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 us is Mr.
Mike Goldberg from Delmare. Thank you.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Jim Atkins from Mardella. Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> So, uh, we were at the meeting on
Tuesday for the well, for the county
council meeting, and part of that was
the CIP and
>> Yeah.
>> Uh, I want to bring in Josephino later.
I was actually sitting next to him at
the meeting and, uh, he was excited. He
saw the CIP on the agenda and he thought
we were going to talk about the CIP, but
that was not the case. Right.
>> Well, this was his uh this was his first
experience with the uh with the CIP
coming coming in front of the council
and baptism by baptism. He he got to see
how it uh the sausages actually started
to be made and uh it wasn't the way he
thought it was going to be.
>> But the good thing is we've we've had
the CIP for a couple days. The three of
us have had a chance to evaluate it from
multiple angles.
>> Yes. the the detail in the projects, the
priority or lack of prioritization, and
then Mike, you're also I'd like to have
Joe in and then have you come back to
talk about more the longer term the the
financial liabilities of of how the CIP
is presented.
>> Well, stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Joe Scafino and
we're going to dive into the CIP.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with us now is Joe Scafino from
Salsbury. Joe, thanks for joining us.
>> Jim, thanks for sticking around.
>> Sure. So Joe, you you were at the uh the
Tuesday county council meeting and uh I
was sitting next to you and you were you
were excited because you thought you
were going to hear about the capital
improvement plan, right?
>> Right. That was what the agenda said.
You address it. So I was I was ready.
>> Yeah.
>> Jim and I have been going for a few
years now and
>> we know better.
>> Yeah. All that meant was it got turned
in. That was the first time the county
council had seen it. Um, which is odd
cuz it's been getting worked on for a
while and there will be work sessions in
January and February, but it does seem
like a lost opportunity when the fact
that it's actually just being handed to
them for the first time.
>> Uh, before you you will see um the
capital improvement plan submitted on
the date uh as stated in the charter
and uh Pam is going to go over some
highlights uh for you.
>> It would have been nice. I mean I
understand that's what the charter
requires. So, but you know, it'd be nice
to see it ahead of time so you could
start to discuss it.
>> Exactly. Well, so, so Jim, there are a
few things in there that we've we've
seen in work sessions lately, especially
about emergency services, and this is
such a big deal in the county in many
different aspects. We're not just
talking about firefighters, not just
talk about police, not just talk about
the corrections department, but how they
all interact. And and I I want to start
with, you know, we covered in early
December the the the republication of
the SWAT analysis. Uh and and and I
think that surprised some of the
firefighters that nothing has been done
with that in the last 9 months. But we
also we didn't see anything from the
SWAT analysis actually make the CIP
either, right?
>> So I guess in the county executive's
initial plan, this was going to just get
kicked down the road for another year.
the county council did ask and and she
seemed agreeable to to look at putting
some numbers on there, right?
>> Yeah, the finance director and the
executive did did agree to put some
numbers in there. The interesting part
to me was that two weeks prior, the
director of emergency services had done
a presentation again on a SWAT analysis
and had a number in there for
vehicles and equipment for chase units
that should be in the in the capital
budget, but uh they stated that they
didn't have any numbers. That's why
there weren't any numbers in there.
We have numbers.
>> Yes, we we saw numbers.
>> At least Mr. Craropper has numbers,
right?
>> Yeah. And he showed them to the council
and to the public.
>> So
>> So Joe, you were at that work session
and then you again, like as we said, we
were at this capital improvement plan.
Would you have liked to have seen at
least either an acknowledgement of what
we were going to do or maybe even an
acknowledgement that we unfortunately
don't have the money to do anything?
>> Yeah, I mean my impression was they were
ready to go. um you know the the the
proposal about chase units in the east
and the west. I mean to me that sounded
like a no-brainer for for what the
problem they wanted to address. Well,
the in and the the fire chief
association, they want to do the
onein-one, but there is this option to
do a hybrid where you do where you work
towards a one-on-one, but then you also
integrate some chase units. But at the
end of the day, if if we're going to
have work sessions, they're going to
make these proposals and then we're
going to have capital improvement plans
off off of nothing, then then it just
seems it just seems like a waste of
time.
