Collective Bargaining - Commissioner Demmler Open Letter

Hello All:

I'm sending this to a some who I'm certain are well aware of the recent unfortunate controversy regarding the introduction by our delegation of legislation which the majority of the commissioners oppose. I ask that you pass it on to others who may have an interest and are on your email lists....Thanks!

This legislation (House Bill 916 and Senate Bill 726) would allow for a referendum regarding collective bargaining with or without binding arbitration. One might suppose allowing the public to decide this question is the ultimate answer, but there is much more to the story.

Last year, through much negotiation, the County and FOP attempted to arrived at a collective bargaining agreement that would give the FOP a voice in the budget process, yet would offer protection to the taxpayer from a final opinion of an outside arbitrator. But in the end, we could not reach a final compromise we could both live with, so the County did not include Collective Bargaining for the FOP among the legislative requests.

This year, those speaking for the FOP went directly to the Delegation and between them (beyond the knowledge of the commissioners) legislation was written...on both the question of collective bargaining with binding arbitration, or bargaining without it. The bill calls for the question to be placed on the ballot, and the winning choice comes with the enabling legislation. To our knowledge there will not be a choice labeled "neither."

Without the courtesy of having this legislation to review, the commissioners were asked to offer an opinion shortly before it was "dropped." We took the stand that we could not agree to support (or not) without first having the full bill in front of us to study. This was taken as an affront, and the bill submitted.

We've since had time to read through the legislation and find it very troubling. Neither choice is the version we had worked so diligently on the previous year. We feel it imperative that budget authority not be taken from elected officials and placed with an arbitrator who is not accountable to the citizens and who likely would not be a citizen of Cecil County. We feel this bill is going around the role of the county commissioners and its introduction without our approval is a clear abuse of power.

Because we oppose the bill, very heated accusations have been thrown toward the commissioners. We've read in the paper and email and have had an extremely heated and unkind anonymous letter mailed to our homes...all essentially telling us that we do not support our police. We are told of the low pay of the deputies. We are accused of treating the deputies terribly over the years. The facts prove that none of these are true. Through the years the deputies have been treated very well. Pay increases were progressive. We've approved a steady addition of vehicles and equipment when needed. A new headquarters was opened.

Certainly, we all hold our police officers in high esteem and support them as best we can within the confines of a budget. We recognize the special challenges of their work. It is very unfair to characterize any of us as not valuing our fine police officers.

Although some surrounding areas have traditionally paid a higher wage, we should see that this is naturally the case of counties that enjoy a higher tax-base. Always keep in mind that the dollars to pay salaries and equipment comes from the tax-payer. Due to the outcry from the taxpayer and the state of our recent economy, we've found it necessary for the second year to deny a step increase or a cost of living increase for ALL of our employees. This is not as a 'pick on you' mentality, but as a necessity due to this weak economy that all of us together have had to endure. Those who count themselves among the "no new taxes" group should be especially troubled over this legislation.

With that...I will include below educational information regarding Collective Bargaining and questions and answers that relate directly to the different forms of Collective Bargaining. This is quite lengthy, but I hope you take the time to read through it. It will answer many questions.

This can also be found on the ccgov.org webpage....under "News Highlights"....third listing "News Briefs."

Again...I'd appreciate if you would pass this along to all you know who may be interested.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

Rebecca J. Demmler
Commissioner, 2nd District

Notes from July 22 Worksession and July 22 commissioner's meeting

Posted for Commissioner Demmler

Notes from July 22 Worksession and July 22 commissioner's meeting
....including some from July 21 Planning Commission meeting.



