Calvert Shores: Petition for Municipality Referendum Gets GO

[exnodak]

I don't think I need to dispute claims that have no basis in fact or are even possible. They are simply a product of your large imagination. In order to make an allegation that is even plausible, you need to explain HOW the water company could possibly profit. It's very expensive to extend water lines and there is absolutely no positive rate of return for doing so. So please enlighten us. Besides, by the time all this gets settled in I will be retired and out of the public eye. The fate of the CRWC and Calvert Shores will be in the hands of people I have yet to meet and I wish them all well.

And if anyone on the Organizing Committee or anyone else steps up to the plate to run for office, they are heroes in my book.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

I don't think I need to dispute claims that have no basis in fact or are even possible. They are simply a product of your large imagination. In order to make an allegation that is even plausible, you need to explain HOW the water company could possibly profit. It's very expensive to extend water lines and there is absolutely no positive rate of return for doing so. So please enlighten us. Besides, by the time all this gets settled in I will be retired and out of the public eye. The fate of the CRWC and Calvert Shores will be in the hands of people I have yet to meet and I wish them all well. And if anyone on the Organizing Committee or anyone else steps up to the plate to run for office, they are heroes in my book.

You are sidestepping. The water company has had a public fight over trying to service and extend to the Patuxent Business Park. And yes, duh, it would cost money to do so, however, you are guaranteed a source of revenue. Same at all the other commercial development, current and future, within the boundaries. And this comment, "It's very expensive to extend water lines and there is absolutely no positive rate of return for doing so." So why even start a water company? How do you guys stay in business? Why not give us a primer on all things water so us lay people can better understand how difficult it is for water companies? And, why having a municipality to force people to hook up to water and sewer, whether they need it or not, is not good for a business such as yours. Is it not also possible that this municipality can just take out a bond to pay you, or contract with you, to construct any needed future water infrastructure. Also, is it not a fact that much of the literature, banners, large format boundary printing is paid for and/or printed right there at the Chesapeake Water Company headquarters?

Now again, in addition to the above, please answer why the municipality boundaries were made smaller such as on Little Cove Point Rd eliminating properties not served by the water company. Explain why the boundaries expand past that of CRE if you only want to fix the issues with CRE?

 

[exnodak]

Water systems are started to provide water as a public health service. CRWC is a not for profit cooperative association owned by its subscribers who control their own rates. Although there are profit motive water systems around, very few are profitable. They can only make money during a growth or expansion phase by overcharging for cost of construction and then they starve the system for maintenance while collecting revenues to cover accelerated depreciation. Then they pay out their dividends and walk away when the balance sheet tips over. CRWC is not that type of corporation. CRWC can't take the money and leave town because all of CRWC is wrapped up in stationary plant and equipment and the owners live here and are served here.

CRWC is about 60 years old and is financially very healthy. There is no reason or need to expand and its core mission is to serve those that it currently serves.

Your diatribe is self defeating. On one hand you make a wild accusation that CRWC is trying to take over the world and on the other hand you accuse it of not expanding in the Little Cove Point Rd area. The truth is CRWC wants to do neither. We are happy serving who we serve. If the folks along Little Cove Point Road want to be annexed and receive services they would be welcome to petition. That does not make them automatically forced to connect to ANY water system where service is not "available". And, at this time and for the near future at least, there is no way that CRWC would be in a position to become "available" to them unless they volunteer to pay a contribution to capital construction. Yet they are close enough to get fire protection and reduction in insurance rates from our hydrant system for free.

The argument over serving the LTC and PBP came about because there was a threat that the County was planning to drill competing wells too close to CRWC's territory and impede our water supply which would destry the efficiency of our most important well. If those places needed service and would compete with CRWC's resources then CRWC needed to have a way to pay for reinforcing its system through revenue production. No profit, simply recovery of cost.