>> Yeah. And I got it's got to be
frustrating for the for the Chiefs. I
mean, they put all this time and and
work in. They're the guys where the
boots on the ground, rubber meets the
road. And
I have to think at some point they're
going to feel like nobody's listening to
us.
>> Oh, it's like Chief White said on the
December 2nd meeting.
When they called about coming in for
that presentation, he thought that they
had agreed on everything in April. It
was done
>> and didn't know what the what the need
was to have a meeting because we thought
things were already signed and sealed.
They just hadn't been delivered.
>> Well, you know, talk also about boots on
the ground. Another area that you don't
think about until you need them is the
911 center.
>> Exactly.
>> And initially in the plan to build the
new sheriff's office, there was going to
be a new emergency services center that
would house 911 out at the new
>> be a combination building.
>> Yeah. and and and for financial reasons
they didn't do that at the time. They're
still kind of crammed in the second
story of the detention center.
>> Jim, you've worked there.
>> Yes.
>> Um and they are crammed in.
>> Yeah, that's correct.
>> So, in this CIP, they do have over the
next 5 years about $36 million set aside
to to design. I think 2 million to just
to design the building and then another
20 million plus for the
>> 22.5 million for for the building. And I
mean it has been the can has been kicked
down the road. Uh one of the biggest
problems now with the amount of room
that they have up there, they have gone
to the same type of work schedule that
the fire departments go by. They're
working 24 on, 72 off.
and they need some place
that they are allowed to go in and rest
during that 24-hour shift. You can't
expect them to stay awake the entire
time. So, I mean, just knowing what I
know from when I was there, there I'm
sure whatever room they've created for
them to go in and rest is not great.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
that and and then that also leads us
into the Department of Corrections part.
And and look, I got to say I I think a
lot of these departments did a nice job
at least laying out their their needs.
I'm not sure if the plan
>> gives the public a really good idea
about where the priorities are
necessarily, but it was it was great to
see how there was a little bit more
detail, which is a positive. It it
probably needs more, but at least we're
headed in that direction. the Department
of Corrections, you know, they want to
reuse the old sheriff's office off of
Nailaylor Mill Road, but that would
require renovations and and we did see
that in the CIP, right?
>> Yes. And that has been in previous CIPs.
>> Another thing, you know, and you you
can't fault
the administration or anybody. You can't
do everything you want in one year.
>> Sure. But there comes a point in time
where you just certain things just can't
keep being pushed down the line on and
on because they're going to cost money.
The 911 center is a classic example. I
mean that has been in the plans
basically since the sheriff's office got
in the plan because as Joe stated,
initially it was going to be a
combination building, but then the
county couldn't afford both buildings.
So they've pushed the 911 center down.
Well, it has now gone from a projected
$20 million building to a $22.5 million
building. So I mean,
>> and I do want to say that decision to
push that down was not this current
council or administration.
>> No, it wasn't.
>> So this wasn't this wasn't something
that a current county executive decided.
>> No, but you only have so much money and
things have to be pushed down the road.
But what you have to do each year is you
have to
get your priorities on the top of the
list and the things that aren't
priorities need to we just can't do
these things, you know.
>> Now, I will say one thing that's
impressive is how quickly the new
shoemaker library has has come about. I
mean, I I definitely had concerns when
we first started planning this because
it seemed rushed.
>> Yes. But in less than two years, we've
gone from this was not part of our our
future to that it's being implemented.
And because of their I mean it is
impressive their capital campaign.
>> Yes,
>> they've exceeded their their the amount
of donations they expected to to collect
>> and we are proceeding with with even
state grants coming back in to to start
putting in the the performing arts
center.
