Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes
posted: 01/05/09
County Council Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2008
County Council of Regular Meeting Minutes December 2, 2008 The County Council of Dorchester County met in regular session on December 2, 2008 with the following members present: Present were William V. Nichols, President; Jay L. Newcomb, Vice President; Effie M. Elzey; Ricky Travers; and Rick Price. Also present were E. Thomas Merryweather, REGULAR SESSION
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council adjourned from a Regular Session and convened in a closed Executive Session pursuant to §10-508(A)(1) to discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction; pursuant §10-508(A) (4) to consider a preliminary matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State; and pursuant to §10-508(A)(7) to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter.
Voting in favor of the closed Executive Session were all Council members. REGULAR SESSION INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilman Nichols led the invocation and Councilman Travers led the pledge of allegiance. CALL FOR ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA The Council approved the addition of the following three items to the Regular Session agenda under Manager’s Comments: a request from Senator Colburn regarding an amendment to Article 2 B, Section 9-210 as part of the Council’s discussion on legislation; a request to advertise to fill a vacant Corporal position at the Dorchester County Detention Center; and lease considerations for hangars at the APPROVAL OF MINUTES-NOVEMBER 18, 2008 The Council approved the minutes for November 18, 2008 as presented. APPROVAL OF DISBURSEMENTS The Council approved vouchers as presented with Councilman Travers abstaining for payments made to Simmons Center Market. The Council requested a breakdown of the payments made to Funk and FINANICAL REPORT: CASH AND INVESTMENTS Councilman Nichols reported total cash and investments as $11,686,215.70. EXECUTIVE SESSION SUMMARY The County Council of Dorchester County convened in an Executive Session at 4:30 p.m. on December 2, 2008 in a closed session at Room 110, County Office Building, 501 Court Lane, Cambridge, Maryland, pursuant to the State Government §10-508(A)(1) to discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction; pursuant to §10-508(A)(7) to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter; and pursuant §10-508(A) (4) to consider a preliminary matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State.
Motion made, seconded and carried to conduct a closed session pursuant to the above. All members of the Council voted in the affirmative to conduct the closed session for the purposes stated above and to discuss the topics listed above. Action taken at the closed session: 1) discussed a request by the Warden of the Dorchester County Detention Center to fill an in house Assistant Shift Supervisor position pursuant to normal County policy and agreed to add a request to advertise to the regular session agenda by a 5 to 0 vote; 2) discussed an economic development proposal regarding business retention issues-took no action; 3) received an economic update from the Economic Development Director-took no action; 4) discussed an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Technology Park; 5) discussed lease issues regarding the Cambridge-Dorchester Airport with legal counsel-took no action. The above information is being provided to the public pursuant to and in compliance with Section 10-509(b) and (c) of the State Government Article. REGULAR SESSION PROPOSED LEGISLATION – BOARD OF LICENSE COMMISSIONERS - SANITARY DISTRICT Ms. Baynard advised that four proposals had been provided to Council to amend Article 2B, Section 9-210 of the Annotated Code of Maryland which states that a liquor license cannot be obtained for an establishment that was located within 300 feet of a church or public school. She explained that the first proposal was to exempt bona fide restaurants in the City of Cambridge’s Arts and Entertainment District from that requirement and noted that a letter from William McAllister, Miles and Stockbridge, also asked for an exemption in the Arts and Entertainment District. She noted that the Board of License Commissioners had reviewed that proposal and had recommended that the Council not seek the amendment by a 3 to 2 vote. The Council agreed not to seek the amendment. Ms. Baynard stated that the City of Cambridge Council and Mayor Stanley submitted the second proposal to amend Article 2B, Section 9-210 to allow municipalities to determine under that entity’s zoning code to allow a bona fide restaurant within municipal limits to request support from that municipality for an application for a license to sell alcohol. She explained that this proposal was referred to the Board of License Commissioners by the Council on November 18, 2008 and that Board had also voted by a three to two majority to not recommend that the Council seek an amendment to current law. Based on comments from Octavene