|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Water & Sewer
I favored the proposed increases in water and sewer connection charges for developers, and changes to our water and sewer rules and regulations. However, because I am against building water and sewer projects for developers at public expense, I did not support the proposed increases in user fees on our existing water and sewer customers.
A majority of the county commissioners have consistently voted to build the McKinney sewer project ("McKinney"), at an estimated cost of about $40 million. The purpose of the McKinney project is to make more sewer treatment capacity available for developers. The project will yield about 6 million gallons of treatment capacity per day, enough for 24,000 new dwelling units or their commercial equivalent. McKinney is the centerpiece of the scheme (otherwise known as the county's comprehensive land use plan) that will encourage developers to cram 80,000 more people into the county over the next 18 years.
It is utter hypocricy to build new water and sewer projects for developers to stimulate more growth that can only result in more overcrowded schools and greater traffic congestion. Those who wring their hands about traffic congestion and overcrowded schools while simultaneously voting for this developer debt are just being facetious.
Regrettably, but not surprisingly, there are no plans to ask the developers and real estate speculators to pay anything "up front." Instead, the county will borrow the entire $40 million, pledging as security for the debt not only the entire balance of the water and sewer enterprise fund, but also the full faith and credit and the unlimited taxing power of the county. All real property in Frederick County, regardless of whether the property is on county water or sewer, will stand behind the debt and is potentially on the hook to pay off the McKinney debt.
The stated purpose of the proposed fee increases was to get the water and sewer enterprise fund out of the red and into the black and to begin setting aside reserves for the inevitable repair, replacement and renovation of our aging water and sewer plant and equipment. These are laudable goals which I fully support. However, I'm afraid that the revenue from the proposed fee increases on existing customers will ultimately be diverted to pay for the McKinney project.
I feel it is morally wrong to raise user fees on our existing customers and pledge their houses as collateral in order to finance water and sewer projects for developers and real estate speculators. That's why I proposed an amendment to the county code that would prevent us from using public funds and the county's unlimited taxing authority to finance the construction of water and sewer projects for developers. I called my proposal a "lockbox" and "chastity belt" that would make the water and sewer enterprise fund impervious to developers. If those safeguards were in place, the monies generated by user fees on existing customers could only be spent on maintaining our existing plant and equipment. Those funds could not be used to build water and sewer projects for developers.
Unfortunately for our existing customers, I was unable to get enough support for my proposal. I recognize that I am in the minority. A majority of the commissioners are in favor of building water and sewer projects for developers at public expense.
Without the safeguards, I couldn't support the increases. I don't want to see one cent of our existing customers' money being used to build water and sewer projects for developers.
Government has no duty or obligation to pay the costs and bear the risks of providing water and sewer infrastructure for new growth. We start from the proposition that, in the absence of an order from the Maryland Department of the Environment, a contract between a developer and the county, or state statute, the county is under no legal duty or obligation to provide public water or sewer service to developers:
"[A] municipality has no duty to provide sewer service. Decisions as to whether, when or where to provide sewer service, like other plans for public improvements, are matters of discretion. Accordingly, we conclude that when a municipality decides whether to provide such service, it is performing a governmental function, and is not liable for failing to provide sewer service." Snyder v. State Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 40 Md. App. 364,
370, 391 A.2d 863, 866-867, cert. denied, 284 Md. 78 (1978).
Whether and where to provide these services is a policy choice to be made by our elected officials. Even if we decide to provide the service to a particular area, there is the matter of who pays to enlarge, expand and extend the water or sewer system to accomodate new customers. This is where I have a substantial difference of opinion from the folks in the development community and even the majority of my colleagues on the board of county commissioners. I believe the costs and risks associated with providing public water and sewer service for new growth should be borne by the new growth, rather than our existing customers and taxpayers.
County Pays "Up Front"If the county chips in all of the "up front" money needed to provide developers with public water and sewer, then:
This policy makes land development more profitable, because:
For a case in point, one need look no farther than Washington County, which dramatically overbuilt its facilities on the assumption that "If you build it, they will come." Well, they didn't come. The County came close to defaulting on their water and sewer bonds. The taxpayers of Washington County (including those not on public water and sewer) had to ante up $2 million a year to help pay the debt service. The County has some of the highest user charges (to pay the staggering debt service) and lowest connection charges (to generate more customers) in the area (except for the City of Frederick, which doesn't charge developers anything to hook up).
Alas, we're about to do the same thing. A majority of the Frederick County Commissioners want to put the county $55 million in debt to finance new water and sewer projects for developers in order to encourage new growth, without as much as a nickel in up front money from the developers.
On the other hand, if the developers had to provide the "up front" money, the costs and risks would be reversed. The benefits would include: