Show Transcript
Disclaimer: The following transcript was auto-generated and may contain spelling or contextual errors.
You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe Venosa.
Hi, welcome to this week's episode of
Open Agenda. Now, it's been several
weeks since we've really had a chance to
cover city matters in some depth. Uh but
at the last city council meeting, there
were some important developments. And
what we are going to do today is dive
into that. And of course, we have two
great guests who are going to help us
understand some of those issues. Uh from
Fruitland, Ms. Trish Melbourne. Hi. Hi,
thanks for being here. And old friend of
the show, Mr. Michael Langford. Thanks
for having me. Thank you, sir.
Um so, I guess the uh the theme as it
were of the last city council meeting
would be maybe local representation
matters or local transparency is
important. Yeah. Um because that came up
a lot in the meeting and specifically
with a couple of big issues. Uh
particularly the the discussion about
the annexation on North Shoemaker Drive
and also the issue of council vacancy
and the process. And also, down the
line, um
some of the nature of the votes that
took place.
Um so, what I'd like to do with the time
we have today is um Trish, I'd like to
bring on Joe Scaffino for segment B. Uh
Joe was also at the city council meeting
and he could maybe speak to some of the
things that Michael also witnessed and
we can get sort of a consensus on on
what actually happened. And then I'd
like you to come in for segment C uh as
we analyze some other things that
occurred during the latter part of the
meeting. Is that a Is that a good plan,
you think?
>> Sounds like a plan. Okay, you're going
to hang out with us, Michael, for this?
[clears throat]
>> Absolutely, stick around. All right, let
the fun begin. All right, stick around
and we'll be right back with the next
segment of Open Agenda.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. With us in
the house is Mr. Michael Langford from
Salisbury. Thanks for having me. Thank
you for coming back, sir. And Mr. Joe
Scaffino, also from Salisbury. Yep.
There you So, three folks from
Salisbury, uh all interested in city
issues and certainly lot seems to be
going on in the city right now. Yeah,
right now um they they are
one of the things that's taking longer
than it's anticipated, I think, is the
council appointment process. Mhm.
They're they were reviewing that. Um
it's been 6 months. We're seeing the
first draft of legislation. Council
vacancy appointment process, Ms. Balch.
So, it is before you tonight for um
discussion, changes. Feel
um that we need to be specific with
respect to the special election on
whether we are allowing mail-in ballots
or was the intent to just um if we're
holding a special election that the
votes be cast that day that you had to
show up in person. I don't we I think we
said we didn't want the mail-in vote.
Okay. At all. No. So, I think that I
should before this comes back for first
reading or when it when you move forward
forward for first reading or we're
coming back for work session, whatever
that may be, I will add that in to make
it specific that we are not allowing
mail-in ballot.
>> agree? I think that we need to actually
clarify the appointment process a little
bit as far as we need wording to clarify
that this is an open process that the
applicants will submit their resume and,
you know, their cover letter, but the
public will get it and it will be a
public presentation. That's not in the
document, but I did send an email and
say I think that we need to clarify
with that being actually in the document
that they will come to a open work
session, they will give a presentation.
And we um
also said that they would do their um
questioning their questioning
in the pub in front of the public and if
they had anything to say afterward well,
we had some question like, "What
made you want to run for office?" Then
they could do all that right here in
front of the citizens. I do think that
you want to nail down those specific
details. So, what I am recommending is
when we come back to discuss this again,
I will have those in what we'll call
kind of like a policy and procedure and
that would be adopted via resolution
just like you have a resolution adopting
the council rules of order. By doing
this, we're making all the applicants
know the process has changed, right? So,
this is a very open process. So, if if
you're running, you know, and this is
what you want, you're putting your name
in for this, then you you should be
willing to take public
>> calling you and asking you a question
because you want to sit in the seat. I'm
glad to see the forethought that went
into it where they're also adding in a
clause to the charter of what happens in
the case of a vacancy with the mayor's
position as well. Sure. Um which we
actually kind of
had that back in the pandemic when
>> When, yeah, former mayor went
>> former mayor went into uh whatever arm
you know, forces or whatever.
>> Yeah, he was deployed to Djibouti, he
was uh Yeah, so So, we had So,
you know, we're but it's still it's like
um it seems like there'll be a There's
now a clause for there to be a special
election in the case of like 6 or 12
months or more remaining in a term to
serve, then we would go to a special
election that then the council would
order it within 30 days of the vacancy,
which would then lead to 90 to 120 day
period of a special election. Okay.