That lawsuit, by the way, was against MDE. The County joined after the fact and paid for the entire defense. Even though it was touted loudly that CRWC lost the case, it got everything it needed from MDE. The permits were not approved, no well was drilled in the PBP that would compete with CRWC, and therefore no need to expand CRWC's service area. It was an entirely Puric victory for the County at a huge legal cost to them. Not only that, but the County is suffering under the burden of the stranded costs in their PBP expansion which are in the 10's of millions of assets that were built unnecessarily or at least 20years prematurely. CRWC could have done for PBP at a cost of about $250,000 what the County paid Millions for. CRWC was defending its well system and the County made it a turf war.

As the County has learned (I hope) over the last 15 years is that there is NEVER a guarantee of revenue in a risk venture and that public money should NEVER be exposed to that kind of risk.

The bottom line here is that your hypothesis that CRWC cares one iota about where the municipal boundaries end up is false. CRWC could care less and won't be impacted one way or another by them.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Your diatribe is self defeating. On one hand you make a wild accusation that CRWC is trying to take over the world and on the other hand you accuse it of not expanding in the Little Cove Point Rd area.

You try to spin a tale of what I didn't say as truth. The question was not of expanding, but retracting. My question was why the original boundary map for the municipality included all those properties along the west side of Little Cove Point Rd. that, under the new boundary map, have been excluded and are not served by your water company. Similar to gerrymandering maps design by democrats. Why is that? There was, and still is, no explanation.

And, to explain why the municipality boundaries expand past that of the CRE boundaries if you only want to fix the issues with CRE? If CRE is in such dire need of "localized government leadership", why incorporate outside CRE limits and bring (force) other unwilling participants into the fray?

The bottom line here is that your hypothesis that CRWC cares one iota about where the municipal boundaries end up is false. CRWC could care less and won't be impacted one way or another by them.

I never stated, implied or hypothesized, that CRWC cared about the boundaries, but that CRWC stood to benefit from a municipality. Whose boundaries, that just also happen to appear to be within the CRWC entire service area.

Also, is it not a fact that much of the literature, banners, large format boundary map printing is paid for and/or printed right there at the Chesapeake Water Company headquarters?

Since you are a part of the municipality committee, and been working on this for many years, you should be able to answer these straight forward questions.

 

[exnodak]

If I may ...You try to spin a tale of what I didn't say as truth. The question was not of expanding, but retracting. My question was why the original boundary map for the municipality included all those properties along the west side of Little Cove Point Rd. that, under the new boundary map, have been excluded and are not served by your water company. Similar to gerrymandering maps design by democrats. Why is that? There was, and still is, no explanation. CRWC doesn't serve in Drum Point and the Municipal boundary didn't include DP either, so what exactly is your point/inference?

And, to explain why the municipality boundaries expand past that of the CRE boundaries if you only want to fix the issues with CRE? If CRE is in such dire need of "localized government leadership", why incorporate outside CRE limits and bring (force) other unwilling participants into the fray? The non-CRE areas that were included were done so primarily to include the LTC for municipal commercial economic development. Some non-CRE residentials were included so as to make the boundary as uniform as possible. Some were excluded because they were relatively new neighborhoods and didn't yet have decay issues. For far too long we have allowed forces North of Sixes Road to divide us and keep us fragmented. It is sad that anyone would want to keep us divided and keep us from uniting.

I never stated, implied or hypothesized, that CRWC cared about the boundaries, but that CRWC stood to benefit from a municipality. Whose boundaries, that just also happen to appear to be within the CRWC entire service area. This still is an internally conflicted question that infers that CRWC seeks some kind of benefit. The only benefit CRWC seeks is the obvious benefit that the residents will receive. A stronger community makes for a stronger base willing and able to support all of its infrastructure of which CRWC is a key element. That said, the CRWC Board gives me NO direction on the matter. They only allow me to operate on the committee as a resident and allow certain use of facilities as a community service. As a Board, they are entirely neutral.

Also, is it not a fact that much of the literature, banners, large format boundary map printing is paid for and/or printed right there at the Chesapeake Water Company headquarters? see answer above. CRWC supports its membership and the effort to make the community a better place to live.

