You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with me today
is Mr. Bob Taylor from Salsbury.
>> Hi, Andrew.
>> Mr. Mike Goldberg from Delmare.
>> Howdy. Howdy.
>> So, Bob, I the you're here today to talk
about some of the lawsuits regarding the
marine and landing development project
on the west side of the Wakamako River
downtown. And also there's also a
lawsuit pending for lot 10. And there's
a lot to break down there. Yeah. I want
to find out more just about how that's
going to break down and what the time
frames what people can expect because
the results could could come out, you
know, very immediate or they could drag
on and there may be repercussions down
the road for the rest of the downtown
Salsbury development.
>> I think both of those cases could be
fairly fastm moving. Uh looking at lot
10 for a minute. This is the the local
suit here in the circuit court. Uh
there's a hearing on a motion for a
temporary restraining order and we'll
get into the details on that later. But
the um hearing is set on that for the
12th of September.
>> Oh, okay. So
oft times the hearing on the TTRO will
sometimes it will dispose of the case
entirely.
uh if not it's oft times gives you a
pretty good hunch of how they're going
to proceed and how fast.
>> What does TTRO stand for?
>> Temporary restraining order. Okay. Yeah.
It's a temporary injunction essentially.
>> Um now the other case, the one in Marine
Landing that's in the federal court. Uh
there are there's also a pending motion
there to dismiss the federal claims.
That probably will be decided fairly
soon.
>> Okay.
>> Uh I would
>> but if they don't if they don't dismiss
it, it may get Yeah. how long that's
both both cases could play on,
>> but I think there's going to be some
initial action in court and possibly
rulings by the court within the next oh,
let's just say month, month and a half.
>> So, Mike, you and I have been very
diligent in watching the sanitary
district uh work sessions at the county
council meetings. We've asked a lot of
questions. We've we've spoken to some of
the elected officials. There's not been
a lot of clear answers. And uh I want to
talk with Bob later on about the the the
sewer water advisory committee. Uh you
know there's another county council
meeting tonight, Tuesday, September 2nd.
Have you heard anything that's come out
but about the sanitary district lately?
>> I have heard absolutely nothing and I'm
you know scratching my my head over it.
you know why the council is not being
more proactive in establishing
uh the sanitary district. Uh you know
this is a legitimate function of the
legislative body uh rather than the
executive branch but the executive
branch is taking the lead on this and I
am getting the sense that for reasons
that I I don't understand that the uh
that the council is you abdicating their
authority here. Well, they haven't yet,
but they're at least going to consider a
resolution tonight. And Bob, when we
come back from break, u I want to talk
about the lawsuits, but then later in
the show, I would like to find out more
information cuz I I think you have a lot
of understanding about just what where
they're at with this.
>> I'll try my best.
>> All right. So, stay with us. When we
come back, we're going to talk about the
lawsuits for the Lot 10 and the Marina
Landing in Salsbury. And later on, we'll
talk about the sanitary district. So,
stay with us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Still in
the studio with me is Mr. Bob Taylor
from Salsbury. Mr. Mike Goldberg, thanks
for sticking around.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So Bob, I want to talk as we said in the
last segment about the Marina Landing
site which is over right on the Wakcomo
River and and next to Brew River
Restaurant. So people understand,
there's a there's a lawsuit that's going
to that's pending with the city and the
developer. Is that accurate?
>> Yeah, that that's correct. I mean, just
a little background on it. Uh, the site
itself for the Marine Landing where the
buildings would be, uh, is about 2 and a
half acres. The city sold that to the
developer, uh, a couple of years ago for
a grand total of $1.
>> How much did the city pay for that
property?
>> Uh, part of it, it goes back some years,
but they paid a lot more than that. It
was a larger piece,
>> millions.
>> Uh, I think it was 1.4 million, but and
but it was a larger piece of property,
>> right? Um, so in any event, uh, $1 is
absurd for too many, needless to say.