Saunders, Chairwoman for the Board of License Commissioners, that Rob Collison, Attorney for the City of Cambridge, and Gage Thomas, City of Cambridge Commissioner, had made some changes to the proposal at the Board’s December 1, 2008 meeting, Council asked for clarification from Mr. Collison. He stated that, according to the proposal, each municipality would be afforded the opportunity to decide if they would request an exemption from the 300 foot prohibition within their jurisdictional borders. He said that towns who do not request the exemption would, instead, allow the 300 foot provision to remain enforceable as could the areas in the County. Mr. Collison further explained that on December 1, 2008, the City Council and Mayor’s proposal was modified to mirror the language in Senator Colburn’s proposal for legislation to amend Article 2B, Section 9-210 as the proposal provided that the elected or appointed bodies of all of the municipalities in Dorchester County had the right to request an exemption of the 300 foot setback for its municipality instead of only exempting the City of Cambridge. In response to a question from Councilman Price as to what effect the amendment would have on the incorporated areas in the County, E. Thomas Merryweather, County Attorney, explained that the 300 foot setback would remain in effect in those areas. Councilman Travers made a motion to accept the City of Cambridge’s proposal that allowed the elected or appointed bodies of all of the municipalities in Dorchester County to request an exemption of the 300 foot setback. Council members Price, Nichols and Elzey opposed. Ms. Baynard said that the last proposal was received in writing from Senator Colburn on December 1, 2008. She advised that he was considering the introduction of legislation in the General Assembly that would exempt specified towns and municipalities in Dorchester County from the requirements of the 300 foot setback as it applies to the issuance of Class B (on-sale) licenses. She explained that he had provided information indicating that he based his proposal on the precedent set in 2004 by the City of Leonardtown. Ms. Baynard read Senator Colburn’s letter into the record. Councilwoman Elzey expressed concern that the amendment would pertain to schools which are located in drug free zones. The Council agreed to respond and state that the Council takes no position on the proposed legislation. Councilman Travers and Councilman Newcomb opposed. Councilwoman Elzey stated that, in her opinion, this action by Council will allow the legislative process at the State level to move forward which she believes will include a public hearing process. Councilman Price thanked the residents and businesses in the County for their telephone calls, e-mails and letters regarding the proposed amendments to Article 2B, Section 9-210. He explained that in reviewing every issue before the Council he considered what would be in the best interests of all of Dorchester County and not just the district he represented. Councilman Newcomb advised that the Ethics Commission did rule that he could vote on the proposed amendments despite his holding a current liquor license in Dorchester County and that based on the majority consensus of County residents he either spoke to or received correspondence from, he felt it was in the best interest of the County to amend Article 2B, Section 9-210. Councilman Travers stated that he too was in favor of moving forward with the proposed amendment based on the fact that the majority of residents he corresponded with were in support of the amendment. He explained that although he represented one district, his decision was based on Dorchester County as a whole and that he did not believe the proposed amendment would negatively affect the County. He stated that he did not believe that the original intent of the legislation was to exclude bona fide restaurants from being located within 300 feet of a church or public school, but was added to Article 2B, to address the closing of the liquor dispensary in Dorchester County in order to avoid off sale establishments from locating in the referenced areas. Councilman Travers thanked residents for their telephone calls, e-mails and letters. He noted that the next step in the legislative process was that residents and businesses could contact Senator Colburn and testify on behalf of the proposed amendment in Annapolis. Councilman Nichols expressed his opinion that individuals or businesses applying for liquor licenses should check zoning regulations and laws governing alcoholic beverage sales before making the decision to open an establishment in the County. He expressed concern that there were a lot of negative comments towards the Board of License Commissioners, who were appointed by the Council to represent Dorchester County, as well as the Council and other individuals in the County during this review of various amendments to State law. He explained that he had been approached by several residents who advised him that they were against the proposed amendments to Article 2B, Section 9-210 but were afraid to come before