Since you are a part of the municipality committee, and been working on this for many years, you should be able to answer these straight forward questions.

In the end, the municipality must not be about CRE, but about the areas that need municipal services. The municipality must be a healthy one and that means some level of uniformity, a reasonable chance at economic development, and a commercial area that makes sense for those in the municipality that will rely on it for shopping and life support. It makes no sense to incorporate an area and leave out those on the margins that could benefit the most or that might create a ring of decay around the town. But at the same time we didn't want to take on entire neighborhoods that would not need those services ...yet.

 

[officeguy]

In the end, the municipality must not be about CRE, but about the areas that need municipal services. The municipality must be a healthy one and that means some level of uniformity, a reasonable chance at economic development, and a commercial area that makes sense for those in the municipality that will rely on it for shopping and life support. It makes no sense to incorporate an area and leave out those on the margins that could benefit the most or that might create a ring of decay around the town. But at the same time we didn't want to take on entire neighborhoods that would not need those services ...yet.

If the tax differential is reasonable, the city is well run and provides the promised services, surrounding neighborhoods will start to petition for annexation. The stuff around little cove point road seems a lot less dense than the core of the CRE. The owners may not have much of an interest to join and from the aspect of running city services, density is what you want. I believe there is only one connection to the CRE road system to little cove point.

As for the water company. As it is a consumer owned non-profit, I can see a couple of directions this can go:

- status quo. The water company services its existing shareholders and the owners who have wells will stay on wells. If there is any development, it either connects to the water company or it has to go through the process to get access to the aquifer.

- the city decides to get into the water/sewer business and makes an offer on the water company. That would require buying out the existing shareholders. Of course, it is difficult t ocome up with a fair price for something that can't be moved and that nobody would really want to buy. I am sure there is a way to come up with a valuation for the shares that works for both sides. Who knows, maybe there is a way to structure the sale as a payment in lieu of taxes drawn out over a couple of years.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

If I may ...You try to spin a tale of what I didn't say as truth. The question was not of expanding, but retracting. My question was why the original boundary map for the municipality included all those properties along the west side of Little Cove Point Rd. that, under the new boundary map, have been excluded and are not served by your water company. Similar to gerrymandering maps design by democrats. Why is that? There was, and still is, no explanation. CRWC doesn't serve in Drum Point and the Municipal boundary didn't include DP either, so what exactly is your point/inference?

And, to explain why the municipality boundaries expand past that of the CRE boundaries if you only want to fix the issues with CRE? If CRE is in such dire need of "localized government leadership", why incorporate outside CRE limits and bring (force) other unwilling participants into the fray? The non-CRE areas that were included were done so primarily to include the LTC for municipal commercial economic development. Some non-CRE residentials were included so as to make the boundary as uniform as possible. Some were excluded because they were relatively new neighborhoods and didn't yet have decay issues.

I never stated, implied or hypothesized, that CRWC cared about the boundaries, but that CRWC stood to benefit from a municipality. Whose boundaries, that just also happen to appear to be within the CRWC entire service area. This still is an internally conflicted question that infers that CRWC seeks some kind of benefit. The only benefit CRWC seeks is the obvious benefit that the residents will receive. A stronger community makes for a stronger base willing and able to support all of its infrastructure of which CRWC is a key element.

Also, is it not a fact that much of the literature, banners, large format boundary map printing is paid for and/or printed right there at the Chesapeake Water Company headquarters? see answer above. CRWC supports its membership and the effort to make the community a better place to live.

Since you are a part of the municipality committee, and been working on this for many years, you should be able to answer these straight forward questions.

Oh yeah, CRWC is just being altruistic. There has been no mention of Drum Point in this entire discussion. There are no areas outside the CRE that need anything close to the "services" of a municipality that are not already being taken care of. Lusby Town Center is doing just fine. Economic development is doing just fine without the interference and heavier tax and regulatory burden of a municipality. "The only benefit CRWC seeks is the obvious benefit that the residents will receive." Let's make one thing clear here. Government is not a benefit. Government is force.

