Written by: Bill Kerbin
POCOMOKE CITY -- In adopting an automatic residential fire sprinkler system rebate ordinance, the Pocomoke mayor and council have moved in a different direction on home-sprinkler regulations than other towns and counties in Maryland.
The town will give a rebate to any homeowner who decides to install a sprinkler system in his or her newly constructed home during the next three years. The owner will receive a rebate of $2,000 or 50 percent of the annual real property tax, whichever is less. The system must be on the building's plans and, after being installed, be certified by the fire marshal.
At a town meeting, Will Stevenson made a request for funding assistance for the Mar-Va Theater in the coming fiscal year. He said that heating and electricity are the largest costs for the theater, where its financial books are up more than $7,000 over last year just through the end of February. He thinks that part of the reason is that the theater is having more performances, and guessed that cold weather this winter helped convince people to seek entertainment indoors. He added that there has been a problem with the new heating equipment, which he hopes will be corrected with a grant that the city obtained for the theater.
Councilman Bruce Morrison told Stevenson that the council will take up the request when the budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year is discussed in coming weeks.
The city manager presented a plan from the EnerNoc Company to enter as an interface between Pocomoke City and Delmarva Power concerning power for the wastewater treatment plant. If the agreement is signed, Pocomoke City would turn on its generator at peak times during the year. The town should receive about $15,000 a year for making this move.
City Attorney Mark Tilghman raised some questions including the possibility of liability. He plans to contact the company to learn more about the agreement before the council takes any action.
The council also approved a bid from Renshaw Engineering for $1,791 for engineering services for the installation and wiring of power pedestals along the city dock.
Andrew J. Bowen, executive director of the Maryland Rural Water Association, was at the meeting to present the second-place National Rural Water Association award for the best tasting water in the country's rural areas. After winning the Maryland competition outright, Pocomoke's entry was sent to the national level where it won second place.
Under other business, the council authorized proclamations for Arbor Day and Fair Housing Month; authorized the renewal of a mutual aid agreement between the Pocomoke City Police Department and the Crisfield department; approved a proposal from PKS for auditing the town's books for the next three years; and authorized a full-page ad in the program for the Delmarva Firemen's Association Convention, to be held this year in Pocomoke City.
Source; delmarvanow.com
9 comments:
Wow. One can make a town council change their minds. When Duffy introduced this idea, Blake and Morrison didn't want to give the 'rebate' to individuals and in fact looked at her like she didnt know what she was talking about.
A month or two before the elections, they change their minds.
That's interesting.
Anonymous has no idea what he / she is talking about and I really must set the record straight. No disrespect to Dr. Duffy, but she had nothing to do with introducing the idea of a tax incentive for installing sprinkler systems in new residential construction.
The tax incentive or rebate as some are calling it, was my idea and was introduced into council deliberations on this subject last fall. We were trying to come up with a way to encourage sprinkler installation without making it mandatory. The intent was to work with builders and new home buyers to achieve the desired outcome, rather than force the issue on them. Our solution was unique, as no other town or county tried this approach. They either opted in or out. We took this approach after much negative feedback from the community about forcing the issue of sprinkler installation in new residential construction. The main objection was too much government intrusion into what should be a personal choice. Our solution promotes cooperation among the governmental, commercial and private entities to improve public safety, rather than force the issue through intrusive legislation.
All council members were on board with the idea from its first introduction. There was some concern expressed about giving up the tax revenue. In the end, however, our deliberations centered on how much the incentive should be as a percentage of the installation costs, what the maximum “cost share” cap should be and whether the legislation should carry a sunset provision (expiration date).
The council’s discussion of this issue over about a four or five month period is a matter of public record, including the tax incentive introduced early on in the discussions. More information on the legislation is available from city hall.
Respectfully,
Rob Clarke
Councilman, District 5
Thankyou councilman Clarke for your comment. As always, your comments are welcomed here.
Councilperson, Clarke,
No disrepect to you - but although the ''record'' may not reflect Dr. Duffy asking the Council to consider this, INDEED THIS DID OCCUR. Dr. Duffy asked for the council to consider some kind of tax incentive, perhaps for senior residents on the sprinkler matter.
