Ethic Struggles in Cecil County

Mr. Hodge stated his concern that I knew details of the Ethics Commission deliberations.  He already is aware of my efforts on increasing disclosure requirements in Cecil County Government  I have promoted and it’s been passed that Directors of County departments have to provide full disclosures and attorneys and ethics commission members are also responsible for filing the short form.  I agreed with the Ethics Commission when they raised a concern that under Charter, they would operate at the discretion of the County Executive.  Their fear was that the County Executive could remove members at her whim and that actually came to pass recently when County Executive Moore removed Walter Rozanski from the Ethics Commission for comments he made regarding County Council Member, Robert Hodge. 

Walt Rozanski called Mr. Hodge unethical.  I agree that comments like that could be interpreted that Mr. Rozanski may not be able to remain impartial when it comes to deliberating on ethics complaints against Mr. Hodge.  However, did Mr. Rozanski give up his first amendment right when he became an ethics commission member?  Was he ever asked why he believed Mr. Hodge was unethical?  Ms. Moore didn’t but I did.  Mr. Rozanski said his comment was based on Mr. Hodge’s statements regarding illegal bulk liquor sales from Cecil County to New York.  Mr. Hodge thought there was nothing wrong with it because the liquor stores weren’t breaking any Cecil County liquor laws. However, Mr. Rozanski pointed out that the Cecil County liquor stores were breaking federal laws: money laundering and wiretap laws punishable up to 20-30 years in prison and some very hefty fines.

And it should be pointed out that Ms. Moore never spoke out or raised objections to previous Ethics Commission Chairman Burns’ comments when he publicly shared his personal opinions attacking certain elected officials. What is even more troublesome is that Ms. Moore removed Rozanski at a key opportune time: right before a complaint was being answered.  I’m not permitted to speak on this complaint but know about it because I filed it.  I can speak about the comments made by the Ethics Board because deliberations on issues are not private. 

Wasn't it hypocritical for her to remove Mr. Rozanski and then pledge to put in a resolution to provide the Ethics Commission the autonomy from her influence?  Why wasn't he provided a warning or recourse for appeal instead of an all out dismissal? Yes, I would have to agree that Walter is someone I respect and appreciate.  I met Walter at the very first Drug Awareness Meeting I organized two years ago.  He asked me what I was going to do about the crime problem plaguing Cecil County.  I responded with, “Good Question, what do you propose I do?”    I challenged Walt to get involved.  He isn’t afraid to stand up and speak out  and he works hard to try and make a positive difference in the County because this is his home.  On his own time, he attends many work sessions, legislative meetings, ethics commission meetings, drug and alcohol council meetings and interjects on face book comments when he’s got something to say. 

Another issue Mr. Rozanski and other ethics commission members have been concerned about are the registering of lobbyists.  Why is it that in Cecil County we have never had a registered lobbyist?   The County Attorney, Jason Allison, advises the Ethics Commission.  When I asked how he would propose going about getting lobbyists to register, he turned the question around and asked if I was accusing businesses of not properly registering?!

So, once again, the deliberations of Ethics Complaints are confidential but the deliberations by the Ethics Commission on ethics issues are not and anyone can attend their meetings on the 3rd Monday of the month.  Why wouldn’t I ask the Ethics Commission about their deliberations on the issues?  I have always been concerned about the integrity of the ethics process.  We all should be.

The Comprehensive Rezoning Process and Cecil County Government have been Compromised

On Tuesday, June 4, many residents attended the Cecil County Council Legislative Meeting and were shocked by the arrogance of power displayed by County Executive Moore and supported by Council Members Hodge, McCarthy and Bowlesby. 

County Executive Moore submitted Resolution No. 57-2013 ""Litigation Settlement  - York Building Products, Co., Inc. v. Cecil County, Maryland". 

Why was this case being settled when court proceedings strongly indicated that Cecil County Government would win their case against York Building Products?  In my opinion - and many others - County Executive Moore and the 3 Council members (Hodge, McCarthy and Bowlesby) were acting in the best interest of York Building Products and invalidated the integrity of the Comprehensive Rezoning Process.  I was shocked to find out later that the consent order had already been signed  and time stamped into the record.  It appears to be a done deal and we were told by County Administrator, Al Wein, that we would have to consult with our Council Attorney - thanks to Hodge, McCarthy and Bowlesby just happens to be the County Executive's attorney - to find out if it really is a done deal.