Which in my mind, they really should
move because of that 90 day window, they
really should make it 15 months so that
there's a year of service cuz really
that person's only going to serve 9
months. It It's kind of
Yeah, if it was like right at that cusp,
right, you know.
>> say 15 months that And then that 90
days, they still have a year. Here, it's
going to be so short to you know, to go
through that
the the whole process for just 9 months
doesn't make sense at that point.
>> Mhm. But I do I do I am glad that we'll
get a representative that Absolutely.
>> is representative of the district cuz
it's definitely an improvement.
>> And they're And they're going to have
anybody that wants to wants to to run,
they're going to appear before the
council. They're They're to get
uh a minutes to make a presentation what
what their interest is.
>> But the public can be there, too. Oh,
absolutely. And and and they'll the
council will have uh
a few questions that
for the same for each candidate. So,
there won't be any cherry-picking. Yeah.
So, it sounds like a it'll be a good a
fair process, which is
absolutely similar to what what we did
in Pennsylvania in in in my borough back
in the day.
I think one of the most frustrating
things about this is that the the
charter is vague, right? Which is why
we're adding in this language. So, they
could have just all picked the same
questions. They didn't need the charter
to tell them to do that. They could have
just done the decent thing and done
that. So, when you watch the council
meeting, you'll see people like Michelle
Gregory
who were
and Angela voted, you know, voting for
this and be like, "Oh, yeah, yeah, we'll
all have the same questions." But they
didn't when it was a vacancy most
recently for the district seat that now
sits with Holland, and they asked
different questions of candidates like
Jermichael. Yeah. So, it wasn't that
fair process. So, it's interesting to
hear the acknowledgement that there
should be this fair process now as
they're determining it, but they
couldn't exercise that good judgment in
the moment.
>> So, that certainly is a big issue
regarding concerns about local
representation and having a voice in
city government. And then the other
thing apparently is what's going on on
North Shoemaker. Yeah, so I've been
watching that since I was at the last
meeting of the city the joint city
county planning commission in August of
2025. Uh the North Shoemaker Drive
annexation. I was there in the last
meeting um
in August,
uh which was actually the last meeting
of the joint city and county
planning commission.
Um
and it was accurately spoken to already
this evening that the actual city
employee report and recommendation was
to keep like a consist like to not
increase the density. That was their
recommendation in infrastructure and
development. And like again, those are
so that's literally their job is to you
know, I mean it's in the department name
infrastructure. And if like the people
whose job it is to study the
infrastructure and implement plans
within the city are telling us that hey,
we can't do this. That should probably
supersede
individual private business interests or
public opinion. For people who are
paying attention, people in that
development, it is kind of signifying
that it doesn't matter to them that if
they show up whether the city, the
county, the planning commission, it's
like especially you know, when in
general people aren't like here every
week, right? Every time you guys have a
meeting. So when they do bother to go
out of their routine, you have to think
like not somebody who's very civically
engaged but your average citizen of
Salisbury, they come out, they speak. It
means a lot to them and then it's just
you know,
you washed your hands of it. So I
recommend that they, you know, nix that
and just again, the the people are very
reasonable. They're not like don't build
there. Just keep it consistent with the
area around it and don't increase the
density. Especially since the people of
the city also said the infrastructure
can't takes it can't cannot handle it.
It was wild to watch
them disregard the city staff report
from infrastructure and development
about keeping the consistent
the zoning changes, the designation. So
This is a resolution to annex certain
land to be known as the North Shoemaker
Drive annexation consisting of 12.870
acres more or less into the city of
Salisbury and to provide for the terms
and conditions of the annexation. Um I
just want to make sure that it's clear
that it's it's change all it's doing is
changing
the density.
Correct?
For the top for the public.
>> As proposed?
No. So yeah, it's it's changing it's
changing the density.
And we had for the make sure the general
public knows that we had met on in this
in August.
Yeah. And then it was one thing and the
developers went from single homes to 60
town homes. They they were always 60
town homes.
Always? Yes. Okay.
And what's being voted on is the
annexation itself.
>> Of that. All in favor signify by saying
I. I. I. I.
Any opposed?
Nay.
