TOWN OF EASTON, MARYLAND
Talbot County Municipalities
March 17, 2004
Also in attendance were Town Attorney Mr. Christopher B. Kehoe, Mr. Dave Thompson, Esq., Ms. Debbie Renshaw, Mr. Rob Noble, Ms. Sherry Thomas, Ms. Cheryl Lewis, Mr. Phil Dinele and Town Clerk Mr. Robert Karge.
At 7:00 p.m., the Town Attorney explained the reason for the meeting. He stated that the goal of this meeting is to put the municipalities of Talbot County into a position where with mutual consultation among themselves, we can identify common problems and hopefully reach a common ground on some of them and use whatever strength unity gives us to improve or make our dialogue with the County Council on these issues more effective and more productive. Mr. Kehoe stated that the intent is to have four of these meetings a year on a rotating basis; one in each municipality on a time frame of a month or so before the County municipal quarterly meeting to try to go over the issues.
Mr. Kehoe stated that the issues most burning at the time were the excise tax impact fee and what approach the municipalities would take and Bill 933, the Growth Allocation Bill. He suggested setting a limited agenda and sticking to it to make the meetings manageable.
BILL 933, GROWTH ALLOCATION
Mr. Dave Thompson briefed on the status of Bill 933.
Mr. Thompson stated that the Critical Area Commission has sent out notice that their local meeting is March 24 at 7:00 p.m. at the Easton High School auditorium. He stated that a panel will hear local testimony and then reports back to the full Commission which will have a meeting or hearing in Annapolis then they make the decision about whether a particular amendment to a local Critical Area Plan should be approved. He stated that the Chairman has determined that this is not a routine change but a significant enough change that needs full Commission approval. If it is determined that this amendment is inconsistent with state law, then the Commission has the power to not approve the proposed change. Mr. Thompson discussed problems with the Bill and the other municipalities point of views. He stated that his arguments to the Commission will be to ask the Commission to broaden its’ horizons at looking at these issues and look at the mechanism of municipal growth in areas where there is critical area land.
Mrs. Jackson-Amis arrived at 7:14 p.m.
The Town Attorney, Mr. Kehoe discussed Easton’s point of view which he stated was triggered by Easton’s request to the County five years ago for an additional grant of growth allocation to enable the development after annexation of Elm Street Development.
Mr. Jensen stated that the model is supposed to be the great cooperative effort that the Town of Easton and the County had with the Ratcliffe Farm development.
Road improvements for the Ratcliffe development were discussed.
Mr. Wendowski discussed the County’s perceived growth issues in Easton.
Discussion occurred regarding spray irrigation.
Mr. Thompson stated that the municipalities should try to encourage a meaningful communication about what ought to be mutual planning issues.
Ms. Sherry Thomas discussed municipalities exhausting their growth allocation and their ability to apply for additional.
The Town Attorney, Mr. Kehoe discussed county growth pressures.
Ms. Thomas discussed the proposed argument which could be made to Critical Area Commission.
Ms. Cheryl Lewis read Mr. Phil Foster’s letter to the Critical Area Commission regarding Talbot County’s Bill 762.
Mr. Thompson suggested putting a chronological packet together of all the relative correspondence.
Discussion occurred regarding Bill 933 contrary to Smart Growth.
The Town Attorney stated that the bulk of use of Growth Allocation by municipalities in this county is what is now the Easton Club.
Mr. Thompson discussed the initial Critical Area Commission policy behind all this. He stated that the Critical Area Commission has an agenda to preserve waterfront areas to the extent that it can.
Discussion occurred regarding developers actually building schools and providing services.
Population in schools due to annexations was discussed.
Mr. Thompson stated that Oxford will require growth allocation and they will argue the point with Critical Area Commission. He stated that if any of those points work, they are hopeful that the Town of Easton can support the position that Bill 933 is contrary to municipal growth prerogatives. He stated that St. Michaels is going to take a strong position for obvious reasons.
The Town Attorney stated that he does not think that a joint letter is the way to go. Secondly, St. Michaels has its own set of issues. Mr. Kehoe stated that he thinks Easton can come in and say that we are being held up as a model of how this should work and we are not going to get in a position of criticizing the county and the County Council has tried to work cooperatively with Easton; but, what the County Council is doing here is exercising Planning and Zoning authority inside the towns which is wrong and this is not the way to run a railroad.
Mr. Thompson stated that he hoped that each community can make a presentation at the hearing and then follow up with correspondence to the full Commission. Mr. Thompson suggested the elected officials contact the delegates.
Ms. Jackson-Amis asked when the determination is expected for the situation in Denton which would have an impact.
Mr. Thompson stated that Denton’s issue is like St. Michaels and their advertisement is just being done now.
EXCISE TAX AND IMPACT FEES
Mr. Kehoe stated that Easton is vigorously pursuing impact fees of its own. He stated that what he wants to have happen is to make sure the county recognizes that the impact fee money has to be used for capital projects and secondly, the planning and development of those capital projects is done in a way cooperatively with the municipalities so that these things can actually work.
General discussion occurred regarding impact fees and excise tax.
The Town Clerk asked if it is worthwhile to discuss the concept that the county would impose in addition to it, a special taxing district on a county road they failed to maintain for the last 50 years within town limits.
The Town Attorney discussed the county’s tax cap. He stated that it puts the county government in a very difficult situation fiscally. Mr. Kehoe stated that no one on the council has the desire to touch that tax cap.