This is just another indication that Charter Government is a complete failure.  Checks and balances have been removed and special interests pretty much have unilateral control of our county.  In my opinion, you will continue to see special interests use Cecil County as their own personal piggy bank. 

Link to my comments during the Legislative Meeting.

Link to public comments during the Legislative Meeting.

The $40 Million Project at Seneca Point

I am very concerned that Cecil County is about to commit to a $40 million project that is not necessary and will obligate the water sewer customers and tax payers to fund a very large bill.

On March 19th the Cecil County Council voted 3 - 2 in support of a revised Consent Order with MDE regarding the timeline that Seneca Point (NEWWTP) become ENR (Enhanced Nutrient Removal) Compliant with the State of Maryland. I (and Councilman Dunn) voted against the consent order because it was based on a timeline that assumed we would be incorporating a $40 million Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR) System into the waste water treatment plant (WWTP) to achieve the state mandated ENR Standard. But we could accomplish the same goal with a $10 million denitrification system according to our consultant, GHD - and an MDE Grant would fully fund the project.  

So the question is why would we spend $40 million to get to ENR if we can achieve it with the fully funded $10 million denitrification system? The justification seems to be in the argument that we need to plan for the future and that there is a possibility we will not be able to accommodate all of the anticipated growth past 2035. 

Why pay $40 million now when we are not anticipated to reach capacity until 2035 to 2040? Why would we pay $40 million when treatment plant upgrades are usually funded through hookup costs?   We are putting the cart before the horse in making the current users bear the costs for the MBR System which is reflected in the water sewer customer increases of 4% for 3 years in the proposed FY 2014 budget.  These increases will not cover the cost which means the rest of the tax payers will have to pay either through increased taxes or taking from fund balance.

Another factor we should keep in mind is that environmental regulations do change and we may have to upgrade to another system in the future even before we utilize the benefit of the MBR System.    

Why would we commit to an expensive system when there will probably be newer and cheaper technology to select from in the future? Just a few of the revolutionary new technologies which are significantly reducing the cost and operations of WWTPs include Biomag as well as a new product developed by Lockheed Martin, desalination graphene filters which won the Nobel Prize in 2010.

Why are we anticipating that the growth will happen on the west end of the county and not the east?  If the demand is located in the eastern area and we've already invested a substantial amount of our financial resources into Seneca Point, it would limit our ability to be responsive. 

I propose that we go through with the denitrification system for now because it’s already been funded and approved by MDE and in the distant future when we get closer to our WWTP capacity, conduct pilot tests and comparison studies to base our ultimate selection on. 

With limited resources, investments should be strategic.  Our priority should be to close up the infrastructure gap on the growth corridor which would attract new businesses and in turn helps fund upgrades to our treatment plants.  How many times do we need to make the same mistakes?

Another Fact Sheet on Seneca Point Waste Water Treatment Plant

1.  DPW Director Flanigan originally presented to the Cecil County Commissioners that the Seneca Point upgrade would be a $60 million project and the Commissioners needed to determine how this project would be funded.  Director Flanigan later agreed that the Seneca Point project could be divided into 3 phases and the first phase would cost $40 million.

2.  Seneca Point Treatment Plant is required by MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment) to go to ENR (Enhanced Nutrient Removal) by December 31, 2016.  *MDE has provided additional time in the past when the County  shows it is making a good faith effort in completing a project.

3.  The Flush Fund Grant fully covers Seneca Point’s upgrade to ENR but does not cover expansion of capacity. Director Flanigan incorporated into the project the expansion of capacity for the treatment plant and wanted to use the flush fund grant towards the expansion project.    

4.  MDE tasked Cecil County Government to hire a consultant to determine the least inexpensive system for Seneca Point to achieve ENR.

5.  GHD, Cecil County’s consultant, identified Denitrification as the cheapest method at a cost of $9.2 million.  *Denitrification could be incorporated by the deadline.

6.  MDE approved GHD’s proposal and included additional funding for a total of $10.9 million.

7.  The Seneca Point project cost of $40 million minus the flush fund grant ($10.9 million) for expansion would fall on the rate payers, new users and the taxpayers.  Because it’s only the first phase, the capacity would remain the same (2 mgd) but would allow for expansion to 4.5 mgd for an additional cost of $18 million.