>> Yes. and the the the possibility that uh
I mean the CIP shows a projected amount
of donations for the library which have
been exceeded already. So it may very
well amount that the payo or or county
funding for the library may be negated
because of the amount of donations that
come in. The a little bit more than a
million dollars that the county was sp
going to the library may very well be
covered by private and corporate
donations which will be a help for the
county.
>> It's it's a great way to use public
private partnerships to to to not burden
the taxpayers. Now, there are still some
questions. I mean, so board of
education, the the county council, the
the executive's office asked them and
they agreed. Um, it was a 5 to1 vote to
to extend basically the forward fund for
Fruitland primary. They only expect that
to be 5 or 15.5 million, but they had to
sign a note that would say that it could
go up to 39 million because that's that
is the total total. It probably won't be
that high. But one of the interesting
things is we saw at the work session
with Dr. Staer and Tara Barski when they
talked about the weapons detection
systems they put in there for 1.6
million at the high end on the capital
cost. What's interesting is on the CIP
the county executive has put in 2
million.
>> Yes.
>> And I'm not sure why we needed an extra
400,000. So I emailed Dr. Staer
yesterday. I think you reached out to
him as well.
>> I spoke to him as well. He he told me
the number hasn't changed. The number is
still the 1.6 million.
>> And the 1.6 million, as Dr. Barski
stated, was put in there at the high
end, the high estimate because they did
not want to have to come back to the
council and ask for additional funding.
So they, in my opinion, overestimated
the cost of the equipment. So then why
>> 6 million
>> at 1.6 million. So, so why does the
county then go in and show it in in the
CIP at uh 2 million?
>> Well, Jim, you and I have both spoken at
several council meetings about the
moving of capital money. Yeah. and and
as a fiscal conservative, it really it
rattles my cage that we would have
overstated funds and instead of
returning them to the the ledger to to
to limit the burden on taxpayers, it
seems like we're just finding other
projects to funnel who which may not be
in the same order that the CIP should
show. We we don't have that public
discourse. Um, now when you when you
talk about I mean between Fruitland
Primary, we don't know how much that may
end up costing us in the short term and
we really don't know if the weapons
detection systems will even get approved
and at what amount they should. But then
we also factor in like the Wakamako
County dredging. I mean in the CIP
there's again an over 10 million more
dollars between in the next five years
committed to that. We've already
committed over 10 million now. Right.
Yeah.
>> Uh Joe, you you got a chance to see the
the work the work session and we're
going to bring Mike Goldberg back in to
talk more about that, but when you're
seeing this CIP and there's not really a
a prioritization, but then you you hear
these other big numbers, I mean, you're
a taxpayer. Does it does it worry you
that we're going to end up spending more
than we have?
>> Oh, definitely. Um, I mean I I the state
has to have a balanced budget and
I'm assuming we have to have that too.
>> We do. We have to balance it.
>> Yeah.
>> And that's why you you you get a
balanced budget and that's why in the
third or fourth week of July, you have
people coming into the council asking
for funding that wasn't in the budget
>> just three weeks into the year.
>> Yeah. 3 weeks into the year because if
they put that funding in it the budget
wouldn't have been balanced. So that's
their way of getting a balanced budget.
>> Well, and we we don't know what the
surplus is yet. We're going to again
we're going to talk Mike Goldberg about
that later, but there are there are
still some other questions. So the
Verizon building where the health
department's going to change.
>> That's a big question.
>> Okay. I I have a lot of questions there
too. Now, we we heard back in April in
the CIP for the fiscal year we're in
now, the county executive's office
proposed spending an additional $2.75
million,
>> and a lot of it was for an elevator. Um,
and and again, we we could do a whole
show on that. I I don't understand how
you get to that such a large number,
>> but let's just say that that they felt
like it should be 2.75 million. It's not
in this CIP at all. There's not any
money to renovate the Verizon building
before they move in. Right.
>> There's some later down the line.
>> U some other improvements. Uh less than
a million.