It's your vote's I. Nobody really has an
issue with them annexing in this
property at or um with them developing
it. But they But the residents, they
have 53 out of 80-something residents of
two neighbor neighborhoods that are
adjacent to the property in question.
53 signatures saying that, you know,
they want single-family homes not to
become town homes, not to just become
like a high-traffic rental area.
>> Correct. I'm here to strongly urge the
council to amend resolution number 3472,
which received its first reading earlier
tonight. That is the North Shoemaker
Drive annexation
to reflect zoning R10S
for the following reasons.
The purpose of R10S is to preserve the
existing character of both newly planned
and existing single-family residential
areas in order to promote and enhance
the quality of life and environmental
attributes which are essential parts of
this city. If allowed to proceed, the
proposed development will most
significantly degrade the existing
neighborhood and cause incredible damage
to Shoemaker Pond.
The neighborhood will be degraded
through increased traffic flows. The
pond from storm water runoff resulting
from the increased impervious service of
the density proposed. The waiver granted
by the county council represents a
violation in process both in parts of
the joint Salisbury Wicomico County
Planning Commission and the County
Council. The joint commission ignoring
ignored their own staff recommendations
regarding our
R-10S zoning and voted to increase the
density beyond that which even the
developer requested. Several requests
for infrastructure data, specifically
flow test data regarding
fire hydrants, have been ignored and not
responded to.
We can't tell whether there will be a
requirement to dig up all of North
Shoemaker to provide the increased flow
necessary for fire protection for this
development. I take no issue with the
development. The original staff R-10
zoning is fine. Allows single family
homes, allows
maintains neighborhood character. Please
restore public faith that local
government can be responsive and
communicate to community needs and not
just chase increased tax revenue. Please
amend this resolution. I'm here in
support of my neighbor Ken who just
spoke and also the 50-plus other
neighbors who are quite concerned about
resolution 3472.
Um, just to be clear, we do request that
you amend the resolution to reflect
zoning R-10S.
To Ken's point, we were quite shocked to
learn only a short time ago that of the
possibility that a highly dense
development might be built in a farm
field immediately adjacent to our
community
and that these plans included direct
vehicle access into and through our
neighborhood. We do appreciate the need
for new housing as Ken noted, but we
believe that it should be at scale
consistent with surrounding
neighborhoods. We also understand that
the city's own planning staff
recommended zoning R-10S for this
property in the August 2025 Salisbury
infrastructure and development staff
report.
>> That's why these processes actually
exist on the local level is so that
people that live here have a say over
what the future looks like in 10, 20, 30
years. What they're going to be living
with and um it's just
again disheartening to see that be
disregarded by the city staff and and
residents here and it's like, well, this
is part of the voter disengagement. This
is part of, you know, people not wanting
to show up.
>> And correct me if I'm wrong, but it was
a four to one vote.
Uh
I think it was. I believe Councilwoman
DeShields voted in the negative. Oh, she
did?
>> She did. You're correct.
>> Okay.
But what which is interesting because
that's not even Councilwoman DeShields
district.
>> Yeah.
Yeah. Well,
I believe that the ball is still in
Salisbury Council's court. So, Salisbury
Council,
>> [clears throat]
>> in my opinion, can still designate that
as a
R10S. Mhm. Okay? And again, I I was at
the planning commission meeting back in
August and I've also been to the county
meetings where this issue
came up most recently.
>> Mhm.
And the developer himself said, "Look,
I can I'm I want to do town homes
because they're going to be more
affordable." Fair point.
But he also said and he said, "I can
sell them for 250 to 208,000." He says,
"Or I can build 56 single family homes,
but I'm going to have to sell them for
350 and up." Mhm. So,
he made it sound like he was amenable
to do either one. And Salisbury Council
can say they're going to change the 10S,
build the 56 single family homes,
and and again, that ties into we talked
about the elect electoral turnout and
how we have 71% renters and only 29%
home owners.
Um we need more single family home
owners that people have skin in the
game.
>> Yeah. Um so, and again, that would
that'd would be a win-win for everybody.
>> That's what's so surprising to me is
that you'll have council members who
opine about, again, the lack of not only
voter engagement, but they will say,
supposedly, that having such a high rate
of rental is not a having such a high
rate of
>> [clears throat]
>> rentalship is such a
bad thing. Exactly. And then they
vote on policies that worsen that. If
you're not listening to the city staff,
if you're not listening to residents in
that area, then what is this you're not
listening to the developer who's like,
"Hey, do what you want. I'm amenable.