8.  Seneca Point can be expanded using the Denitrification System up to 7.0 mgd on the current footprint.  However, when Cecil County does need to expand the treatment plant to that capacity, other factors will be need to be considered such as new environvental regulations and new treatment technologies available.
 
9.  The correspondence between MDE and Cecil County Government relaying this information was never provided to the Cecil County Commissioners.  Treasurer, Bill Feehley, confirmed my concern that the Seneca Point project was much larger than required and mentioned the GHD and MDE correspondence.  He received a copy of the correspondence because the Treasurer collected the Flush Fund Tax and would be responsible for cutting the check to the County for the funding.

10.  Growth in the Seneca Point service area is not anticipated to reach the 2 mgd capacity until 2030 and 2035 so the expansion project could be delayed.  

11.  Waste water treatment plant (WWTP) technology is fast evolving and new environmental regulations mandated by State and Federal Government would make it wise to wait until we get closer to capacity to decide which treatment system would be the most cost efficient and effective.

12.  No pilot test was conducted to compare the efficiency and cost for operations on different filtration systems.   No scientific analysis was provided to back up the selection of MBR at Seneca Point. 

13.  If any investment is made in infrastructure, the priority should be on closing up the water/sewer gap in the growth corridor which would attract growth.

14.  The majority of Seneca Point’s WWTP allocations are from 2007 and therefore do not have a significant impact to the capacity available currently at the plant.

15.  Director Flanigan has claimed that the real cost for construction to go with the denitrification filter system is $21 million but the consultant and MDE has estimated in the $10 million range.

16.  Director Flanigan consistently has not provided information requests in a forthcoming manner.  For a Commissioner and now Council Member to make an informed decision, the facts should be provided.

17.  There is a claim by DPW Director that we took a vote on August 16, 2011 during the evening Commissioner Meeting :to commit to the MBR technology.  However, the audio recording of August 16, 2011 during the work session reveals that we were only committing to a $100,000 engineering cost to GE makers of the specialized ZeeWeed General Electric MBR System.  Sole procurement of a system is expensive due to lack of competition

18.  The information I gathered regarding the Seneca Point waste water treatment project was provided and or confirmed by “experts”. 

Cecil County Government Applauded for Supporting 2nd Amendment Rights

Drug Awareness Forum 8-25-13

Cecil County Council Meets with Congressman Harris

On April 9, 2013 Congressman Harris responded to our invitation to join us for a worksession meeting so the Council could update him on three very important Cecil County issues: Exelon Relicensing Application of the Conowingo Dam, Pearce Creek Dredge Spoil Contamination, and Drug Abuse.  The meeting was prompted by my request at a previous work session meeting.

Thank you to Al Reasin for taking the time to video record the meeting in its entirety at no cost to Cecil County taxpayers.

Meeting Part 1 starting at 17:30

Meeting Part 2

Obrecht Response

SENECA POINT UPGRADE

At the March 26 Legislative Meeting, Council members Hodge, Bowlesby and McCarthy voted in favor of the Consent Order timeline which was based on the assumption County Government would be introducing the Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR) System into our current system at Seneca Point (NEWWTP).   However, given the information I have been supplied by Director Flanigan and Principal Planner, Tony DiGiacomo, I cannot support the MBR System at this time. At the time of the vote, President Hodge acknowledged DPW needed to provide the information of an analysis to justify this costly investment and that we were not obligated to use the MBR system by adopting this consent order.  Time will tell if he was sincere in pursuing the cost and process analysis.  To implement this system it will cost $40 million to get back to the same capacity we currently have -  2 mgd.  How was this project permitted to move forward?

The impetus for making this costly investment is the MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment) requirement for this plant to go from BNR (Bio Nutrient Removal) to ENR (Enhanced Nutrient Removal).  MDE only funds upgrades to ENR and not for expanding capacity.  DPW hired a consultant (GHD) to research how much it would cost for the Seneca Point to go to ENR and their estimate was $10.9 million to use a denitrification system.  This is the amount that MDE agreed to fund Cecil County and DPW Director proposed we instead use the $10.9 million as a down payment on a system that allows us to become ENR compliant but would also allow Seneca Point to increase capacity up to 10 mgd on the current foot print without having to purchase additional property. While the MBR System does allow for additional expansion, it does so at a very expensive price ($40 million) with no additional capacity for that down payment.  To expand to 4.0 mgd, the cost will be an additional $29.5 million.