PUBLIC HEARINGS:
============
Text Amendment...property owners to be notified when commercial and industrial site plans are filed so neighbors can know what is happening next to them. (Note: this came about as a result of my request which grew out of the Phillips Mushroom situation. In the past.,,(since business and industry does not go before PC), the public has had no venue to know what is in the works. It will still be handled administratively only it will be required that the neighbors know so that if they have questions they can ask them before the business starts rising beside them. The Planning Commission heard this on Monday and thought it a good idea and recommended for approval.
=============
Text Amendment...greenhouses with on-premises sales. This will allow greenhouse business to sell up to 100 cubic yards of topsoil mulch and gardening/landscaping aggregates on site. This was brought before the Planning Commission on Monday and they agreed it was a good change and voted for their recommendation of approval.
============
Text Amendment...Critical Bay. Nine months ago the Critical Areas Commission notified the county that there were deficiencies in our zoning ordinance as relates to Critical Areas. Because of this, they imposed a moratorium where we couldn't grant waivers in the critical areas. During the time since, there have been changes worked out through the Critical Areas "people" and staff from the County. The result is contained in the paperwork given us. But, then after this came out... and as a result of a final meeting with 'them' and 'us' some final tweaking was done. The P.C. on Monday (and at our meeting last night) we were given the final version. Along with this was a shorter 12 page synopsis of the changes. A lot of the changes have to do with minor things such as language used...that is making our 'terms' coincide with terms used within Critical areas wording. The changes and 'housekeeping have been gone over carefully between Critical Areas Comm. and County staff. Mr. DiGiacomo, Principal Planner indicated that he can see no detriment to the County in accepting the changes. With his input, the PC felt comfortable and recommended approval. This information was again given within the public hearing at the commissioners' meeting yesterday.
===============
Cecil county Rode code. We briefly discussed this at yesterday's worksession since Mr. Whittie from DPW had reviewed it with us in some detail the previous week. I asked about the change showing on pages 40-43 which moves the approval from the Director to the "Duly Authorized Agent." I questioned if this wording was too broad...maybe the "duly authorized agent should be defined more specifically...(WHICH position within DPW would be considered an "agent".) I asked....after the approval ...was this then ultimately signed off by the Director? I was told no ...that the director simply didn't have the time to review them and that in order to make sure the work progresses that this could be delegated to others. Through further discussion, I felt more comfortable with this change.

During the public hearing at our Tues. meeting, we heard from some within the development community. Will Whiteman commends that he attended some of the round-tables and commended the DPW for their good work However he specified that there should be some alteration to the sight distance regulations so that the individual home owner (or small development) would not have to adhere to the same regulations as what is required of a large development.. Bud Felty from McCrone Inc. commented that he agreed with what Mr. Whiteman had said and in addition asked to look more closely at the term "fee simple" as it relates to easements. He said that with easements we have the 'right' but not the 'title.' George Kaplan, asked that when variances have been granted that lists of these be sent to the commissioners. Mr. Carpenter (engineer) supports the codes as are. They do a good job of addressing the national standards and we should follow the 2004 standards.
==============
Program Open Space...Mentioned briefly at the worksession and in a bit more detail at the meeting. I had heard even more detail from Mr. Slicer when he gave his review at the PC meeting. In essence this is the latest outline of the programs within Open Space. By approving we maintain our eligibility to acquire Open Space money.
=============

P.O.S. Cecil applies to recover through POS 75% of the cost of fencing that has been installed on the McMillan property.
=====================

PUBLIC COMMENT....None
==============

INTRODUCTORY ITEMS: (To be voted on on August 5)
Dog License Fees increases... Imposing these fee changes is an authority that the county acquired through the legislature. We are now using them to adjust overdue fee increases. This has been reviewed by the Treasurer's office and they are okay with it.
=========
Resolution...code county. The process was reviewed by Mr. Wein, County Administrator. This was introduced as an action item at our May 6 meeting. We had two public hearings (June 5 and June 17.) The resolution was introduced at today's July 22 meeting. The commissioners will vote on this at the August 5 meeting. If four of the five commissioners agree, then the resolution will be submitted to the Board of elections on or before August 18. The question of Code Home Rule will be submitted to the voters in November for adoption or rejection. )
==========
Purchase of Develop. Rights for Harvey McNatt...this will remove 15 development rights from this land. At the worksession (and at the meeting) this was presented by Eric Shertz. This was within the MALPH but the money is not there...so requesting payment through the county. This money is available through the county PDR program via recordation tax collections.

ACTION ITEMS: (Voted on at the July 22 meeting)

Appointments to Boards and Committees
Susquehanna Workforce Network
Commission for Women
Planning Commission (Joe Janusz reappointed for three year term / Kennard Wiggins replacement for Joyce Bowlsbey...three year term .)

All appointments were approved.
==============
Nomination for Historic District (Thomas Scott's Place, 516 Colora Road, Colora ...owners William Mary Rowe. ) My personal take...if this does not qualify...I don't know what does. This is a genuine historical treasure. It passed.

