Every Rock Hall taxpayer should heed the red line drawn in the sand by Kent County attorney/County Administrator, Ernie Crofoot in the June 4 edition of the KCN. Mr. Crofoot states very authoritatively that Kent County will not pay the Town of Rock Hall any additional fees for waste water treatment than what was established by an agreement struck in 2003. What provider of goods and services these days does not review and adjust your contract to reflect changing costs, increased fees, and the volatility of the economy? The power company? The phone company? Your insurance company? Rock Hall is a vendor, Kent County is a vendee. Try telling Delmarva or Verizon that you are not going to pay for their services!
It is audacious of Mr. Crofoot to assume that an eleven year old agreement that has never been reviewed will reflect the social, economic, and fiscal changes that have occurred in Rock Hall and Kent County over eleven years.
The 2003 document is a simple agreement that is dealing with an increasingly complex relationship between Rock Hall and Kent County. Commissioner Fithian, and attorney Charles Macleod, have Mr. Crofoot’s back on this one, speaking as one voice, that the original 2003 agreement is legal. This argument is a distraction from the real issues. In simple language, the 2003 agreement requires that Kent County pay Rock Hall for treatment of waste water, based proportionally on the total expenses incurred by Rock Hall, for the operations and maintenance of the Rock Hall waste water treatment plant.
The total cost of operations of Rock Hall’s plant in 2013 was $472,000. Kent County calculated their payment to Rock Hall based on a $227,000 total cost. Obviously, many real cost items are excluded by Kent County in the payment structure.
The Total Cost issue is not the only flaw in the 2003 agreement. The agreement calls for an annual audit of all records from Kent County as well as a review of the agreement every five years. None of this has happened. The result of this lack of oversight is the loss of thousands of dollars of revenue for Rock Hall and the threat of raising taxes and utility rates to Rock Hall residents to cover the budget shortfall. While Rock Hall struggles to balance a budget, Kent County is able to give residents a cost reduction for water and sewer. It is cheaper to flush a toilet in Edesville, Spring Cove, Allen’s Lane, Green Lane, Piney Neck, and Skinners Neck- all county areas that are treated by Rock Hall- than it is in Rock Hall.
Rock Hall does not need new taxes and utility rate increases. We do need a new waste water treatment contract with Kent County. We do need administrative leadership that protects Rock Hall’s interests. Will it be Town Manager Fithian or Commissioner Fithian? He cannot be a neutral bystander. The Rock Hall Council recently voted to review the 2003 contract. Councilman Jones and Councilman Price voted not to review it. Attorney MacLeod, appears to march in lockstep with Commissioner/Town Manager Fithian and Attorney Crofoot. Community feedback favors a complete review.
Bob Willis
Mayor of Rock Hall
Kevin Shertz says
A contract is a contract. It was voted upon by a majority of the elected officials of Rock Hall.
As an outsider, your disparaging remarks about Ronnie Fithian has become utterly tiresome… if a majority of the Council agrees with you, he can be sacked as a Town Manager. If a majority of the voters agree, he can be removed as a County Commissioner.
So far, a majority of neither share your view… I think the citizens of Rock Hall have to question how such dysfunctional government can be considered good government.
Gren Whitman says
Rock Hall’s Mayor Willis would have you believe that Ernie Crofoot, county administrator, Ron Fithian, Rock Hall’s town manager, and Chip MacLeod, town attorney, are all incorrect as they describe the wastewater treatment contract between Rock Hall and Kent County as sound and enforceable.
One the other hand, three Rock Hall councilmen have formally instructed Mayor Willis to stop representing the town in public. The president of the People’s Bank refuses to speak with him. U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel have told him that they won’t answer questions from him about financing the town’s new clarifier unless he files a Freedom of Information request. The town auditor also refuses to speak with him. And in a letter signed and dated June 5, all 13 Rock Hall employees—including the town manager, the police chief, and the clerk-treasurer—have informed him that “we devote ourselves to working with the majority of the Town Council in their efforts to restore a functioning government to the Town of Rock Hall.
Let Spy readers judge the validity of Willis’ accusations.