I'm going to build what I can build
based on what you guys tell me."
And he's not aggressive about it. I
mean, he has come in and spoken about
it, but I will say that developer I've
I've seen him several times. He's
invested in his investment. Makes sense
that he shows up. But he does not
grandstand the way that some other local
developers like, Exactly. right? He is
following the process and he will comply
with whatever that process is determined
to be. What's wild is to watch the
people who actually have the ability to
hold these people accountable. Yeah,
pass the buck again. But once they
Kicking the can.
And I'll say this, you know, we talk
about lack of local representation and
maybe a lack of interest, but there's
plenty of people
uh in that neighborhood now who are
interested in things and they they've
been showing up and they will be showing
up, it seems, for a lot. And so, um
I think they're likely to remember who,
you know, spoke up for them and who
voted And who voted at both at the city
and county levels, right? I think,
Michael, you know, to your point, this
this refers to the broader trend of not
only does local representation matter,
but being able to have a voice and
transparency in the process of getting
that representation matters. And there's
some other things, right, that also
happen that kind of Yeah, sometimes you
don't have a say, right? And so, like,
two things that were happening last last
night that were just, you know, moving
things forward that business has to be
done is the removal of timing
restrictions on political signage, yeah,
which it is apparently
they have to do to be compliant with a
some Supreme Court ruling,
>> Yeah.
>> Um I did not get majorly into the
Supreme Court thing, but I mean the the
obvious concern with like litter and
just, you know, Now you have to live
with the political sign forever. Yeah,
and people can, you know, yeah. And but
and then the other aspect was we had the
first reading of a large family child
care ordinance, which apparently the
Maryland General Assembly passed
something, I believe, last year. So, now
we're just getting our local legislation
to like comply with that finding. Right.
But we but people don't have a say about
that. We just have to do that. So, then
when you have a a say about the vacancy
process or zoning annexation, um It's a
great irony. And yeah, then those those
are also, it seems to be, being
disregarded by some people in local
office. Yeah. Other things, of course,
happened though at the City Council
meeting. And what I'd like to do is I'd
like to come back in segment C. I'd
actually like to bring on Trish Melson
from Fruitland. And Michael, perhaps
you, Trish, and I can talk a little bit
about one other thing that occurred that
I think raises questions about
transparency and representation. Yeah.
So, you if you're cool sticking around
for a little bit. Absolutely. Cool. Mr.
Scavino, you mind taking a hike and
>> Sign out. Sign out. All right, thanks
for showing up. All right. All right,
and please stick around for our next
segment of Open Agenda.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Sticking
around with us is Mr. Michael Langford
from Salisbury. Thanks for having me.
Thank you, sir. And coming back with us
is Ms. Trish Melvin from Fruitland.
Hello. Thanks for being here, Trish.
Um so, we've looked at, obviously, some
major issues happening within the city
regarding uh the annexation on North
Shoemaker and the concerns um
about sort of other aspects of city
government with regard to the vacancy
process. Uh but something else sort of
happened uh
during the meeting. And and it was kind
of related to, I guess, the not just the
the behavior, but sort of how um
I don't know, for lack of a better term,
the the lack of consistency or or Or
maybe a new consistency.
>> Can you Can you Can you set this up for
us, Michael? So, yeah. So, I live in
District 5 in the city. So, my
representative is Angela Blake. And I
just I One of the things I witnessed
that immediately, you know, just raised
a red flag for me as she's a
representative of people is she voted
against community development block
grant funding. So, they had Sandy Green,
the the director of finance in the city,
come in.
And in the agenda packet, there was a
over 60-page document outlining where
millions of dollars will come into our
area and It's very detailed. It's very
detailed.
>> Yeah. And and fund these different
organizations.
Good evening, Council.
I'm here on behalf of Oga, which is the
grant administrator in our office. Um
before you tonight, you have a
resolution for the 2026 CDBG action
plan. The city of Salisbury is qualified
as an entitlement community according to
the HUD regulations and is entitled to
receive an annual allotment of CDBG
funds. For FY 2026 program year, the
amount of the CDBG funds to be received
is $367,754.
Um I read the through the plan
and um there was a
several questions. I prepared something
I'm going to have put into the minutes.