===========
DPW items...all passed.
*construct Pine Hills AC pipe, Phase 2
*Seneca Point facilities repairs.
*Easements for Meadowview sewer and water upgrades.
*Utility easement for the town of North East
*Text amendments -- Septage hauling and Discharge. Starting August 1, 2008, all county septage must be discharged at the new septage receiving facility at the Cecil County Central Landfill. The charge will change from $30.00 per 1,000 gallons to $10 per ton.
*Closure of portions of Old Conowingo Road between Belle Manor Road and Conowingo Lake Road. This section has no access to home. many costs associated with maintaining and since it is not an essential portion of the public road system, permanent closure was granted.
==========
Budget amendments dealt with ADDITIONAL revenues. ..passed.

===============

2:00 meeting with Cecil County Partnership for Children Family and Youth

Cindy Smith, Director (along with Nick Ricciuti director of Social Services) gave an overview of the organization ... and why it is more than merely a "non-profit." They are one of 24 management board throughout Maryland. In 1991 they were made into a "non-profit" rather than part of the county since as such it is an easier way to disperse money. A Local Coordinating Council was established in 1980 for the placing in residential of those needing. The LCC itself has no money...it coordinates through other agencies....Nick involved in this. By law certain members within the community must be on the Local management Board and the Local Coordinating Board...(Schools, Social Service, hospital, government, etc). The Partnerships coordinate several programs within the county ...whose needs are determined with work of Program Committee and that are monitored making sure duplicate services are not given. At the back of the booklet that she gave us are listed the programs currently offered with outlines and who is the 'vendor'..(responsible for conducting the program) etc. Cindy explained the process for selecting the vendor...once need determined it is advertised and sent to those known to have worked with them before. A committee works through the submissions and determines who will be given the money (State) to conduct that program.

====================

Regional Park

Please pass this on to all who you feel may be interested…

Before I proceed with the main emphasis of this note, I want to remind all who may be interested that the culminating informational meeting regarding the various forms of government will be held at the new administrative building January 31 (Thursday) at 7:00 p.m. If you’ve missed the other three meetings, this will be a chance to catch up…if you did attend any or all of them, you won’t want to miss the final meeting. It has been suggested that we take (but don’t hold me to this) a fun and very informal vote from those here to see what the feeling is among those who are paying attention.

AND NOW TO THE MAIN POINT OF THIS LETTER:

We’ve been hearing many questions about the acquisition of the McMillan property to be used as a County Regional Park. Many have a negative take on this and I feel a need to clarify a few points. First, I believe there is a general lack of understanding of how the process works (not your fault, as little information has come to the public on this process...but then comes the problem of finding the means of getting that information OUT THERE.)

These negotiations have been ongoing for some time...actually every since I came on board. But every discussion has been within closed session as required by law when discussing contracts and appraisals and offers, etc. So, of course, there was no way for the public to understand detail on this acquisition and no way for the commissioners to communicate this (as closed sessions .... again by law... must be kept private.)

Some may say the land is overvalued…but then one must consider the standards that are used. There are different appraisal practices for different purposes. If the land is appraised strictly for agriculture use, one standard is used. If for commercial…another…and so it goes.

In this case, the standards used by the Open Space Program set up by the STATE (POS is a STATE program) and they have their own evaluation procedures and guidelines. This Open Space money has been set aside from a portion of recordation fees on real estate purchases and so is not from tax-payer money, as such. The POS money is collected on an ongoing basis and is available to be used by those who apply for it. If it is not used, please don’t think that it is then money that is saved. Rather if one applicant is granted the funding, then it will be awarded to another.

The money that is available through State Program Open Space is given out on the basis of very strict guidelines…one of them that appraisers from the State’s approved list are used. The county could possibly have used other appraisers not on the list….but to do so would be to risk losing consideration. So, the County did use STATE approved appraisers (two separate appraisals were conducted…to compare). The end result was that The Maryland Board of Public Works approved $2,558,000 in Program Open Space funds for the acquisition of the McMillan Farm. This funding was divided into $2,540,000 for land cost and $18,000 for incidental costs. Cecil County portion to be used for this property is $114,474. (Not bad for acquisition of 100 acres).

One misconception is that the intention of POS money is to preserve farmland. Although this is one aspect, Program open space was set up for the acquisition of parks, forests, wildlife management areas, scenic rivers, greenways, Chesapeake Bay access and other important natural and recreational areas. The preservation then goes hand in hand with setting aside areas to be enjoyed by the public. As you are well aware there are other programs actively preserving farm lands….the MALF being one.

In further explanation, I have lifted from the POS webpage the following:
Program Open Space (POS) is a nationally recognized program providing dedicated funds for Maryland's state and local parks and conservation areas. Established under the Department of Natural Resources in 1969, POS symbolizes Maryland's long term commitment to conserving our natural resources while providing exceptional outdoor recreation opportunities for our citizens.

