COMMENTARY: Does Bay Creek Control Town Council?
By DEBORAH BENDER
August 13, 2013
Several years ago I had a shop on Mason Avenue called Scarlett’s Closet where I sold women’s clothes. So I know how shoppers think. Let’s say someone wants to buy a linen top: One of the first things she will do is look at the price tag. She will consider buying two if there is a sale that offers a second garment at half price.
A shopper will consider how much money she has in her wallet — or if she gets out her credit card, what that will mean to the family budget.
But our Town Council jumped feet-first into building a new wastewater treatment plant without knowing for sure where the money to pay for it would come from. Now they want us to foot the bills.
In accordance with the 1991 Annexation Agreement, Town Council asked Bay Creek’s developer Dickie Foster to pay its share of the cost of the new state-of-the-art sewage treatment plant. But when he just said “no,” Town Council backed down.
Now, instead of demanding that the developers of Bay Creek pony up the money, Council is expecting the people of Cape Charles to accept two large increases to our water bills. In the last five years the cost of wastewater treatment has gone from $24 a month to $60.85.
Not only that – Council expects people to pay those bills whether their house is occupied or not. They get billed even if the house has the water turned off because the owner can’t afford to pay.
What are they thinking?
When a homeowner gets behind in paying his water bill he is hit with a $30 late fee. I wonder how much late fees Bay Creek has to pay for the $42,000 invoice they received in July 2008? Have they paid anything yet? Do they have any more invoices?
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE
According to the Town budget records, Bay Creek has not paid anything toward the new sewage treatment plant. The treasurer’s report shows a line item for invoices to Bay Creek, but not a dime has been paid.
Meanwhile the people of Cape Charles, who had no say in what they were going to buy or what it was going to cost, are saddled with a debt that makes their water bills some of the highest in the country.
The solution, we are being told, is that we should pump sewage in from commercial properties on Route 13 and Bayview Road to better utilize our new treatment plant.
But we have no price tags. The property owners on the highway have no idea what our system will cost them (other than it will more than double their real estate taxes). And we do not know what they will pay us.
Cape Charles built a new wastewater treatment plant to service the Town, including the Bay Creek development. The Town asked Bay Creek to pay its agreed share of costs, and even sent Bay Creek invoices. Bay Creek refuses to pay. Why has our Town Council given up without even consulting their lawyer? Does Bay Creek control Town Council?
Town Council needs to get back to basics and look out for the interests of the people of Cape Charles.
Submissions to COMMENTARY are welcome on any subject relevant to Cape Charles. Opinions expressed are those of the writer and not necessarily of this publication.
Exactly why I and many others in my generation will never move back home! Who runs the town? Great question! Maybe time to rethink that for sure!
I believe it’s obvious. Bay Creek was required to post a completion bond and the town’s obligation was to enforce and collect it. The purpose, well, is to guarantee “completion” of the development. The bond was not collected; it was waived by the town. Roads are incomplete in several areas. A home being built next to our lot in Bayside Village intrudes into the offset by a significant amount. We brought this to the attention of the town. Several conversations and an in-person meeting later, the answer was that the plans were too small for them to read and they were not going to correct it. A foundation CANNOT intrude into the offset! A fireplace can intrude ONLY if it is 4 ft above grade and NOT when it is part of the foundation. Shortly after this meeting and decision, my company received legal notice of Bay Creek South trying to “force” us to sell our lot back to them. This can be perceived as a coverup and an attack on a woman-owned business that has faithfully built in Bay Creek for 13 years. Does Bay Creek run the town? The answers are being discovered day by day.
The citizens will “buy” back the Town from Bay Creek with their vote next election.
Does The Town have a legal argument for Bay Creek to share the cost of the WWTP? Did the agreement executed by the Town and Bay Creek over the cost and deployment of the WWTP denote specific responsibilities and obligations of the parties, or did the language contain conditional statements or escape clauses that would allow either party to walk away without consequence? Until the real story is exposed (maybe by a legal authority), this discussion just won’t go away.
(To read correspondence between the Town, Steve Bennett, and Dickie Foster on Bay Creek obligations, click on our August 8 special report. –EDITOR)
Perhaps if the town installs a shut-off valve on the outfall line from Bay Creek the use of the WWTP could shut down pending payment of all outstanding balances.