In the end, the municipality must not be about CRE, but about the areas that need municipal services. The municipality must be a healthy one and that means some level of uniformity, a reasonable chance at economic development, and a commercial area that makes sense for those in the municipality that will rely on it for shopping and life support. It makes no sense to incorporate an area and leave out those on the margins that could benefit the most or that might create a ring of decay around the town. But at the same time we didn't want to take on entire neighborhoods that would not need those services ...yet.

Your obtuseness and misdirection is worthy of invitation to a spin doctor award conference. Do you really expect those with any critical thinking skills to believe the drivel you just wrote? "In the end it must not be about CRE." Are you serious? It has always been about CRE. Then someone thought, "hey, if we extend the boundaries to the shopping centers we can get more money and make it look like we really want to do good things." This whole fiasco began because of CRE. "Some were excluded because they were relatively new neighborhoods and didn't yet have decay issues." Anyone can look at the boundary map and see that just north of the CRE back gate on Little Cove Point Rd there are residences, many dating from the late 60's and 70's, many in states of "decay" just cut out from the original municipal boundary map. Even from the beginning leaving out and ignoring old developments such as Brian's Way and Park Chesapeake subdivisions. Because they are not served by CRWC. All you people are doing is creating something that is not needed, duplicative, and that will harm the quality of life while benefiting from the force of government. You are charlatans and a danger to the people of Lusby and CRE.

You want to continue to avoid and sidestep legitimate questions and concerns, by answering questions and concerns with hyperbole and open ended rhetoric, fine. But many know who and what you are and that anything you say or do is as an agent in the creation of a more bloated, intrusive, taxing, regulating, monstrosity.

 

[officeguy]

Anyone can look at the boundary map and see that just north of the CRE back gate on Little Cove Point Rd there are residences, many dating from the late 60's and 70's, many in states of "decay" just cut out from the original municipal boundary map. Even from the beginning leaving out and ignoring old developments such as Brian's Way and Park Chesapeake subdivisions.

I would expect that if someone got signatures from the majority of the property owners in those subdivisions, the charter committee would amend the draft charter to include those neighborhoods. If it doesn't get included initially, there is is a process to annex parcels to the city if they so desire:


MD Code, Local Government, § 4-404
Formerly cited as MD CODE, Art. 23A, § 19
§ 4-404. Proposal for annexation--Initiation by petition

In general
(a) Subject to § 4-413 of this subtitle, an annexation petition shall be signed by:
(1) at least 25% of the registered voters who are residents in the area to be annexed; and
(2) the owners of at least 25% of the assessed valuation of the real property in the area to be annexed.
Verification of compliance with requirements
(b) After an annexation petition is presented to the legislative body of the municipality, the presiding officer of the legislative body shall verify:
(1) the signatures on the petition; and
(2) that the petition meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
Introduction of resolution in legislative body
(c)(1) After verifying compliance with the requirements of this section, the presiding officer of the legislative body promptly shall cause a resolution proposing the change of boundaries as requested by the petition to be introduced in the legislative body.
(2) The annexation resolution shall conform to the form and content requirements of this subtitle.

 

[exnodak]

LightRoasted: Where would you have laid down the boundary?

Conflating CRWC with CRE with Municipality as in a shell game and then using an army of straw man arguments presents no argument but only accusation and paranoia. Your statements only bring out the fact that you are an anarchist, a NIMBY, and a person that simply will not accept any change at any time in any place near you. One thing is clear in your delusional campaign: You are afraid of anything and everything.

And not many....but most people know exactly who and what I am and always have, yet here we are with a signed petition and a successful movement not lead by me doing something positive for the community.

All the lines of argument that you have posed when answered have resulted in you turning the argument with a straw man and converting it into a personal attack against me when you have no other answer. It is clear that your entire mission is to attack me personally and the arguments about Calvert Shores is simply your vehicle.