>> U, but anyway, uh, it's bounded on one
side, uh, to the west by an existing
apartment project, and to the other side
towards the downtown Salsbury by a large
parking lot, 114 spaces that essentially
is the parking largely used by Brew
River, particularly at night. Um, and
that is a public parking lot. Um,
there's some question as to whether Brew
River has any particular rights in it to
use it, but that's um, there is a
question, I think, whether Marina
Landing has a right to use it. When they
sold the property, when they bought the
property, pardon me, from the city, the
city also gave them an exclusive use
agreement for that parking lot. Uh the
agreement itself says that it would be
provided for exclusive use by the public
and by Marina Landing. Now you can have
two parties with exclusive use of the
same thing.
>> Next up we have U Marina Landing amended
and restated LDA. Mr. mayor.
>> But yeah, let me introduce this just by
saying um RFP09-16
um was issued um 1229
2015. Um and so we've been working at
this for a while. uh you know
significantly we um tore up and rebuilt
the street in front of the marina uh
which delayed uh things not to mention
co um but um you know we've been working
through the steps for a long time and
this is a complicated uh uh agreement
because we have an active marina that
was part of that RFP. Um you know this
hands over an active marina to uh to the
new owner plus a mixeduse development.
So as Mr. Mayor uh Mr. President and
council members John Custous with Long
Badger and Sheller represent the
developer and appreciate the opportunity
to be here tonight. Our mayor did a
wonderful job in in uh giving a synopsis
of of where we are. We obviously I can't
stand here and say that things have gone
smoothly and things have gone quickly
because we've been at this for quite a
while. Uh but I will say that u but it
is a simpler version of what we have
been working with. It does solve a lot
of the issues that were hurdles from a
financing standpoint, from a
construction standpoint. Um things and
it addresses things that uh this uh
council has also adopted like the
horizon tax credit program.
>> Just wanted to point out that the
agreement does set some deadlines for
site plan approval and building permit
approval. So that that is has been
updated. And then um as Mr. Custous
noted this is eligible for Horizon and
for the um here is home incentive
program as well as potentially receiving
soil from the treatment plant and the
riverw walk reimbursement program. So
we've
>> the the main buildings the two towers
that were previously conceived with the
with the amount of apartments in there.
We went back and and uh given the
current marketing conditions and all
that that's that's going on now, the
developers have added more apartments to
the boat house to to increase the
opportunity uh for this particular
project. So, as Amanda stated, we're
we're going to come back through the
process and submit that that that next
level density. But but yeah, those those
are those are that that's what the
developer's intent is. And then it's
important to note they do not need to go
to board of zoning appeals because now
the the property that they will own will
include the parking lot. So it's a
larger area. So it's actually less dense
than if they were just owning the
parcels of land with the building. So So
that's a good thing.
>> At one point
at one point the um uh the city was
going to retain ownership of the parking
lots. Um and that's if you recall we
extended the parking district down that
way. Um and then we later uh changed our
parking regulations. Um so uh it made
all of that unnecessary. Um but this the
uh structure of the agreement that
Michael uh um that Mr. Sullivan and um
Mr. Custous worked on is sort of the
model you can expect to see moving
forward. So it'll they'll look more like
this than previous versions of the LDAS.
Um, so, uh, in other projects that
involve city land,
>> will there be any affordable in there?
>> Uh, not anything specific, but but
market rate affordable is
>> what is your what is supposedly your
market rate going to be? Have you have
do you have any idea
>> as the architect? I don't
>> And I do think it's worth not that uh
noting that that's that's what the city
sought and received back 5 years ago was
a market rate apartment development. Um
whereas for example over on lot 30
around the corner we saw it affordable
housing and we have all affordable units
coming there.
>> Uh my view of it is public parking lots
essentially you can't give private
rights in them. Uh so I think that's an
issue but there's more issues to it than
that. Um the federal suit that you
mentioned now that's pending in in
Baltimore not here in in the circuit
court. um that was brought by the
developer. Uh his claim essentially is
he's entitled to build the property uh
and the city won't let him. I'm
summarizing of course being very uh
summary here. Uh there are two aspects
of that case. The reason it is in
federal court is because they have filed
for um claims under the federal civil
rights legislation. that does extend to
some extent to property rights. There's
another count in it that raises the what
I call the local land use zoning issues.