Almost all of the land purchased by the DNR in Maryland in the last 37 years was funded at least in part through POS. Today there are more than 5,000 individual county and municipal parks and conservation areas that exist because of the program.

One of the criticisms heard against this land is that it contains wetlands. This is precisely one of the considerations that awarded us ‘points’ toward being awarded this State funding. The State considers wetlands as needing to be preserved and this was a plus in winning this acquisition. Also, consider that not all parklands are to be thought of as sites for ball fields for various sports. There is a need for walking trails, bike trails, and places to come simply to enjoy nature. We visualize that someday there may be opportunity for educational use (making use of the wetlands…bird-watching perhaps). There are many possibilities for this land.

Please know that my first consideration is the well being of the citizens. I don’t make spending decisions lightly, and at first I had many questions myself about this project. However through months of gaining detail, I’ve become comfortable that this will be of benefit to many at little cost to the Cecil County citizens. If we were to ‘ditch’ this and begin again (as some are suggesting) we would lose several more months and most assuredly would lose the POS funding that we have currently been awarded.

So, please know that I consider this a future benefit to the citizens and will support accepting this State POS money for this purchase.

Rebecca J. Demmler

Informational Meeting, Sludge Permit

In accordance with Section 9-234(e) of the Environment article, Annotated Code of Maryland, the Cecil County Board of County Commissioners have requested that the Maryland Department of the Environment (the “Department”) conduct a public hearing regarding a Sewage Sludge Utilization Permit application submitted by Synagro Central, LLC. The application is to land apply sewage sludge, at agricultural rates, generated from various wastewater treatment plants, on the Newstead Farm, LLC (CE 4) site located at 35 Saint Marks Church Road, Perryville, in Cecil county. The Newstead Farm, LLC (CE4) site is within one mile of Harford County.

Notice is given that the Department will hold a public information meeting regarding this application on December 12, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Perryville Town Office Meeting Room located at 515 Broad Street, Perryville. In case of inclement weather, the meeting will be held December 19, 2007—same time and location. The purpose of the public information meeting is to provide an opportunity to the general public to obtain information about this permit application and the Department’s review process. Representatives for the applicant and the Department will be available to answer specific questions.

The Department has provided this application to the Cecil County Board of County Commissioners, the Harford County Council, the Harford Department of Public Works, the Cecil County Office of Planning & Zoning, the Cecil County Health Department, and the Cecil County Soil Conservation District. The application and supporting documents are available for public review at these County offices and at the Department by appointment.

Upon request, an interpreter for the deaf or hearing-impaired person shall be provided. Written comments regarding this application may be addressed to: Mr. Horacio Tablada, Director, Waste Management Administration, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 610, Baltimore, MD 21230-1719.

For further information regarding this notice, to schedule an appointment to review the application, or request an interpreter, please contact Ms. Gail Castleman, Public Meetings Administrator at (410) 537-3310
============================

Please pass this on to those on your lists who you think may be interested.
Thank you.

Rebecca Demmler

A really bad idea

I'd like to commend Commissioner Demmler’s principled stand against legalizing slot machines and establishing them in our County. Anyone who has visited the cheesy casinos of Dover Downs or Atlantic City knows that a similar establishment would be out of character with our community. I'm proud of our County, and would hate to see it sullied with neon palaces dedicated to separating suckers from their money as a matter of public policy.

The cheerleaders in our County government who support slots have given no specifics on how the slot revenue would benefit Cecil County. After the casino/slot parlor owners take their 33% profit, the balance of the revenues go to Annapolis, not to Cecil County. There is no Cecil County "cut" in the plans I have seen. So what are we to gain except the infrastructure costs of supporting a machine to pump money to Annapolis? Our County Councilmen are just like the gamblers they hope to lure here. Bad at math, confused by the bright neon lights of empty promises. Blind to the consequences of their actions.

Our government should not be pimping slots as a way to buy itself out of its fiscal problems. It shouldn't be preying on people’s weaknesses, and the gullible poor. The result will be increasing the negative social costs to our County. Not to mention the corrupting influence of big business “gaming” money that would forever distort the democratic process of our elected government. Is this what we want for our children? It’s too bad Commissioner Demmler is the only elected official who has a regard for the true cost of this really bad idea.


Kennard R. Wiggins, Jr.