Um
there's
broad goal. There's a lot of really good
goals in there for Salisbury. Um
emphasizes on priority such affordable
housing and community development. But
there doesn't seem to be There seems to
be a lack of clear
numeric targets, timelines, benchmark,
and measurable deliverables.
I don't think there's a connection
between some of the data and the action.
Um community engagement concerns because
there has been no public comment on it.
One of the things that
is concerning about that is figuring out
um
to to have a a stronger ongoing
engagement. I know we struggled with
that even when we were doing the housing
meetings and just following up with the
comprehensive plan
um and having ongoing
uh engagement using tools as quarterly
updates, using a dashboard, public uh
score cards um and routine progress
reporting. You know, those are some
things that are really help with
community engagement. Um when we have a
big document such as this and we had two
public hearings, there was no comment.
That says a lot also. It's a really good
document. I like a lot of the graphs. I
like a lot of the maps in it and I think
there's a lot of good goals, but there's
no objectives in how we're actually
reaching these goals. Who, what, when,
where, and who's responsible? How's it
going to be delivered? So So you're
saying nay to the grant to the CDBG
funding?
I I Those are my thoughts about it. I I
think it could be
reworked and I just explained Yeah, I
understand what you said, but
that's a hell of a lot of goals for
$267,000 and then to say nay to it means
you go to zero. So I'm not sure where
I'm I'm not following your path. That's
okay. Okay. You don't need to. I hear
what Mayor Taylor is saying. I just
think that
there's if there's a good things going
on about it, nobody knows about it and
that is I I didn't even know about what
some of the things you were explaining.
You know, I just think we need more
reporting and more engagement.
>> Do we have consensus to move this
forward? Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes.
Nay. Um Ms. Blake
raised an objection because there
weren't steadfast plans and it's like,
well, this is funding for other
organizations that make the plan. Like
we're not handing Habitat for Humanity,
right? We're handing them money. We're
not handing them how to do their jobs.
We're you know, as as the government,
you're like facilitating the flow of
resources into different community
organizations that are good stewards,
that address issues within your
community. It's standard
procedure. You know what I mean? Like,
this happens every year.
>> And she's voted on this before, too.
>> And she's voted Yeah, and this is it's
just been a a new trend of her being an
oppositional force. Okay. You know, and
voting nay on, you know, things that are
pretty like routine matters of finance
in the city. So, she voted against
community block grant funding ordinance
number 2999, which was just establishing
the levy for the general fund. So, it's
moving the budget into the next phase,
you know, for them to review. They've
had their budget sessions. It's just
typical. She voted against that.
And moving the budget forward, but she
didn't give like an alternative of like,
you know, what are we going to do
instead of this?
>> So, that's my question. I wasn't there
and and I
was anything offered um
that that would be acceptable before?
No, she basically her her response is
when she did respond to any of this was
she has valid concerns. And so, she's
going to say vote no because of such and
such valid concerns. And her espoused
concerns, I'm like, could be valid, but
they might not necessitate a vote of no
being that she's a
that vote is, you know, not really her
vote. It's the people's vote. You're a
representative. Like, when it comes to,
you know, other people in the city, like
yeah, they're good stewards. They're
supposed to represent us in like theory,
but this person is literally a publicly
elected official that's supposed to
represent the people. So, it's like, is
she getting letters that's telling
people from constituents? She's not
getting one from me that says don't
don't accept community development block
grant funding.
>> Or even don't Or we're not going to vote
the budget forward. That to me is like
the most kind of surprising thing to be
against.
>> And and you know, if you watch the
budget session, she's not speaking up or
giving a bunch of different alternatives
or you know to you know it would be fine
like that is what the process is for the
check and balance like they approve the
mayor sets a line item the council
proves it or not but but if you don't
approve but there's a valid need that
the initial line item is for and you
want to amend that then you need to be
able to give the administration like an
alternative. Well I mean I understand
holding up a process until you're
satisfied with getting full information
for the citizens and for the council
is that what's going on?