the Council to express their opinions based on negative comments and actions by some of those individuals in favor of the amendment. He thanked the public for their telephone calls and correspondence. SANITARY DISTRICT The Council discussed a proposed amendment to alter the powers of the Sanitary District to become a function of local government with oversight by the County Council. In response to a question from Councilman Price, Mr. Merryweather explained that the amendment would not affect the Sanitary District but would require that all five Council members serve as the Sanitary Commissioners and assume all of the responsibility of the Sanitary Commissioners. Based on a question from Councilwoman Elzey regarding whether or not the amendment would affect pay rates of employees working for the Sanitary Commission, Mr. Merryweather stated that in his opinion the rates would be comparable regardless of whether or not the Sanitary District reports to the State or to the County. Councilman Newcomb questioned how many counties in the State of Maryland had amended the powers of the Sanitary District. Ms. Baynard advised that Garrett County, Alleghany County and Kent County had amended the powers of their county Sanitary District to become the responsibility of the Commissioners/Council. Councilwoman Elzey stated that it was her understanding that Kent County representatives were pleased with the amendment and that Garrett County representatives have advised her that they believe the change provided more efficiencies. In response to a question from Councilman Price, Mr. Merryweather stated that Michael Spears, Finance Director, had advised that the ongoing responsibilities and/or debt of the Sanitary District would not have a substantial impact on the County’s bond rating. Based on a request for clarification from Councilman Newcomb, Mr. Merryweather explained that the Council would have to serve as the Sanitary Commission unless the Council agreed to restructure that entity entirely. He noted that the Council would be taking on a lot more responsibilities and work if the powers of the Sanitary District were amended to be a function of local government, which would include the management and operation of the Sanitary Districts in the County. In response to a question from Councilman Newcomb, Mr. Merryweather advised that the President of the Board and members of the Sanitary District and Commission were not asked to comment on the proposed legislation. The Council agreed not to pursue proposed legislation to amend the authority of the Sanitary Commission for the 2009 Maryland General Assembly Legislative Session and agreed to invite the Sanitary Commissioners to meet with the Council to discuss a possible initiative for the 2010 Maryland General Assembly Legislative Session.
OTHER PROPOSED LEGISLATION Councilman Newcomb expressed concern about the proposed legislation discussed at the Council’s November 18, 2008 which amended Article 2B, the Liquor Laws of Dorchester County, to add Section 9-101(n) regarding pecuniary interest. He reminded Council that the proposed language would require that a liquor license for a corporation or limited liability company must be issued to a minimum to three of the officers or authorized persons of those entities who hold a 50% pecuniary interest in the corporation or limited liability company, as individuals. He expressed his opinion that requiring a minimum of a 50% pecuniary interest would adversely affect large corporations who wish to locate in the County because larger corporations or franchises could not meet the ownership request. Gloria Dolan, Board of License Commissioner and Vice Chair, expressed her belief that the proposed amendment would not affect corporations who are on the Security and Exchange and that if such corporations hired a resident manager who lived in Dorchester County they could still apply for a liquor license. Mr. Merryweather stated in his opinion that the legislation only references the Security and Exchange as it relates to scheduling requirements and does not exempt those corporations from the pecuniary interest requirement. Commissioner Saunders advised the Council that the Board of License Commissioners were agreeable to any modification the Council elected to make prior to the submission for introduction in the 2009 Maryland General Assembly. In response to a question from Mr. Merryweather as to intent of the proposed amendment, Commissioner Dolan stated that it would ensure that those individuals who had a controlling interest were represented on the license. Commissioner Dolan explained that there are currently several liquor license applicants that only have a 1% pecuniary interest in a corporation. Mr. Merryweather stated that he shared Councilman Newcomb’s concerns and that he believed the proposed amendment would adversely affect the ability of certain corporations or partnerships to obtain a liquor license in Dorchester County. He stated that the percentage could be lowered to 20%, 25% or 30% and still achieve the desired results. He also said that the inclusion of the allowance for a