PS: You may want to try and learn something about critical thinking. Hint: Its a discipline that involves thinking and not criticism.

 

[exnodak]

There is no discussion about changing the course of the Water Company OR the Calvert county Water and Sewer services in the LTC. Only the subscribers of CRWC could affirmatively alter the course of CRWC to become an enterprise operation of Calvert Shores. That power comes to CRWC through the United States Code 7 USC 1926(b) which dictates the terms of CRWC's USDA loan obligations.

" (b) Curtailment or limitation of service prohibited The service provided or made available through any such association shall not be curtailed or limited by inclusion of the area served by such association within the boundaries of any municipal corporation or other public body, or by the granting of any private franchise for similar service within such area during the term of such loan; nor shall the happening of any such event be the basis of requiring such association to secure any franchise, license, or permit as a condition to continuing to serve the area served by the association at the time of the occurrence of such event."

The municipality would have to pay off all of the federal loan balance before it could acquire any CRWC asset. I don't think that is necessary or wise at this time. However, if the CRWC membership should make a decision that they want to pursue that conversion they have every right to go that route.

 

[officeguy]

Its not like this is the first rural water system dealing with incorporation of its territory. Not much of an incentive to sell, unless the city had really cheap access to money.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

Its not like this is the first rural water system dealing with incorporation of its territory. Not much of an incentive to sell, unless the city had really cheap access to money.

And it's not like it's the first municipality which doesn't own the water and sewer system which services it. West Penn Water (the name has changed) provides services to numerous communities in Butler and Clarion Counties in PA.

Having the municipality own the system is a bit "cleaner" maybe, but the end result is the same. It does in that situation, or is supposed to, become an enterprise operation divorced from the General Fund (Chesapeake Beach notwithstanding right now) and is required to generate revenues sufficient to cover its capital and operation costs from rate payers.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

I would expect that if someone got signatures from the majority of the property owners in those subdivisions, the charter committee would amend the draft charter to include those neighborhoods. If it doesn't get included initially, there is is a process to annex parcels to the city if they so desire:


MD Code, Local Government, § 4-404
Formerly cited as MD CODE, Art. 23A, § 19
§ 4-404. Proposal for annexation--Initiation by petition

In general
(a) Subject to § 4-413 of this subtitle, an annexation petition shall be signed by:
(1) at least 25% of the registered voters who are residents in the area to be annexed; and
(2) the owners of at least 25% of the assessed valuation of the real property in the area to be annexed.
Verification of compliance with requirements
(b) After an annexation petition is presented to the legislative body of the municipality, the presiding officer of the legislative body shall verify:
(1) the signatures on the petition; and
(2) that the petition meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
Introduction of resolution in legislative body
(c)(1) After verifying compliance with the requirements of this section, the presiding officer of the legislative body promptly shall cause a resolution proposing the change of boundaries as requested by the petition to be introduced in the legislative body.
(2) The annexation resolution shall conform to the form and content requirements of this subtitle.

You must have taken a class in the art of misdirection. Get this; no one is taking about Drum Point. No one is talking about annexation, wanting to be annexed or asking to be annexed. The question is simply this: Where the original boundary map, that was originally presented, had all properties included west of Little Cove Point Rd to Cove Point Rd to HG Trueman Rd, the new boundary map now excludes many properties that were originally included. The properties that have been excluded are known to not have water service provided by the CRWC. Why was this change made? Very simple question.

LightRoasted: Where would you have laid down the boundary?

Conflating CRWC with CRE with Municipality as in a shell game and then using an army of straw man arguments presents no argument but only accusation and paranoia. Your statements only bring out the fact that you are an anarchist, a NIMBY, and a person that simply will not accept any change at any time in any place near you. One thing is clear in your delusional campaign: You are afraid of anything and everything.

And not many....but most people know exactly who and what I am and always have, yet here we are with a signed petition and a successful movement not lead by me doing something positive for the community.

