, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
City Council Work Session
SALISBURY CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
MARCH 16 2009
430PM
CONFERENCE ROOM 305
GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING
Special Meeting
Ordinance No 2075 2nd reading amendment of the FY09 City Marina Fund budget and the FY09 General Fund budget to appropriate funds for the increased costs of managing the Marina
Closed Session
Acquisition of property as permitted under the Annotated code of Maryland Sections 10-508(a)(3)(8)Wilber
Work Session
Presentation Environmental Policy Task Force - Dave Nemazie
Parking meter rates - Pam Oland
Briefing parking arrangement at Brew River Restaurant - Pam Oland
COPS grant - Chief Allan Webster
Amendments to health insurance plan - John Pick
General discussion/upcoming agendas
AGENDA
MARCH 16 2009
430PM
CONFERENCE ROOM 305
GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING
Special Meeting
Ordinance No 2075 2nd reading amendment of the FY09 City Marina Fund budget and the FY09 General Fund budget to appropriate funds for the increased costs of managing the Marina
Closed Session
Acquisition of property as permitted under the Annotated code of Maryland Sections 10-508(a)(3)(8)Wilber
Work Session
Presentation Environmental Policy Task Force - Dave Nemazie
Parking meter rates - Pam Oland
Briefing parking arrangement at Brew River Restaurant - Pam Oland
COPS grant - Chief Allan Webster
Amendments to health insurance plan - John Pick
General discussion/upcoming agendas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