resident applicant to not have any pecuniary interest if they were on site full time negated the effectiveness of the proposed amendment. The Council requested that Mr. Merryweather work with Christopher Robinson, Legal Counsel for the Board of License Commissioners, in revising the proposed amendment to address concerns about the adverse affect of the proposed 50% pecuniary interest requirement and to provide a recommendation to the Council in revising that percentage. LEGISLATIVE SESSION The Council adjourned to Legislative Session. BILL NO. 2008-13 AN ACT OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF DORCHESTER COUNTY MARYLAND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 155, ENTITLED ZONING, SECTION 155-63, ATTACHMENT 3, OF THE DORCHESTER COUNTY CODE, TO AMEND THE TABLE OF PERMITTED AND REGULATED SIGNS IN ORDER TO REPEAL THAT PORTION OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES POLITICAL SIGNS TO BE REMOVED 14 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION Mr. Merryweather stated that the public hearing was being held on a proposed bill which would amend the table of permitted and regulated signs in Chapter 155, entitled “Zoning”, Section 155-63 in the Dorchester County Code to repeal the portion of the Sign Ordinance that requires political signs to be removed 14 days after an election based on the court case on the Western Shore in which the provisions of a similar County sign ordinance were declared unconstitutional. He explained that the American Civil Liberties Union brought the court case to the Council’s attention and that several other counties in the State of Maryland, including Worcester County, have amended their County codes to remove the provision that political signs must be removed within a certain time period following an election. When Ms. Baynard read from the public signup sheet that Susan Dukes had signed up to speak. There was no answer when her name was called. Wendell Foxwell, a Dorchester County resident, expressed concern that election signs can remain on a property for an indefinite period of time. He said that he understood that the federal court made the ruling that the law was unconstitutional but was still against the local amendment. Rodney Banks, Assistant Planning and Zoning Director, advised the Council that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Council approve this amendment and had executed a Findings of Fact to support their decision. Jim Dolan, a Dorchester County resident, asked if there were setback requirements for political signage. Mr. Merryweather stated such set backs were not applicable. The Council adopted the Planning Commissions’ Findings of Facts as the Council’s Findings of Fact. The role call on the enactment of Bill No. 2008-13 was as follows: Nichols aye, Newcomb aye, Elzey aye, Price aye, Travers aye. REGULAR SESSION The Council adjourned to Regular Session. SHORE HEALTH SYSTEMS PRESENTATION Patty Willis, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Shore Health Systems, provided the Council with an update on Shore Health Systems’ strategic planning process. She expressed the regret of Joe Ross, Corporate Executive Officer, for not being able to attend the meeting due to a scheduling conflict. Ms. Willis advised the Council that she and Mr. Ross were currently visiting the elected officials in the Mid Shore region to explain the full scope of the strategic planning process. She explained that the strategic plan was through the year 2030 and was based on a community needs assessment that included public comment and information obtained from public surveys and comprehensive studies. She noted that the results of the assessment were that there was an increasing demand for expanded medical services close to the population centers in the Mid Shore and for the recruitment of physicians and specialists, in particular primary care physicians. Ms. Willis noted that visits to the Emergency Rooms and inpatient visits at Dorchester General Hospital and the Memorial Hospital at Easton had doubled in the past year. Ms. Willis stated that the strategic plan as it pertained to Dorchester County included the completion of the expansion and modernization of the Dorchester General Hospital emergency department, exploring additional outpatient services and developing a five year capital plan for the hospital. Ms. Willis advised that as a part of the expansion and modernization of the emergency department a portion of the laboratory at Dorchester General Hospital and the triage center were renovated. She explained that the new triage area had two beds to treat those individuals who may not need the full services of the emergency department and that a new Emergency Medical Services work station had also been added to that department. She explained that the expansion of outpatient services is a part of Shore Health Systems’ long range strategic plan. Ms. Willis noted that a new chemotherapy suite had been added to Dorchester General Hospital as well as a regional balance center and that the outpatient rehabilitation area at that hospital had been expanded. Ms. Willis