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
Mr. Whitman asks Spy readers to judge the validity of Mayor Willis’s accusations. Well, this reader is of the opinion that the 2003 wastewater agreement reached by the county and the town as backed by the town manager, the town attorney, the county administrator and most of the town council is legal and enforceable despite the alleged conflict with the town code. However, I also believe that the 2009 sewer agreement the town reached with the Sailing Emporium, that also was extended to Spring Cove Marina and two residential properties was also perfectly legal as the mayor and council simply voted to grant an exception to the town code as they saw a benefit for the town to do so. As Mr. Whitman was one of the people spearheading the recent enforcement of the town code in demanding refunds from those out-of-town sewer users in the 2009 agreement, backed with the threat of legal action, he seems to want to have things both ways here. Either the town code trumps the agreements the council can make or it doesn’t. I do acknowledge that there are differences between the 2003 agreement the town made the county over their town sewer line users given the county’s financial investment (and the county’s investment in the infrastructure strengthens their case in my view) and the 2009 agreement spurred on by request of the Sailing Emporium; but given the various threats of legal action over enforcement of the town code based on the 2009 agreement, it’s not hard for me to understand why the mayor is focusing on it now as the town council set a precedent in ending the 2009 agreement (and at one time demanding back payment). I’ll grant that the mayor’s approach has been akin to hunting mosquitoes with machine guns, but I don’t think he’s necessarily wrong here even if I think the county is right.
Gren Whitman says
What Mr. Thompson apparently doesn’t understand is that the Rock Hall/Kent County 2003 agreement covers hookups to the county’s collection system. However, the two marinas and two residences that owe the Town of Rock Hall $15,945 collectively are hooked directly into the town’s collection system, and are thus not covered by the town/county agreement, but by the Rock Hall code.
Let me also gently point out that neither of us—Mr. Thompson nor I—is an attorney. Lacking that standing, we are obliged to accept the professional legal opinions of Ernest Crofoot and Chip MacLeod—who are attorneys. Both report the town/county agreement as valid and binding.
If Mr. Thompson wishes to challenge the two lawyers’ opinions, he is free to hire his own attorney and take it to a judge, which was precisely Mr. MacLeod’s sage advice to his client, Mayor Bob Willis.
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
Yes, I do understand that the 2003 agreement with the county is a legal contract that includes hookups that were paid for by the county but that’s not the point I’m making. I’m arguing that if you accept that at the town code trumps limits the ability of the town council to make changes in sewer rates that go against the code, the town code also limits the ability of the town council to enter into legal agreements with other government entities over their investment in or use of the sewer system. A legal agreement is null and void if one of the parties is legally prevented from entering into it. Again, I’m not questioning the legal opinions of Mr. Crofoot or Mr. Macleod on their opinion of the county’s agreement with the town because I agree with them; I’m questioning the legal opinion of the lawyer of the concerned citizens group who challenged the 2009 sewer agreement and attempted to collect alleged unpaid taxes. As of now the town of Rock Hall is relying on legal opinions from various lawyers, and at no time has any of these legal arguments been heard in a local court or have been ruled on by a judge. I think the town erred in not challenging the opinion of the concerned citizen’s lawyer in court which would have settled the sewer issue last year, rather than leaving the opening for the contract with the county to be challenged. Finally, even if I had the desire to take this to court; I do know that as a non-lawyer that I have no legal standing to file since I’m not a Rock Hall taxpayer nor non-resident sewer user. I’m just an interested Spy reader.
Gren Whitman says
Just to clear up a bit of misinformation, it was in fact Rock Hall’s lawyer, Charles MacLeod — not “the lawyer for the concerned citizens group” — who advised the Town Council that its May 4, 2009, decision to reduce the sewer rates for four out-of-town customers was not legal under the town code and needed to be rescinded.
As a result of Mr. MacLeod’s professional advice and guidance, on July 22, 2013, at a special meeting, the Town Council terminated the rate reduction effective as of April 1.
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
And to clear up a misrepresentation of my point from Mr. Whitman, the concerned citizen’s group pressure to rescind the 2009 sewer deal was backed by threats of a lawsuit (especially to collect the alleged unpaid fees). The town’s decision, backed by advice from the town’s attorney, was to rescind the agreement. I don’t disagree with rescinding the agreement, but I do think the town had the right to make this agreement in 2009. The mayor is essentially making the same argument about the 2003 sewer agreement that the concerned citizens made about the 2009 sewer deal. I don’t think the mayor is right, but given the precedent set by rescinding the 2009 deal, I at least think the questions he raises about interpretations of the town code are legitimate. For good or for bad, this argument over the town code was started by the concerned citizens.
Ron Fithian says
Bob Willis would stand by and watch the town of Rock Hall burn to the ground as long as he could be called Mayor of the ASHES! How sad!!
Bob Willis says
The wastewater agreement stipulates an annual assessment of the Total Cost incurred by the Town of Rock Hall to operate its Waste Water Treatment Plant. This has not been done nor has either of the two (5) year reviews as stipulated by the 2003 agreement. This is under the purview of Town Manager Fithian. In-town residents pay $65/quarter for sewer, the county charges users of Rock Hall’s WWTP $169/quarter, of that Kent County government pays Rock Hall $36. The town directly invoices approximately 35 out-of-town users at the out-of town rate of $130/quarter. If I were a county commissioner I would not want this reviewed either!