I mean I feel like since they had their
budget sessions right that's the time in
which to espouse these concerns the
community development block grant
funding her her you know um
her her comments on that just amounted
to there isn't an actual action plan
here there's just like goal
I guess there's objectives but there
aren't goals there I think her point was
to be generous was more that there
wasn't like a specified you know
way in which these monies would be spent
and so she's like how do I know if I
want to give this much to have to have I
don't know what they're going to do with
it and it's like that's not the process
however. So is this an annual
community so it it was handled a little
bit different this year? Yeah her voting
no is this this is a very standard pro
forma it's pretty much I mean I it's
kind of like when there's budget
amendments for the fire department or
the police department it's always a yay
from everybody nobody's ever against
them receiving money and the same thing
with community development block grant
funding like it gets kind of the bread
and butter of like local government as
far as you know outside of taxpayer
revenue.
>> Well speaking of that that leads us to
the other nay vote that was put up on
the water. So yeah then
and then yeah ordinance 3000 is a
increase on the water bills of 2.5%
but if we go back to the prior two years
last year it was a 9% increase two years
ago it was a 10% increase
both of which Ms. Blake could vote in
the affirmative for.
So now it's this modest 2.5% increase,
which is more in line of what you would
expect to see from a local municipality,
and there's just this vote of nay.
Ordinance number 3000. This is an
ordinance of the city of Salisbury to
amend the water and sewer rates to
increase rates by 2.5%
and making said changes effective for
all bills dated October 1, 2026 and
thereafter before you tonight for first
reading. Will be followed by a public
hearing and second reading. All in favor
signify by saying I.
I. I. Any oppose? Nay.
And the chair votes I. Four to one. No
explanation? No, I don't I don't
remember one being given for that
particular vote. Has she become a fiscal
conservative of late? Well, and that's
the funny thing is like it's this isn't
even fiscal conservatism.
[clears throat] It's like anti-money,
anti-balanced budget, anti-funding. You
know what I mean? I mean that's it it's
like I if she was looking for more
accountability or transparency in the
process, this isn't how to go about
doing it. I wouldn't say. So so well, so
but nonetheless, she was in the minority
and and the votes
>> And the vote and they all carried. All
right.
>> just an odd trend to see from like local
representation. I've never seen anybody
say no to state funds.
Especially someone who's said yes for
years and years and years.
>> Especially when they've said yes for
years and years and it's like regardless
of political affiliation. Yeah. You
won't find
>> a partisan issue.
>> Yeah, no. Like again, we're we're we're
funding like nonprofits in the area with
this money. You know what I mean? We're
doing we're we're meeting the needs of
people here, which everybody I think if
you talk to person on the right or the
left in the local government, they all
see that there's needs within our
communities that need to be addressed
and none of them are like wholesale
against state funds or something. Oh, we
can't accept this taxpayer money. This
isn't, you know, everybody wants to fix
the sidewalks. So let me ask the the
final question to kind of bring this all
together. Why do you think she's this
particular council member is voting in
this way on these issues right now?
I can only label it obstructionist. I
can't venture a reason as to why. Okay.
Fair enough.
>> Well, there may be reasons that will
become apparent in the future, in the
near future. Don't know. Don't know what
we don't know. Yeah, and again, it is
still a little early in the budget
season, too. So, maybe And then that
becomes about transparency at that
point. Communication at some point is a
component of transparency, and if you're
not fully explaining what your
objections are and getting that across
to constituents, you know, that's just
concerning. Well, and again, I think
that's why we all do what we do is we
want the public to be as informed as
possible on the things that matter most
to them locally. And whether it's at the
county or city level, that's what we try
to do. Absolutely. So, well, on that
note, thank you both for coming in again
and and giving us information on this.
We'll we'll keep a tune to these matters
in the future. So, thank you so much.
Thanks for having us on. Thank you. And
thank you for joining us. And we'll be
back with a new episode of Open Agenda
very soon. Take care.
OPEN AGENDA S3 E30 is now available for viewing over the Memorial Day weekend. The spotlight this week is on the Salisbury City Council. Will they ultimately approve annexation of N. Schumaker Pond into the city, in addition to related zoning and density changes? Existing neighborhood residents and city staff have expressed deep concerns regarding the undesirable impacts of such proposed changes. Will their voices be heard by the City Council? You've got to wonder what voices some council members hear when you consider Councilwoman Angela Blake's surprising vote this week against accepting Community Development Block Grant funds from the State. She also voted against a very modest but necessary increase to water rates, when over the past couple of years she has favored far greater increases. Our panel will breakdown the City Council's actions and try to reconcile these inconsistencies. Tune in and be informed.