Jack — my thoughts exactly! Bet they would pay up then! Seems like to me the town is always getting into hot water when they allow the developers to run the show.
To answer Debbie’s question, the contract favored the developer, as such contracts often do. Bay Creek is Cape Charles and Cape Charles without Bay Creek or some other similar development would not be much. Bay Creek does not have a legal obligation to pay this bill, but it has a moral obligation to do so. So how about another $40 temporary assessment added to the $135 monthly assessment of Bay Creek owners to pay off this debt?? If you have not filed for bankruptcy yet, you can afford it and you can live with a clear conscience that you are not mooching off of neighbors living paycheck to paycheck in your beloved town. I would gladly pay this fee if it were to result in a lower water bill.
Dana, actually the Bay Creek developer DOES have a legal obligation to pay this debt. This is clearly outlined in the annexation agreement. The annexation agreement also clearly states that this debt is NOT to be passed on to the citizens. Citizens include the Historic Town citizens, as well as the residents of Bay Creek. I do not understand your reference to the $135 assessment as the dues in Bay Creek are currently $155 per month. It is not up to Bay Creek residents to fund the water treatment plant. It is the developer’s obligation legally, morally, and contractually. I do not see any other reference above to $135 so if I have misunderstood, please clarify. Thank you.
John, thank you for clarifying. All your comments have been very helpful so please accept my thanks for your earlier postings as well.
I pay the Bay Creek dues once a year so I simply assumed they were still at $135 monthly. Sorry about the confusion.
The last Town Council meeting clearly noted that Bay Creek is under no obligation to pay any amount toward the upgrade of the plant because the new plant had the same capacity as the old plant, 250,000 gallons. Bay Creek would have had to pay had that capacity been higher (500,000), but there was no justification for a higher capacity – and there were additional constraints. The Gazette will offer further clarification soon. I just listened to a recording of the meeting.
Dana — nice academic point. However, if the new plant has the same capacity as the old plant, why was the Town Council in such a panic to build it when the old plant was working just fine? It seems the Town is constantly rushing to find new projects that will increase our service fees and taxes without the benefit of good public input or proper analysis.
For example, at the Town Council meeting last week I was surprised to hear that the Council wants to spend our tax dollars to build a bathroom and handicapped ramp for the Old Library. Why do we need these improvements when there is not a pressing need for this space? Wouldn’t it make more sense to do a proper needs assessment before jumping into another expensive project?
The new hotel on Mason Avenue has beautiful meeting space that they will rent to various groups. The hotel is ADA compliant (no ramps needed) and they have the proper bathroom facilities already in place.
Another Council meeting surprise came when one Council member said the New Library is too small and wants to use the Old Library for storage. Didn’t the Town Council tell us that the New Library was needed because it was so much larger and could handle all our library needs for years to come?
The Council would better serve the citizens of Cape Charles if took the time to hold Town Hall meetings where open DIALOGUE with the people and their elected officials could take place BEFORE they vote on major acquisition/building projects. The current process leads one to believe that the Council does not value public input and that they are only interested in pursuing their agenda.
Dana — While the Gazette is offering further clarifications about the fact that Bay Creek does not need to pay anything toward the new sewage treatment plant, I hope that it will address Ordinance 20110310 REDUCING THE WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES passed March 10, 2011, in which it states:
WHEREAS, new estimates of capital costs have been made based on a revised growth projection and a higher percentage of grant funding achieved for construction of the new wastewater treatment plant; and
WHEREAS, the new estimates assume significant payment for such capacity expansion pursuant to the Annexation Agreement”
How is Council going to explain that ordinance?
Water water everywhere,
Not a good drop to drink.
Deborah and David — I should be the last one to whom you should address your concerns. I am a product of South-Eastern Europe, where rules exist to be sidestepped, and you could readily assume that I would sell the town to the highest bidder and pocket the change. But, since you both so nicely addressed your comments to me, I will take a stab at a partial reply: If Town Council had any intention to follow rules, they would have kept principled guys like Tim Krawczel and Joe Vaccaro as town managers.
You are so right Dana! Tim & Joe were both great town managers. Problem was they were honest and principled and that is not allowed in this town. As far as rules and laws go — anytime they want, they change the rules or laws to suit their purpose. Better days are coming, though.