On Thursday, Oct. 8, 2009, the Gazette published the following editorial about the recent and controversial annexations into the City of Frederick (the sixth, seventh and eighth in the last year or so).
City wrong on annexation scuffle
Lack of proper planning should give pause to residents
http://www.gazette.net/stories/10082009/frededi144224_32521.shtmlGazette
Editorial
Thursday, Oct. 8, 2009The City of Frederick made several critical mistakes in the annexation agreements signed with developers, and the reaction of its elected leaders to being called out by county commissioners on those errors is both anti-democratic and juvenile.
The dustup stems from the city’s approval of three annexations — the Crumland and Thatcher farms, on U.S. Route 15, and the Summers Farm on Alternate U.S. 40 — that could bring more than 1,000 new homes and millions of square feet of office space to Frederick.
Municipal annexations are common in Maryland, and if enacted properly can bring economic benefits, such as an expanded tax base. The Crumland property alone could net $66 million over a 20-year period for the city, according to revenue projections.
But these annexations are not proper. The agreements fail to take into account the impact of such large-scale growth on several key services, including schools and fire and rescue services.
While both the city and the county have adequate public facilities ordinances, they differ in how they test whether services will be able to support new growth, and the city’s provides more room for developers to maneuver.
The county pays for schools and fire and rescue services, so the city’s failure to consider them within the agreements demonstrates a callous disregard for the financial limits of the county, which is already struggling with tight budgets.
While Mayor W. Jeff Holtzinger has argued that the county’s concerns about rapid growth are addressed in the agreements, his position doesn’t hold much water.
First, there’s no mention in any of the agreements of ensuring adequate fire and rescue service. Second, while the city does propose developers provide some land for schools, the proposals ignore the hefty construction expenses — elementary schools in Frederick County cost roughly $20 million to build — plus annual operating costs (the operating budget is nearly $500 million for the county’s 63 schools).
A third point of contention relates to traffic. While this is the arena in which the city has guaranteed the most protection (placing limits on the use of newly constructed homes and offices until roads are improved), the agreements leave unclear who would pay for a badly needed $80 million interchange at Route 15 and Biggs Ford Road.
In response to the county’s efforts to delay the annexations, Holtzinger and aldermen Alan Imhoff, Marcia Hall and C. Paul Smith endorsed a letter to all registered voters in the city, asking them to not sign a petition that would bring the annexations to referendum.
The owners and developers of the properties paid for the mailing, a fact that was conspicuously missing from the letters. At best, this city merely failed to provide full disclosure of its efforts; at worst, this suggests a closer relationship between city officials and developers than is proper.
This is where the anti-democratic sentiment comes in. The letter states: “We are respectfully asking you not to sign these petitions.”
In other words, a lame-duck mayor has asked his constituents to abandon what is clearly a deep-rooted civic power (there does seem to be something about petitioning the government for a redress of grievances in the Bill of Rights).
What’s most disturbing about these annexations is how rapidly communication between the city and county deteriorated.
By taking a “stay out of our business” attitude, the city seemed to suggest that its decisions have no impact on the county. Not to mention the obvious point that the City of Frederick lies within the county’s limits, so pushing through annexations that might financially damage the county would eventually trickle down to the city.
In this case, the county was asking for definitive assurances that growth would not be detrimental to other residents; that’s not an unreasonable position, and it’s one that city leaders were shortsighted to ignore.