explained that the plan included the expansion of medical facilities in the Mid Shore Region to attract more physicians and serve more patients and included the building or expanding of medical offices and ambulatory centers, continued growth of outpatient and emergency services at the Dorchester General Hospital, a new freestanding emergency center at Grasonville and expansion and upgrading facilities at Centerville and northern Caroline County along with the possibility of a new facility in southern Caroline County. She advised the Council that the favored site for a new regional medical center was near the community center outside of Easton and that it has the same accessibility to the population on the Mid Shore as the proposed Route 404 and Route 50 location while offering the ability to phase construction and meet Shore Health System’s financial goals. She explained that Shore Health Systems still has the option on the Route 404 and Route 50 location. Ms. Willis stated that the ground breaking for the construction of the new regional medical center would not occur before 2012. She explained that the next step in the pre construction process was a six month study period which included engineering studies, highway access studies and a study on the adequacy of the adjacent Airport. She said that they would also have to apply for a Maryland Certificate of Need before construction could begin. Ms. Willis noted that the final decision on which site will be chosen for the new regional medical center will be in early to mid 2009. She said that after a final decision is made they will begin the process of determining if and how Memorial Hospital at Easton, Inc. will be utilized, including whether or not they will close that facility. She thanked the Council and County residents for their ongoing support of the Dorchester General Hospital. In response to a question from Councilman Travers, Ms. Willis explained that the estimated cost of the new regional medical center was approximately $350 million and that no financial plans had been made as to how to pay for that construction although she believed tax exempt bonds would be issued and capital will be borrowed through the University of Maryland Medical System at a low interest rate. Councilman Travers commended both the Dorchester General Hospital staff and the Memorial Hospital at Easton for the services they provide to residents. Rich Loeffler, a Shore Health Systems Board member, stated that he and the other Shore Health System Board members and staff worked hard to ensure that the strategic plan included providing much needed services to all counties and residents on the Mid Shore. In response to a question from Councilman Price, Ms. Willis stated that once the expansion of the emergency department at Dorchester General Hospital was finished the treatment areas would increase from 11 to 18. Mr. Loeffler noted that the current number of patients that can be handled in that emergency department was 18,000 a year and that they would be able to handle 25,000 once the renovation is complete. AUDIT PRESENTATION WITH TRICE, GEARY & MYERS, LLC Mr. Spears introduced Herb Geary, partner, and Roy Geiser, Senior Auditor, of Trice, Geary & Myers, LLC, who prepared the financial audit for Dorchester County for the year ending June 30, 2008. Mr. Geary stated that the financial audit was an unqualified opinion and that the audit process went smoothly even though it included the adoption of risk base standards. He thanked Ms. Baynard, Mr. Spears and his staff for their preparation and assistance in the audit process. Mr. Geary advised that the County’s audit included component units comprised of the Sanitary District and the Board of Education. He discussed with Council generally the financial standing of the General Fund and Landfill and Airport Enterprise funds. Mr. Geary advised that the Council was obligated pursuant to GASB45, a government accounting standard, to fund post retirement benefits beginning in FY 2009 for Dorchester County and that the estimated liability was over $19 million with an estimated annual contribution of $1.7 million. He explained that the County had created a new fund in 2008 and transferred over $1 million into that fund. Mr. Geary advised that there are currently 63 retirees that are paid with post employment funds with an annual cost of $237,000 in 2008. Mr. Geary thanked the Council for the opportunity to participate in the FY 2008 audit process. In response to a question from Councilwoman Elzey regarding GASB45, Mr. Geary stated that the liability study for Dorchester County had been performed as required and that a decision had to be made as of FY09 as to how the County will be funding that requirement. He noted that every County was struggling with funding the post retirement benefits with Somerset County and Talbot County setting aside funds annually. Mr. Geary expressed concern about the potential affect the State of Maryland budget shortfall may have on Dorchester County and the other counties in the State in the future. The Council thanked Mr. Geary and Mr. Gieser for the audit presentation