Um right now that case is pending
motions to dismiss the federal counts.
Um and whether that's going to happen or
not, we don't know. There'll probably
probably be a ruling on that within the
next I'm guessing several weeks, maybe a
month. Uh possibly no hearing in the
federal court. We may just get a ruling.
Now,
>> why why is there no hearing in the
federal court?
>> Well, the the federal my uh feeling, and
I've litigated in federal court, they
tend to handle things maybe
expeditiously isn't the word, but they
don't tend to have as many hearings.
They will look at the pleadings and if
they don't think there's any need for a
hearing, they'll just rule. Uh I don't
know whether that's going to happen here
or not. I can't tell you.
>> Okay. Um but in any event motion to
dismiss normally moves pretty quickly.
Um now what would happen after that? We
don't know if the uh federal claims are
dismissed. I don't know whether under
the federal civil rules those local land
use claims will remain in the federal
court or whether they'll come back here
to the circuit court. I don't know the
answer. I haven't had time to look at
that.
>> Uh but they're still there. um the the
the motion to dismiss is only the
federal part.
>> Okay.
>> Uh now I've been uh concerned about this
from the standpoint of the local land
use claims and for two for two reasons.
I mentioned the parking lot aspect uh
before. Um when that came before the
planning and zoning commission, it's
really unusual. They recognized there
was a parking problem there. Everybody
tends to recognize that. The reason
who's they
>> the the planning and zoning commission.
>> Okay.
>> The reason for that is that calling for
76 residential apartment units mostly
two sto two twobedroom. Uh and then
there's also commercial space in the
range and I've seen different figures on
this of about 20,000 if not a little bit
more than that square ft
>> for 114 parking spaces. And there are
108 I think it is parking spaces on the
lot itself on the site of the marine
where those buildings would be.
>> Um so when you average this out at 1.5
spaces per apartment unit it would be
about 114 spaces on site. You'd need
that normally
>> not counting the commercial and
>> that doesn't count anything for the
commercial. It also doesn't take into
account the fact that where the marina
landing site is in the past has been
used for parking for the marina. So
that's being taken away as well. Uh so
those people now tend to park on the
public parking lot,
>> the one that is shared with Brew River.
>> The one that's essentially Yeah. shared
with Brew River. So what you have is a
real It's tight. I mean, even Mike Dunn
on his thing in in uh uh the Delm Marva
media show about a month or so ago, he
he recognizes there's a a real parking
problem that everybody does.
>> Because one thing you didn't mention is
this developer also gets two 50-year
leases for the the marina itself. Right.
>> That's right. Now, I think that is to
operate it as a public marina. Yeah. I
haven't I don't have the lease agreement
on that, so I can't speak. You're
talking commercial space, residential,
marina, and a restaurant are all
supposed to share enough spaces that
mathematically only equate out to just
enough for the residential.
>> Well, and also uh facilities are on the
opposite side of Fitzwater Street.
>> Well, why can't they just park in lot
30?
>> Well, because that's going to be
developed.
>> Okay. Is this the Green Street Housing?
>> That's the Green Street Housing.
>> Is Is this the one that is one of the
pilot programs that's being pushed by
the the state government? Well, I I
don't know about pilot, but it's a
low-income housing tax credit. It would
be a low-inccome uh rental uh project,
>> but those parking spaces will go away.
>> That's going to take that parking lot
away, and it's going to increase demand.
>> Okay?
>> And there's not enough parking on the
actual site where the Green Street
building is going to be. There's there's
going to be parking across the street
for that as well. And and there's
nowhere to create any parking easily.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, the Purdue plant's not going to
be turned down torn down for parking.
the other building, the newer building
that was part of this original property
that the city bought back in the 80s
that's already been developed has the
two buildings. I wonder if the folks
over there know that their their parking
spaces may become u valuable real estate
here soon.