>> And wasn't that building sold to the
county as a turnkey?
>> That that's exactly what
>> you know the big interesting fact is
that last year
at this same time the CIP had 2.75
million in it. I remember that
>> for the Verizon bill,
>> right?
>> When when after all the hearings and all
the budget hearings and everything, the
council
took out the 2.75 million because there
were no drawings, no plans, nothing to
back up that number, asked the health
department and the executive's office to
come back with a plan.
Well, this year
there's not any money in the CIP for the
Verizon building. So, does that mean
that the Verizon building that we now
own and are getting no rent from, it's
just sitting there and we're paying for
the maintenance on it? Does that mean
that we've got another year before the
health department moves out to the
Verizon building because there's no
funds shown to do it? Now, the
interesting part was was after the CIP
was handed to the council on Tuesday for
them to look at at their leisure, not at
the council meeting, but at their
leisure. the executive went back to her
office and did an interview with WBOC
where
number one they wanted to put the hurdle
building
>> the one downtown
>> downtown part of the health department
as surplus property
>> well the health department is still in
that building so why are we making it
surplus property when we're not ready to
move into the Verizon building and we
still need it. But during the interview,
she stated
that there was a million dollars needed
for the Verizon building. Well, last
year it was 2.75 million. Now we're down
to we need a million to renovate it, do
what we need to do, but we still have no
plans or drawings. So,
>> and it wasn't in the CIP.
>> And it's not in the CIP. So there's no
funding for it for another year.
>> Well, and and then in the CIP there was
a half a million dollar to renovate the
Fritz building, which is the one on
Carol Street,
>> which is there was already $200,000 set
aside to do that work. And we were told
that they didn't need to do it. They
moved that money to the nursing home to
upgrade the electrical system there,
>> which I could need. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not
against that. But you had the money
there,
>> but now never now we're asking for it
again.
>> But two and a half times. This is not
fiscally conservative or fiscally
responsible. And I I just can't imagine
the taxpayers if they knew we were
throwing around 2 million here and a
half a million there. I mean, most
people right now are trying to figure
out how to afford their groceries. Yeah.
>> Well, there's one other thing I want to
talk to him about is about the the
fiscal year audit from 2025.
Uh technically, it's supposed to be in
by the end of December. Uh it does seem
like they've gotten much quicker. Uh
last year we didn't see it presented
until the end of March, 1 of April. Uh
but we're going to get at the end of of
January. What I'd like to do is bring in
Mike Goldberg and I'd like to talk about
some of his concerns about what what he
saw with the overall numbers and really
not knowing where our surplus actually
is right now. So thank you, Joe. So stay
with us. When we come back, we're going
to talk to you about the future and the
budget prospects for the fiscal year
2027.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Back in the
studio with us is Mike Goldberg from
Delmare. Thanks for coming back.
>> Of course,
>> Jim, thanks for sticking around. Yeah.
>> So, it was great have a chance to talk
with Jose Scapino about his view of the
capital improvement plan that was on the
on the agenda, but not really on the
agenda. Uh Mike, I know you have done
some analysis, not as far as like Gemini
picking apart the individual projects,
but you're seeing some some really
potential for the uncommitted sources of
funds throughout the CIP. And I want you
to explain that.
>> Well, let me take back my piece of paper
so I can talk about that.
>> That was my cheat sheet.
>> Well, we can share it.
>> Now you um there are a lot of
uncommitted sources of fundings or
ambiguous commitments to to funding. um
state grants and loans, federal grants,
what's only called other, which is
completely unidentified and to be
determined. Now, these collectively make
up about 46%
of the of the uh projected uses of
funds. That's a pretty big chunk. Now,
if we can't identify what those sources
of funding are, then are they valid? We
don't know. The devil's going to be in
the details on that. Of course, I'm
particularly concerned about state
funding because the state, as almost
everybody knows, is experiencing a uh a
fiscal crisis and I think we can
reasonably expect that funding across
the board that would flow down to the
counties. It's probably going to, you
know, be reduced and that could also
include our disparity grant. So, you
know, we have this wish list, but right
now we don't completely understand how
we're going to pay for it. You have to
make certain underlying assumptions in
any kind of a, you know, budgeting
process.