All the lines of argument that you have posed when answered have resulted in you turning the argument with a straw man and converting it into a personal attack against me when you have no other answer. It is clear that your entire mission is to attack me personally and the arguments about Calvert Shores is simply your vehicle.

PS: You may want to try and learn something about critical thinking. Hint: Its a discipline that involves thinking and not criticism.

I am not trying to change the boundary. Just to why the boundary was changed from its original presentation. I am not attempting to conflate anything. I am not afraid of change when concerns and question are answered in a truthful and a fully informed manner. Yet you continue to skirt around giving full and forthright answers that are ironclad. You claim its about bringing benefits to the residents, yet leave out many areas that seem to need government because of the decay you mention. I haven't personally attacked you. Not by a long shot. These are not attacks, just seem to be focused on you because of your involvement in the municipality committee and the CRWC. You come here to push your side yet seem unwilling to thoroughly answer questions or not at all. I could care less of you and have no time to attack you as a person. If you feel I am personally attacking you then maybe, it's your mindset. And yes, so a minority of petition signers get to push on a majority of people another possible intrusion into their lives. Yeah, that's always "something positive."

 

[officeguy]

If I may ...
You must have taken a class in the art of misdirection. Get this; no one is taking about Drum Point. No one is talking about annexation, wanting to be annexed or asking to be annexed. The question is simply this: Where the original boundary map, that was originally presented, had all properties included west of Little Cove Point Rd to Cove Point Rd to HG Trueman Rd, the new boundary map now excludes many properties that were originally included. The properties that have been excluded are known to not have water service provided by the CRWC. Why was this change made? Very simple question.

Look in the minutes of the public meetings. The issue was discussed in public.

I didn't write a word about Drum Point. While I can't speak for the incorporation committee, I just pointed out that I would expect that neighborhoods interested in becoming part of the potential city would have two avenues to do so:
1. Contacting the committee with a list of signatures of property owners in the subdivision interested in joining the city.
2. Petitioning for annexation under § 4-404.

Joining at the initial establishment of the muncipality is probably the cheaper of the two options. Annexation requires all kinds of reports, legal opinions, master plan updates and public hearings. Re-drawing the corporation map as part of the initial process is probably easier. The folks driving the incorporation have no interest in including people who have no reason to join the muncipality. To get the referendum passed, they want to focus on the neighborhoods that have the most to gain.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Look in the minutes of the public meetings. The issue was discussed in public.

I didn't write a word about Drum Point. While I can't speak for the incorporation committee, I just pointed out that I would expect that neighborhoods interested in becoming part of the potential city would have two avenues to do so:
1. Contacting the committee with a list of signatures of property owners in the subdivision interested in joining the city.
2. Petitioning for annexation under § 4-404.

Joining at the initial establishment of the muncipality is probably the cheaper of the two options. Annexation requires all kinds of reports, legal opinions, master plan updates and public hearings. Re-drawing the corporation map as part of the initial process is probably easier. The folks driving the incorporation have no interest in including people who have no reason to join the muncipality. To get the referendum passed, they want to focus on the neighborhoods that have the most to gain.

Look at the public minutes? What minutes? Who has minutes? Who maintains the records? Is there a link to any minutes referring to the question at hand? There are no minutes about a boundary change on the "official website." Except for minutes that show everything in a positive light. And why the eff do you people keep bringing up issues that have not been questioned? No one is even talking about annexation, for or against, wanting to be annexed or wanting not to be annexed. Just drop it.

I am going to ask again: The question is simply this: Where the original boundary map, that was originally presented by the municipality committee, had all properties included west of Little Cove Point Rd to Cove Point Rd to HG Trueman Rd, the new boundary map now excludes many properties that were originally included. The properties that have been excluded are known to not have water service provided by the CRWC. Why was this change made? Very simple question. Why is it so hard to get an honest straightforward answer from you people?