>> Well, you know, maybe they can do a
rental deal, I guess, if if there's not
if there's excess parking there. I don't
know whether there is or not, but that
would be a possibility.
>> They could be coming home with a bag of
groceries and nowhere to park to go get
their groceries up the steps.
>> Yeah. And you can't really count on it.
Yeah. They might lease it for 5 years,
10 years, but then what happens after
that if the parking's needed? It's not a
permanent solution.
>> Uh so that's really where that stands.
Now, what I'm trying to do is hopefully
uh maybe give a they call it amicacus
curi uh some information to the city on
on this land use part of this lawsuit
because if it the property is not ready
to get building permits, in other words,
if it hasn't complied with the zoning
code or this parking lot matter uh is
really verboten, then to me that may end
the whole suit. So, do they have
building permits in hand?
>> No, I don't think they do. I I can't
speak definitively, but I don't think
they do.
>> Okay. Your understanding is that they
that they don't is your
>> concern. I'll go back and and read
through the the uh complaint on this,
but I don't I don't think they do.
>> Now, everything you just talked about is
actually only in one lawsuit.
>> That's only one of them. And like you
said, it's in federal court. How does
this relate to lot 10? Is this related
to lot 10 in that suit? Well, not I I
don't think it is myself. I mean, one
way to look at it is they're opposite
ends of the greater downtown Salsbury
area.
>> So, lot 10 is where the fleet or the
farmers market used to be,
>> where the farmers market used to be.
It's bounded on one side by the business
13 and on the other side by the cut off
from Route 50 on to 13.
>> And this one's owned by Menis Nick
Simpsons.
>> This is owned by Yeah. Nick Simpson's uh
business. Um,
>> but this is a parking lot that we can't
park in now that we used to be allowed
to park in.
>> Yeah. What what happened was uh and and
this pertains to the lawsuit that the
city has filed there that that suit was
filed about a month ago uh in the
circuit court here. So, it's not in
Baltimore, it's here. Um, and what the
gist of that suit is, uh, that Simpson
has essentially closed the lot for use
by the city and the public for parking.
The deal when the property was sold, and
that was, I will say this, that was not
a $1 deal. That was, I think, about
285,000
for a little less than 3 acres. Some I
think I've got my numbers right there. I
may be mistaken. Uh, it was some money,
but not not a whole lot. fair market
value,
>> I would think so. And my understanding
is there was another bidder who bid
considerably more, but for some re
reason he was deemed to not be a
suitable party to sell the property to,
he or it, whatever that was. Uh, but at
least in that one, he's decided to close
it off. Now, the the contract they
signed with the city provides that the
city gets to use it for parking until
they're ready to do something on the
property. Okay.
>> And they they then have to give notice
of their intent to begin demolition and
excavation work, the first part of site
work for a a project. They gave that
notice. Now, I will say gave that notice
this spring.
before that happened. The background on
this is the state through Jake Day's
department,
>> the the housing housing and urban
development has uh allocated something
like $4 million for this project. M
>> there's always been an issue between
Nick Simpson's firm and the city as to
what exactly that is to be used for
whether that means public type
infrastructure sidewalks if they need to
put in new sewer mains in the streets
something like that or whether that
means that Simpson can use it for what
would be project construction costs
>> which should be on the private side of
this
>> yeah I won't get into that I'm not going
to go there. I don't have full
information on it. But regardless,
because of I think this bad blood is why
Simpson says, "Well, then I'm just going
to say you can't use my parking lot. You
can't use the lot anymore. I'm going to
say I intend to go forward with
development."
>> He he's saying the city can't use it,
but they are in negotiations with the
county.
>> Yeah. Let me let me let me get to that.
I mean, f first of all, he has no
permits to do anything.
>> Yeah. So the notice of intent to proceed
now going forward a little bit within
the last couple of weeks and let me just
read it to you. Uh by email dated August
15, 2025, Wcomamako County Julie
Executive Julie Gordano notified Mayor
Taylor that starting September 1
yesterday, the county would start making
payments to defendant and not to the
city for the county's use of lot 10.