>> You have you have to make the leap.
>> You do, but they have to be reasonable
assumptions. Are these assumptions
reasonable? I have no idea.
>> Well, and Jim, we we said in the last
segment we wanted to talk about it. One
of the things that would make some of
these assumptions more reasonable to
understand is if we had the fiscal the
audit from the fiscal year 2025 which
ended back in June. Um last year we
found out after the audit came out which
was really late. It's nice to see that
it's getting earlier. Uh PKS has been in
earlier. They said that things are ahead
of schedule but we found out we had
about $17 million surplus. And surplus
meaning unspent funds spent funds. Yes.
or maybe revenues were a little bit
higher in some areas. If this if the if
the state is as as as you said, they're
in a financial crisis. They have a
structural deficit that has a tendency
to hit the counties in multiple ways. It
could just hit directly to the
taxpayers, which would be terrible. It
could just come back to as more unfunded
mandates down to the counties or as
we've seen with Fruitland Primary could
just come from, hey, we got you guys. Go
ahead and pay for it. We'll pay you back
later. But that that's not a bottomless
bank account.
>> They they promise.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, you know, the these surpluses are
nice.
17 million last year. The year before we
were all surprised because we we got a
$7.5 million surplus that nobody knew
about. But the great thing about these
surpluses is they should not be in your
plans to fund your projects for the
year.
>> Yes. Two years ago when we had the $7.5
million surplus windfall,
we allotted $4 million to get a new roof
that was sorely needed on a civic
center. There was a lot of uh wants and
legitimate wants from the west side of
the county by valve uh Cedar Hill that
those marinas needed uh attention. They
need electricity, lights, the
bulkheading was deteriorating on fine.
They sent that money down there.
Excellent use. That they weren't top
priority things, but when you get a
surplus, that's what you can take care
of that you wait till it comes to you.
Wait till you get it. You don't don't
spend it anticipating it.
>> Yeah.
>> But right now, we don't even know if all
of the essentials are going to be
covered. No. And I'm also concerned
about some of the enterprise funds, you
know, particularly with the landfill.
>> Well, talk about cell seven. I mean,
>> cell seven.
>> Well, and and not just cell 7, the
>> landfall as a whole because we know that
since um the out of county trash has
been prohibited that revenues are down.
This was part of the presentation at the
council meeting. Uh so there's not as
much revenue that is going to be
generated going forward at the landfill.
That may be the only example of uh
reduced revenues from enterprise funds.
I don't know. But that's one that in my
cursory review of the CIP I haven't been
able to identify. The concern. It looks
like a a another major expense that the
landfill is going to have is uh last
year they bought the piece of property
uh out there between Route 50 and Road
>> to uh use for mining
>> for I believe it was a million dollars
at that time. Well, if you look at the
CIP now
with the mining permits and all the
inspections that have to be done yearly
and EPA
requirements yearly,
there a large pot of money going in that
land. We're not just going into that
land with our equipment digging dirt.
It's going to be an expense.
>> Yeah.
>> The devil's in the details. You know,
one thing the CIP sorely lacks are the
details.
>> One one thing that was in the CIP that I
just was blown away with it, and I am
not saying it's not justified,
but there needs to be a long-term plan.
The fairies, Upper Ferry
and White Haven Ferry, have to be taken
out of service every other year for
maintenance
by the Coast Guard and all. Sure.
$600,000 a year.
>> Yeah.
>> For maintenance on those fairies.
>> And upper fair has been out of service
for seven or eight months.
>> And and today, as we speak, White Haven
is out of service. So both fairies in
the county are out of service. And we're
paying $600,000 a year for maintenance.
>> Well, 300,000 would have come from
Somerset for White Haven.