and Mr. Spears and County staff for their participation in the audit process. ELECTION OF OFFICERS – COUNTY COUNCIL Pursuant to a request from Councilman Nichols, the Council deferred the election of officers until its December 16, 2008 meeting. Councilman Travers opposed. Pursuant to a question from Councilman Nichols, Ms. Baynard explained that the only requirement per the County Charter was that the election had to be held annually and did not have to occur by a certain date. ROADS BOARD EXTENSION OF CONTRACT REQUEST-CRUSHED STONE-PUBLIC WORKS The Council approved the request of Chuck Weber, Public Works Director, to waive bids and extend the bid with Vulcan Materials Company for the supply of crushed stone for an additional year through December 31, 2009. The Council acknowledged that the 2009 prices reflect an increase that varies from 3% to 7.8% depending on the size of the stone with an overall contract price increase of approximately 5%. OTHER Based on a question from Councilman Price, Mr. Weber advised the Council that the State Highway Administration had approved moving forward with the design of the Backlanding Bridge. He stated that the design should be completed within a few weeks. In response to a question from Councilman Newcomb regarding the blacktopping of Suicide Bridge Road, Mr. Weber advised that County staff finished the blacktopping of the road on December 1, 2008 and that approximately 260 tons of blacktop were used. He said that the road would be line stripped in the next couple of weeks. Councilman Travers questioned whether or not the State Highway Administration will be line stripping the road or if the work had been put out to bid. Mr. Weber stated that no requests for bids had been advertised and that the State Highway Administration staff were line stripping the roads. He advised the Council that he could request for line stripping in the future as the only road that still needed to be line stripped in 2008 was Suicide Bridge Road. Based on a question from Councilman Price as to the status on the moving of the guardrails on Palmer Mills Road, Mr. Weber advised that he was meeting with L.S. Lee representatives on December 4, 2008 to lay out and schedule the job. He stated that he would provide the Council with a report when the job commences. Glenn Payne, a Dorchester County resident, expressed concern that a cable had been placed across property on Green Point Road that had previously been used by County residents and that there were also no trespassing and no parking signs posted on that property. Mr. Merryweather advised that Daniel Creighton, a Green Point resident, had asked the Council if the property was owned by the County and that, after researching the matter, he determined that the property was not County property as there were no recorded deeds or right of ways and because no County maintenance had been performed on that property. He stated that all of the deeds in the Green Point Subdivision noted that the property was a private right of way. REGULAR SESSION MANAGER’S COMMENTS REQUEST FOR DONATION OF The Council approved the request of Portia Ennals for the donation of two KDS laptops, less hard drives, to the Pine Street Committee for the ADDITIONAL COURTHOUSE PARKING/RIVERWALK-CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Merryweather explained that the City of Cambridge had approved a plan to add additional parking at the Circuit Court House contingent upon the granting of an easement to place a river walk along the bulk headed portion of the County Office Building. He advised that a gas main line had been installed in that area and that he believed only 8.5 feet of that area was not encumbered by a utility right away as specified in a utility easement between the County and Cambridge City Gas. The Council deferred the request of the City of Cambridge for an easement along the bulk headed portion of the County Office building to install a “river walk” and requested that Mr. Weber, Public Works Director, work with the Public Works Director for the City of Cambridge to review the plat and utility easements for the County and JM Clayton to Cambridge City Gas. The Council further requested that Mr. Weber provide a report to the Council at its December 16, 2008 meeting as to whether or not an easement can be considered due to the limited area available both in front of the building and along the paved parking area without infringing on that existing easement. The Council deferred making a decision on holding a public hearing on the matter until the report is received from Mr. Weber. Donna Hooper, a Dorchester County resident, questioned why a public hearing was to be held. Mr. Merryweather stated that while the Council is not required to hold a public hearing, the granting of the easement would be a dedication of County property for public use and that historically the Council has asked for the input of the public before dedicating County property. In response to a question from Ms. Hooper, Mr. Merryweather advised that the Council had made no decision on whether or not the easement would be pe | |||||||||
