Comments on: COMMENTARY: Does Bay Creek Control Town Council?

By: Deborah Bender

Deborah Bender — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 02:21:40 +0000

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.

By: Dana Lascu

Dana Lascu — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 01:10:47 +0000

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.

By: John C Boytos

John C Boytos — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:34:26 +0000

Water water everywhere,
Not a good drop to drink.

By: Deborah Bender

Deborah Bender — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:56:06 +0000

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?

By: David Gay

David Gay — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:13:34 +0000

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.

By: Dana Lascu

Dana Lascu — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 03:08:00 +0000

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.

By: Dana Lascu

Dana Lascu — Sat, 17 Aug 2013 03:41:20 +0000

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.

By: John C Boytos

John C Boytos — Sat, 17 Aug 2013 00:05:03 +0000

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.

By: Dana Lascu

Dana Lascu — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 03:51:34 +0000

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.

By: Don Bender

Don Bender — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 01:41:49 +0000

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.