So now the county wants to use the lot
and Simpson has agreed that they can use
it and this is the same lot he's saying
he's going to proceed with development
on.
>> Why why do you think the county
executive would undermine the city's
intentions on getting this developed
properly uh by also then lying the
pockets of another developer?
>> I tell you if if I could answer that,
I'd be at the races and playing the
lottery every day. Have you heard the
county executive say anything publicly
about opening this up for county use?
>> I have not, but I've been out of town
for a good bit of the last month and um
>> has it has it come across anything for
you, Mike?
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> Yeah. So, we haven't heard our county
executive speak to this, but it's in
some of the briefs.
>> Yeah. Now, we'll probably hear more
fairly shortly because the city's
lawsuit asks for a temporary restraining
order and then a permanent injunction
essentially saying, "You've got to get
let us keep using this lot."
>> Mhm.
>> Um that's set for hearing in the circuit
court here in town on I think the 12th
of September.
>> Okay.
>> Uh in the afternoon that'll public
event. Yeah. That that anybody can go
there and listen.
>> Okay. Um,
>> do you think the executive's office will
be represented there or is this more of
a city versus the developer type of
thing?
>> Uh, the developer, this is an
interesting point and there is some
connection between the uh Marina Landing
and and the lot 10. Um, Nick Simpson has
gotten the same law firm to represent
his firm on lot 10 in this county case
that I've mentioned. the same law firm
that filed for
the Marine Landing developer in the
federal court.
>> It's a law firm out of Baltimore.
>> So, it's not a local law firm.
>> It's not a local.
>> So, they're bringing in the big guns
from across the bridge is what
>> Well, they're from across the bridge.
Whether they're big guns remains to be
seen.
>> Yeah. But, I mean, us taxpayers here in
the city and the county had better
buckle up. We're about to lose a lot of
parking and at least some money
defending these lawsuits.
>> That's true.
>> And look, let's discuss briefly what
this isn't. This is not about the
central business district density issue
and this isn't about Salsbury Town
Center Apartments. These are two
separate issues alto together. Lot 10
being where the flea market and the
farmers market used to be that we can't
park in and the Marina Landing parking
lot in that area which is over near Brew
River. None of this is actually the the
what was the hot topic 6 months ago.
>> No. And and that still is a hot topic.
There's a pending lawsuit involving S
Salsbury Town Center Apartments, but
there's nothing scheduled on that uh
right now until sometime after the first
of the year.
>> Yeah, it must be really hard for a small
city like the size of Salsbury to go up
against the uh the the state office of
housing or urban development, especially
when they have so much inside knowledge
because the person who leads that, the
director is the former mayor Jake Day.
>> Well, of course, the The state is not
directly involved in these lawsuits as a
litigant, but he's given, as I
understand it, the state through Jake
Day has given a half a million dollars
for the Salsbury Town Center project
just for infrastructure.
And I mean, that's private market rate
development. That is not affordable
housing.
>> Nor is Marina Landing. it. You know,
we'll talk about this more in the in the
in another show, but this does hearken
back, Mike, to the biodeiesel refinery
where local citizens, local government
is fighting a state agency with state
money, which only deres its money from
the same local residents that they're
fighting.
>> Well, you know, absolutely. And you
know, it makes it's it's very difficult
when you consider the more limited
financial resources of the city or the
county to be able to fight a much larger
city hall, that being the state of
Maryland. Well, Bob, would you stick
around another segment? I want to talk
about the sanitary district and what is
on the agenda tonight at the uh uh the
county council meeting, specifically
with the uh sewer water advisory
committee.
>> Yeah, it's great. I'll be here.
>> So, stay with us. When we come back, Bob
will still be here and we're going to
talk county city water rates and the
future there. So stay with us. We'll be
right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. So Mr. Bob
Taylor stuck around to talk city or
county water and sewer. Thank you for
staying, Mr. Mike Goldberg.
>> Of course. So, we're looking at the the
agenda for the September 2nd Tuesday
meeting for the Wakamo County Council
and and on the agenda is a discussion
about setting up a sewer water advisory
committee which is not exactly the same
as the sanitary district committee. Is
that right?