>> Well, correct. Yes. Thank you. Yes.
Somerset does does pay 300,000 of that
problem that it creates for the people
on the west side of the county who try
to get to Somerset or wherever they they
go and maybe work every day. They have
to add 15 miles to their trip.
>> Yeah. I mean, when White Haven or when
Upper Ferry is out, it's an
inconvenience, but when White Haven's
out Yeah. That's that's an hour
difference. Uh talking about the rivers,
I mean we also we're seeing even more
money being set aside for river dredging
or managing the dredge spoils and and I
know we got to see a a very well put
together presentation from Adam Corey uh
with lots of different state agencies
and it was you know very well thought
out but I think as a taxpayer one of the
questions I'm asking is where where is
the bottom of this pit? because I know
previous administrations, previous
councils maybe put some of this stuff
off, but now it we we've we've already
committed over $10 million in this year
to dealing with the dredge spoils. We
got skipped. We found out that that
we've known we were we were skipped on
the dredging cycle since middle of
April, right after the first $2.3
million was set aside. But in the CIP,
you're you're talking in the next five
years another 12 plus million dollars.
Does that mean that we're now
maintaining it at that level? Is that
because it used to be about 300,000,
right?
>> We have a short-term problem and a
long-term problem. The short-term
problem right now is the stockpiled
spoils at Sharps Point and also at the
Allen Convenience Center. That stuff has
to be moved so they can make room for
more dredge spoil. But I think there
needs to be some limitations on how much
we actually stockpile because there are
so many potential beneficial use
projects right in the Wcomo River and
nearby in other portions of the
Chesapeake Bay where the this dredge
spoil material can be pumped directly
onto a barge and moved elsewhere.
>> I hope you're not saying we're going to
move it back out of the Allen
Convenience Center cuz we just spent
$2.3 million moving it. We're going to,
but that was a stop gap measure. And I
think this
>> So, we could get dredged this year, but
we're not.
>> We're not.
>> We haven't solved the short-term
problem.
>> We have not. But the executive
short-term problem is simply to dump it
in the uh in the pits at the Connelly
Mill site.
>> Well, I think you saw saw very quickly
during the presentation. Number one,
Councilman Hastings said that uh that
that wasn't going to happen.
>> He said it was DOA.
>> Yes. And very quickly after that,
Council President Cannon told the people
to take it off the presentation cuz it
wasn't going to happen. So,
>> well, you talk about the issues we have
at the plots property for for mining
soil, right? Imagine all the permits
you'd have to go through to dump dredge
spoil on top of the paleo channel at the
head of the Wakamico.
>> So, you know, this is very concerning,
but it would have been a great
short-term solution, but a short-term
solution should not have been necessary
had a past administration stayed on top
of this, which they failed to do. And
the current administration, well, look,
it's been, you know, three years in
office and it's just now being dealt
with. They had time to find more
economical, more environmentally
friendly solutions, but they, you know,
past and the current administrations
have have really failed in that.
>> One of the things that just irritated me
to no end during the presentation,
they want to keep saying that these
problems are three and five years old
prior to this administration and they
weren't addressed. And that part of it
is true.
>> It is
>> that part of it is true. But one of the
people sitting at the table giving the
presentation was in charge of public
works three to five years ago and they
now have a solution. Well, where were
they 3 to 5 years ago when this needed
to be done and they didn't do anything?
Well, some of those people unfortunately
don't really have the qualifications to
do this type of long-term, you know,
planning and uh but they're still there.
There's clearly no accountability and I
find that as a taxpayer to be very very
upsetting. So, you know,
>> well, we know we're going to be watching
this into the new year and and speaking
of the new year, uh we're going to be
taking a little break for the holiday
season and I hope you all have a merry
Christmas and happy holidays
>> and and all all our viewers.
>> Merry Christmas.
Happy new year to everybody.
>> Thanks for watching this episode of Open
Agenda. We'll be back next year with
more new episodes.
Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah.