This was quickly shot down by the former mayor. So that should give you an idea how many months ago, she brought this up.
6:12 how exactly was this idea "shot down by the former mayor?"
This rebate idea was most likely already being floated around by the council when Lynn Duffy brought it up at the meeting.
Rob said:
To Anonymous 6:12:
I have reviewed the council minutes back to August, 2010 and the only recorded questions / comments by Dr. Duffy appear below, along with council discussions relative to the sprinkler legislation (Ord. 406).
From the minutes of November 8, 2010: “Dr. Duffy asked about the new fire code regarding sprinkler systems. Would that be for new homes only after January 1 and not for individuals who wish to renovate their homes?
Mayor McDermott stated that right now it is only for new homes and duplex units.”
From the minutes of December 6, 2010: “Mayor McDermott stated that the City Attorney wrote an ordinance relative to the sprinkler regulation. We either need to adopt some type of regulation ourselves to opt out of the sprinkler regulation or the State’s regulation will immediately be effective January 1. The understanding that I’ve heard from the Council is that if an individual decides to install a sprinkler system in their home the City will offer some rebate on property taxes for the first year to help offset the cost. A decision will be made in January as to what the rebate will look like.
Councilwoman Cottman stated that tonight we will opt out and discuss the percentage or dollar amount at the January meeting.
Mayor McDermott read Ordinance # 405 for the record.
In a motion (Cottman, Hawkins passed) to pass Ordinance #405 as an emergency ordinance to opt out of installing a sprinkler system in new single-family homes. Roll call: Cottman aye; Downing aye; Hawkins aye; Morrison aye; Clarke aye. City Attorney Tilghman stated that sprinklers are already required in duplexes in Pocomoke City.”
From the minutes of January 10, 2011:
“Discuss possible incentive for new homeowners who include sprinkler systems in initial construction of single family homes:
Mayor McDermott stated that there was a potential incentive that the City built in their opting out of mandated sprinkler code for new single family homes. Before you tonight you have a recommendation from City Manager Blake relative to a tax abatement system or discount that the Mayor and Council could put into place that a homeowner would experience the first year; if they construct a new home using a sprinkler system.”
From public comments at the end of the January 10, 2011 meeting: “Dr. Lynn Duffy thanked the Council for considering the tax rebate on installing the fire sprinklers in new single family homes.”
I had already discussed the tax incentive idea with former Mayor prior to the November meeting. The rest of the council were aware of it at the December meeting and the first reading was of Ordinance 406 was at the February meeting. As you can see, at least according to the record, Dr. Duffy did not mention the idea until January and by that time our legal counsel was already working on the ordinance.
Further at no time did Mayor McDermott “shoot down” the idea contained in this legislation. In fact, the Mayor does not have the power to “shoot down” an idea should the council wish to consider it, whether from the public gallery or the council table. The Mayor can only veto legislation after it is passed. Since Del. McDermott was no longer Mayor when Ord. 406 was passed, the idea that could shoot it down is a moot point.
The items quoted above are from the minutes of the Mayor and Council meetings posted on the city website and can be reviewed by anyone via the city website: http://cityofpocomoke.com/
Respectfully,
Rob Clarke
Councilman, 5th District
Thankyou again, Councilman Clarke for taking the time to provide information and for going to such lengthy research for an explanation.
You also bring out another point that I think is very important and one that I don't think citizens are aware of at times.
The point that the Mayor does not have the power to "shoot down" an idea the council has up for consideration. The Mayor can only veto. Another good point.
As always, thanks.
Off topic but maybe Councilman Clarke can answer this question?
Does the mayor have veto power if the council votes unanimously on something?
For clarification, Dr. Duffy's comment stated at the January meeting was thanks for considering my suggestion.
The record does not accurately reflect the statement. We all are human and make mistakes. But the council was specifically thanked.
Why don't you call Dr. Duffy?
There are far more important issues to concern one's self with.
Post a Comment