What other options are available?

We can become ENR compliant with the conventional ENR Bioreactor with denitrification filter at the current design capacity of 2 mgd approved and fully funded by MDE. The $10.9 million of the Bay Restoration Grant Funding was assessed by the work of our consultant in accordance with MDE direction which researched the most inexpensive method for our plant to go to ENR.

How long before we will use the current capacity of 2 mgd?  The population growth has been reduced from previous projections according to Principal Planner, Tony DiGiacomo.  “For the year 2030, based upon WILMAPCO Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) projections and reduced by a coefficient of -0.0558 to take into account the latest, reduced MDP control total, I came up with the following population and household projections for the Seneca Point service area:  Pop: 18,237, and HH: 6,706.”

Assuming that the flow at Seneca Point increases from the present day 1 MGD to 2 MGD between now and 2030, this would represent a growth rate of 4.2% per year. The economy, in general, is expected to grow around 2% in the future, according to many economists.  So a growth rate of 4.2% for the population would be estimated on the high side.

Currently our system has 4,370 active sewer customers.  Averaged at 100 gpd/per person or 225 gpd/per household we should arrive at about 1 mgd current capacity.  Based on the last 18 years of growth at the North East Waste Water Treatment Plant, the projected flows for the years 2030 and 2035 would fall between 1.6 and 2.0 mgd assuming the old growth projection.  But based on the updated population projections for 2030, the flow projections, I believe, fall between 1.5 and 1.8 mgd.

Is there a cheaper, alternative science to the Membrane Bio Reactor?  One option that is currently being used in Carroll and Washington County, the Biomag System.  The cost on average is about 1/2 of the MBR.  While it was relatively new 3-4 years ago, Siemens has purchased the technology due to its promising results.  The Biomag capital costs are significantly lower than MBR and can also expand their capacity on the current footprint.

Because waste water treatment science is evolving, there very well could be a cheaper alternative than the MBR solution if we wait.  What have we lost in the meantime? Absolutely nothing.  We are not required to finance the additional $30 million (which only brings us back to 2 mgd capacity), it appears we have ample capacity up until at least 2030 to 2035, and we have kept our options open.   We may find Meadowview will require increased capacity or upgrades before Seneca Point.  Also, imagine we instead invested the $30 million into closing up the infrastructure gaps on the growth corridor to attract growth.  Wasn't that supposed to be our priority in the first place?  .

To get a more accurate count of capacity at Seneca Point, we need to know the policy for reserving space at the treatment plant.  I requested this clarification from Director Flanigan on February 4 asking if already issued sewer allocations have a 2 - year “shelf life”?  I have also asked how long in his estimation do we have before we reach 2 mgd capacity?  To date, he has not responded.  Until I have answers to these questions, I don’t feel confident in moving forward or feel it’s fair to put the burden on this system on the users, new customers and tax payers since we‘ll probably have to finance the system with a long term bond.

I would propose that we conduct a full scale pilot study to assess the viable options and then provide a cost analysis on capital costs as well as the operation and maintenance costs for each option.   It seems to me this multi million dollar decision to commit to the BMR System should have rose beyond the staff and administration.  But we still have time to gather the information to make an informed decision.

I wanted to point out that while I'm not an expert on Waste Water Treatment Plants, I was able to gather the information from the experts after investing a lot of time and research. Because I am responsible for making informed votes, the Inhouse Auditor could make my job easier and potentially save the county more money than the position would cost.

Was Robert Hodge Stealing Electric?

Below are two documents which were presented at last Tuesday's worksession (January 15, 2013) by Councilman Dunn.  These documents and allegations are so shocking that I expected The Cecil Whig to cover the story.  Instead, Councilman Hodge, McCarthy and newly appointed Councilwoman Bowlesby voted to support the appointment of Mr. Hodge as President and said the allegations were irrelevant because they occurred back in 2008.  No story was ever printed despite many people believing it is relevant.  For the audio of the discussion:  http://www.ccgov.org/cmup/ws/01.15.13.worksession1.amend%20agenda.mp3
at 6 minutes and 8 seconds.  If this matters to you - or not - I'd like to hear what you have to say.    Please send me an email at diana.broomell@gmail.com with your feedback.