Impact fees for businesses were discussed.
The Town Attorney stated that Easton only sees the property tax. Mr. Kehoe discussed the rational for impact fees for businesses that impact roads and infrastructure. He stated that he does not see the rational for impact fees for manufacturing businesses or businesses that provide long term benefit to the community or are more community stability.
Exceptions to excise tax were discussed.
Mr. Thompson stated that he would like to have the criteria and formulas for the tax and the dialogue for the tax which are set forth in the ordinance. He stated that he wants to know what the county’s plan is in all these things. He stated that he believes they are penciling numbers in their budgets based upon anticipated revenues but no one has seen the fundamental workings of this law. Mr. Thompson stated that he would like to encourage discussion with the county before the public hearing for the ordinance is introduced.
Mrs. Jackson-Amis stated that she thought that the municipalities were going to make recommendations to the county about what we thought should be included or excluded. She stated that it would be a good idea instead of waiting for them, to make suggestions or recommendations.
Ms. Cheryl Lewis shared her recommendations for the disbursement of the excise tax.
Mr. Karge discussed significant matters that have not been discussed where the towns don’t hear about it until it is decided.
Mr. Kehoe suggested writing the County Council stating that if an excise fee is adopted, this is how we would like to see it distributed with a subnote that if this is not agreeable, we will go to the General Assembly in the next session and make it a requirement.
Mayor Willey asked that this letter be presented to the County Council in open meeting.
Mr. Thompson discussed Mr. Schisler’s advice to him on this issue. He suggested watching what goes on in Caroline County. He stated that what is done in one county has to be done in other counties.
Mr. Kehoe stated that if we can decide how the pie is divided up then the size of the pie doesn’t really matter so much.
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she thinks that the bulk of the development is planned for Easton and these numbers should really be evaluated. She stated that this really needs to be identified. She discussed her concern with any retro activity such as Patriot Square which had been previously approved.
Mr. Jensen stated that if it is an equitable distribution, he doesn’t have a problem with impact fees.
Mr. Thompson stated that schools utilize between 50 and 60 percent of the county’s budget which is the same all across the country.
Mayor Willey discussed the developer of Patriot Square offering to help with schools. He stated that he may withdraw that offer if he is hit with impact fees.
Mayor Willey stated that whatever is agreed upon, he really does not want to just forward any recommendations or discussions to them in the mail. He stated that he would prefer open session.
Mr. Thompson stated that he thinks that the citizens understand that Easton is the hub of the community. He stated that he believes that some of the county’s money should come to Easton.
Mayor Willey discussed the need in the near future for a paid fire department.
Discussion occurred on Midland’s contribution per unit to the Fire Department.
Ms. Lewis stated that the County has already calculated what the excise tax will produce in the next ten years.
Discussion occurred regarding Mr. Tishcler’s point of view that the lower the impact fee in the town, the greater incentive to develop in the town. So if you don’t want sprawl, don’t hit the towns with this impact fee.
Mr. Thompson discussed picking a target date to be on the county council’s agenda to make a short presentation.
Mayor Willey suggested an open meeting like the municipalities meeting and inviting the press.
Mr. Kehoe stated that he believes the workshop mode has been unsuccessful. He suggests getting on the agenda with a joint request by all four municipalities to address the County Council about excise tax with handouts and a press release. Mr. Kehoe suggested correspondence stating that we want to make sure that if an excise tax is imposed, it addresses the problems our community as a whole will face whereby the county will have to commit to spending a significant portion of excise tax revenues collected from developments in the towns in and around the towns and if the county is uncomfortable with that, we are opposed to the position of excise tax and we will fight here, in the courts and the General Assembly in Annapolis next year.
Mr. Thompson agreed with the approach and questioned when a realistic time frame would be.
Mr. Karge discussed their budget process.
It was the consensus to meet again on April 29 at 6:00 p.m. for additional discussion with sandwiches for participants.
Mr. Jensen asked if we are asking for dialogue or asking for what we want.
Mr. Kehoe suggested telling them that we want to have dialogue but we know they are not interested so we give them the terms. He suggested going to the County Council by the first or second week of April.
Mr. Jensen discussed discussion with developers regarding impact fees.
Ms. Lewis suggested asking the County Council to study the impact fees for another year; if they won’t study for another year, will they listen to this request for how the fees will be allocated and if they won’t do that, we may fight this.
The Town Attorney stated that the sooner we say that this is how we want it to be and show that we are united; the County may reach some kind of accommodation.
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that because the enabling legislation does require us to have a set of conversations, a letter should go forward requesting a date for required conversation. We should be clear that this conversation has not been had in the year which means that we haven’t had sufficient time to really negotiate the terms and conditions which is the expectation. She stated that this should be set forth in correspondence. In the meantime, review should be done and each of the municipalities should look at their own requirements and try to somehow scale them down to fit in.
Mr. Thompson suggested working with own jurisdictions then the other towns come to the Town of Easton meeting on April 5 and discuss what has been worked on. In the meantime, write to the Council and ask to be put on the County Council’s agenda.
Discussion occurred regarding timing to get the correspondence to the County Council.
It was the consensus to have another meeting March 29 at Easton Town Hall at 6:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, upon unanimous consensus, the regularly scheduled meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
______________________________________
Town Clerk