If you people pushing for this municipality are the ones most likely to be a part of it, and you can't answer simple questions with nothing but obfuscation and misdirection to push your agenda and keep people who are looking for honest and concrete answers going around in circles, then the people within the municipality, if passed, are going to be really screwed. We have enough of people like you already running enough governments in this state and around the country, and not for the better.

 

[officeguy]

If I may ...Look at the public minutes? What minutes? Who has minutes? Who maintains the records? Is there a link to any minutes referring to the question at hand? There are no minutes about a boundary change on the "official website." Except for minutes that show everything in a positive light. And why the eff do you people keep bringing up issues that have not been questioned? No one is even talking about annexation, for or against, wanting to be annexed or wanting not to be annexed. Just drop it.

You really got do do your own reading. Can't do it for you.

I have to ask. How many refrigerators DO you have on your porch ? Any engine blocks hanging from trees ?

 

[seekeroftruth]

Over the years there has been a lot of talk about municipality. The committee that is working on it now is the most informed, hard working, and task oriented group I've seen take up the task. I've watched them cross all the t's and dot all the i's during the process. I've seen them go out into the community and garner the necessary support.

IMHO.... the municipality question has matured enough to reach the general election ballot for District 1 Calvert County.

You may remember how I use to rant about other groups as residentofcre and hotcoffee.... Now I have no doubt the committee has done what none other before it has done. They have discussed all the factors and resolved all the problems I had with the municipality question.

I would encourage everyone to take the time to read the documents that are presented to the BOCC. I would encourage the BOCC to allow it to go to ballot.

Just the fact they garnered 2300 signatures from registered voters should speak to the merit of the question.

I'm so proud of CRE for finally getting this far.... Well done!!!

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

You really got do do your own reading. Can't do it for you.

Happy to read. So again: Who has minutes? Who maintains the records? Is there a link to any minutes referring to the question at hand? There are no minutes about a boundary change on the "official website."

Over the years there has been a lot of talk about municipality. The committee that is working on it now is the most informed, hard working, and task oriented group I've seen take up the task. I've watched them cross all the t's and dot all the i's during the process. I've seen them go out into the community and garner the necessary support. IMHO.... the municipality question has matured enough to reach the general election ballot for District 1 Calvert County. You may remember how I use to rant about other groups as residentofcre and hotcoffee.... Now I have no doubt the committee has done what none other before it has done. They have discussed all the factors and resolved all the problems I had with the municipality question. I would encourage everyone to take the time to read the documents that are presented to the BOCC. I would encourage the BOCC to allow it to go to ballot. Just the fact they garnered 2300 signatures from registered voters should speak to the merit of the question. I'm so proud of CRE for finally getting this far.... Well done!!!

That's wonderful that they answered all "your questions". We all know that petition signers are thoroughly educated about what they are signing for, right? That just like a grand jury, receive only one side of the information.

 

[seekeroftruth]

If I may ...Happy to read. So again: Who has minutes? Who maintains the records? Is there a link to any minutes referring to the question at hand? There are no minutes about a boundary change on the "official website."
That's wonderful that they answered all "your questions". We all know that petition signers are thoroughly educated about what they are signing for, right? That just like a grand jury, receive only one side of the information.

Actually, for months there were multiple threads going on Facebook... hashing out the questions and concerns of over a thousand members.... there has also been print media input as well. For years I have questioned committees pretending to bring their own agenda driven versions of the question... those committees couldn't garner the required support. This committee has consider carefully the concerns of the majority and the question is a great result of those discussions.

I was once vehemently opposed to it in the beginning... now the committee has worked to understand my concerns and used them in there deliberations... I'm proud of them and how this movement has matured. I wasn't on the committee by the way.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

The minutes of the organizing committee might not necessarily be considered public information yet under the Open Meetings law, which really only covers elected and appointed governmental bodies.

HOAs sort of come under that, but with laws covering those organizations not governmental bodies.

I'll admit that I'm not positive on how this would be covered.

As far as why the lines were drawn where they were, well, they have to be drawn somewhere. Including the Lusby Town Center makes sense because of the commercial zoning.