>> Not at all. Yeah, it's completely
different.
>> Well, real briefly, what is the sanitary
district committee? They're not set up
yet, but what what is what is their role
supposed to be and who should be putting
them in place? Sanitary districts are
subject to a lot of specific state
legislation
>> like like guidelines and the rules and
guardrails.
>> Yeah. More more or less all you have to
do is set it up. Uh now the appointment
is done by the county council.
>> So we have
>> that's the state law. That's the state
law. Um, and it looks to me in overview
like the county executive has been
delaying trying to keep inhouse, meaning
subject to the executive branch control,
anything that's going to be done in
terms of any sewer or water systems of
the county.
>> That's how it's worked so far.
>> Well, yes and no.
>> I mean, they are doing three projects to
extend city services out areas of the
county.
>> Yeah. just they got they got they got a
grant to do the planning to connect
three neighborhoods that are contiguous
to the city to the city system. The
purpose of a sanitary district is to
essentially design, install, and operate
sanitary facilities, sewer or water. And
that's not what's happening with these
three neighborhoods. It's just going to
be tied into the city system and that's
it. introdu introduced at the request of
the county executive
is a resolution to have a sewer and
water advisory committee.
>> Doesn't that seem redundant?
>> Well, it's it's yes, it's it would be
redundant if we had a sanitary district.
We still don't have a sanitary district.
>> Next for your consideration is
resolution number 134-2025.
This is to create a water and sewer
technical advisory committee and adopt
committee bylaws. And before you Mr.
Paul Wilbur, our county attorney, and
again, Mr. Bunky Loveman, our director
of administration,
>> I think in trying to figure out exactly
what options might be best, whether we
go with the committee uh that's being
presented here now or whether we stay
with the commission that we've already
agreed upon and through state
legislation, we um uh we um form the u
sanitary district. So there are a lot of
questions as to why we've changed paths
and you know maybe to whose benefit in
the long term that might that you know
may be in favor upon
um you might say consideration by I
think the executive the staff I know
there's been discussion among the
council about a senary commission having
uh broad powers to bond sign contracts
set rates and the sanitary commission
would be a volunteer
group, not an elected group versus a
um desire to keep it just inhouse, if
you will, in the public works department
with an advisory committee, which is
what the legislation is before you
tonight. To my knowledge, uh, the state
has seen, uh, more than one county, uh,
that's created a sanitary commission and
then abandon it and go to just a county
operated system, which is Worcester, as
an example.
>> Have we had a any documentation from the
state that said that they'd have no
problems with this change? Uh I think
there's been discussion I think with
less nap.
>> Um
>> but we have no we have no documentation
that says
>> I don't think we have anything in
writing.
>> Yeah. That says okay you can do it this
way or that.
>> No.
>> I think that's I think that would be
advantageous for us to have something
like that before we made a decision.
Without without documentation
um saying that they're on board with
this. I'd be reluctant that this council
move forward with it. Um, would the
council entertain tableabling this until
we get some documentation.
>> There's a motion to table. Is there a
second?
>> Second.
>> All those in favor say I.
>> I post.
>> Motion's carried. Um, resolution 134
2025 has been tabled. This is this is
going to drastically change the way
Wakcomo County looks a 100 years from
now when much like big big counties
across the bridge that don't have
municipalities like Futland or Delmare
really act like one county uh one
municipality then we could have these
water and sewer stations all over the
place.
>> It will change the direction of
development
>> and I think there's been some
fear-mongering behind the scenes.
>> Okay. There has been no work session
discussion of this committee.
>> Okay.
>> Uh there have been some work sessions on
the sanitary district. They haven't gone
anywhere.
>> Don't you think that's odd they're going
to consider a resolution without even
having it in work session? Cuz that's
something that we've rarely seen them
do.
>> I think it's very unusual.
>> Yeah.
>> And I think it's unfortunate.
>> Well, thanks for watching this episode
of Open Agenda. We'll be back next week
with another new
It's how you do
