Candidate Questionnaire: Frederick County Chamber of Commerce

Candidates for County Office: Please take a moment to answer the following questions, and submit your responses by Friday, August 6. Your answers will be shared with Frederick County Chamber of Commerce members and will be made available on our website for review. If you have questions, please contact Chamber President & CEO Ric Adams at radams@frederickchamber.org. Thank you!

What is your occupation, and what qualifications do you bring to the elected position you are seeking?

For the last four years, I’ve served as one of five members of the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, and I’m proud of my record on the board. I was actively involved in, and knowledgeable about, county issues and county government before becoming a commissioner, and I’ve learned a great deal more during the course of my term that will only serve to enhance my effectiveness on the board in a second term.

My experience and record as commissioner reflects my dedication to the well-being of our citizens and our community. I’ve been committed to considering all perspectives and finding the proper balance on difficult issues, but I was elected to represent and serve all of the county, not the narrower concerns of developers and other special interests that have too often had far more than their share of influence in important decisions that affect and shape our community in many ways.

My approach to my serious responsibilities as a commissioner has been open and transparent, fully engaged and accessible, well-informed, and always dedicated to the citizens of Frederick County. My tenure shows that you can count on me to bring a balanced, thoughtful and integrated approach to important and complicated issues that affect our quality of life, in challenging and changing times.

What motivates you to seek public office, and what distinguishes you from the other candidates?

I have always been involved in my community, from coaching youth sports to volunteering with a variety of community activities to being fully engaged in local civic affairs. My involvement in those things comes from the same motivation as my decision four years ago to run for county commissioner. I didn’t run to advance the concerns and goals of a particular interest group, but out of a genuine desire to serve the individuals and families and communities of this wonderful county, and with the conviction that I had the combination of experience, skills and personal qualities to do that effectively.

Because I’ve been involved in civic matters for much of my life, I not only appreciate the positive impact that an elected official can have in their community, I’ve also seen a lot of bad decisions made because so many people are not more informed and involved, and because more than a few candidates (and elected officials) are motivated to focus on or advance a narrow set of interests or an agenda that does not protect and serve the broader and long term interests and well-being of this place we call home.

In your discussions with County residents, what have you found to be the greatest challenges facing your constituents?

When I speak with people all around the county, I hear a wide range of concerns.

Often I hear about the issues that are very immediate and local to where they live and travel, such as the PATH project or the proposed gas compressor facility near Middletown; the dangers of driving sections of Route 15; the controversial annexations on the north side of Frederick; the much needed renovation of the school their children attend; the proposed incinerator (near neighborhoods, schools, the national battlefield, etc.); the impact budget cuts might have on their library or Up County Family Partnership or Head Start or some other service they use or rely on; and so on and on.

No less often I hear about some of the important and ongoing problems and challenges we face as a community, both large and small, such as traffic congestion; suburban sprawl; neighborhoods or business districts facing decline; the lack of adequate parks for youth sports or safe places and trails for biking; and much more.

And, of course, at all times to a point, but especially in the last two or three years, I hear a lot about the effect that the global economic downturn and national recession has had, or may have, on our community, their business or job, their ability to afford their current home or a new one, our ability as a community to maintain the high quality of life we have here.

As a citizen and as an elected official, I try hard not to compartmentalize all these things, to be mindful of the fact that many of the decisions we make in one area have broader and cascading effects on many or almost all of the other areas that affect our lives here. And I always do my best to help others understand the connections, and to ensure the important decisions we make account for those broader and longer term concerns and impacts.

Overall, while county commissioners hear from a lot of people, with a wide range of concerns, the issues I hear about more than others are the larger ones that don’t come and go quickly – the controversial items that either linger as contested issues for a long time or will always be with us, such as growth management, taxes and the budget, the incinerator, traffic and education.

What are the top three priority issues for your campaign?

I’ll mention four: Budgets and fiscal management. Growth management and transportation. Education. Waste management.

The county budget is the single most important responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners. How and how efficiently we invest tax dollars reflects the priorities of a complex community that will always have limited resources and competing needs and priorities. I have approached the challenging budget processes we have engaged the last two and a half years by being as informed and thoughtful as possible, taking a thorough and surgical approach, rather than the sort of meat axe approach some candidates seem to offer.

Growth management and transportation is about much more than “Growth management and transportation.” By that, I mean it must be addressed in a manner that recognizes that is dramatically affects everything else – everything. How well we plan and shape our communities, including all elements, is part and parcel of successful and sustainable economic development, community life, county services, and much more.

We are fortunate to have excellent schools in Maryland and in Frederick County. That we do is a reflection of well-placed values and priorities. It is essential that we continue to maintain that level of excellence, even as we must continually examine how to be more efficient and cost-effective. It is only one of many reasons to do so, but communities with outstanding educational institutions, at all levels, attract educated employers and employees.

The so called “Waste-to-Energy” incinerator is addressed in more details below, but would certainly be, by far, the greatest financial risk the county would face in the next few decades, if we do not back away from it while we can. I am committed to voting to end the project, which will be a decision that the next Board of County Commissioners will have the opportunity to make.

I’ll continue to put people first. Good policy requires the right priorities and process: thoughtful and sound budgeting without increasing taxes; smart and efficient growth; and valuing and maintaining educational excellence. Stop the extremely expensive and risky incinerator.

Jobs & Economic Development

What specific steps would you take to make Frederick County more attractive to business investment, create jobs, expand our tax base, and ensure our future economic competitiveness?

Frederick County is extremely well-positioned to continue to attract business investment and jobs. But to ensure a sound and well-balanced tax base and our future economic competitiveness, we have to plan and support the sort of land use and development that preserves what we love about this community, that reflects a sophisticated understanding of the changes around us (demographics, housing preferences, energy costs and more), that realistically considers and addresses our transportation challenges, and that focuses on the types of high tech and green businesses that will prosper in our evolving global economy.

We also have to accommodate that business growth in an efficient manner that takes advantage of our strengths and supports the sort of dynamic and diverse business environments that will do best in the coming decades. We benefit greatly from our proximity to the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan areas, but we will not be well-positioned to exploit that fact if we squander the opportunities by pursuing an out-of-date model of very low density, sprawling office parks built as greenfield developments, requiring all new infrastructure, etc.

Instead, we need to appreciate that we are better off when we stop thinking that the best way to increase the tax base is to proportionately expand the land base. We have significant areas that are ripe for gradual, but major, transformation through redevelopment strategies that create genuine and effective incentives for businesses to take advantage of our geography and educated workforce and overall quality of life, without sacrificing what we love about this place, and without becoming a more removed version of Montgomery or Prince Georges County.

Smart and well-planned infill and redevelopment avoids sprawl, creates economic dynamism, prevents the all-to-easy neglect of struggling communities and older business and commercial districts, utilizes existing infrastructure, and can substantially increase land value and tax revenues without major greenfield development (too typical of now out-of-date development patterns that will be more expensive and more vulnerable to failure). This pattern of development also is much more likely to support economically-efficient alternative transit options, and be located around existing highways and rail lines.

How would you improve Frederick County’s image as a business friendly jurisdiction?

I would like to see the county do more to support and highlight the Frederick County Office of Economic Development (OED), including the Fast Track Program (which is an economic development tool used to expedite projects through the development process, while adhering to all established standards); the award-winning Business and Employment Center; the Agricultural Business Council (on which I have served as BOCC liaison); the Small Business Loan Fund and much more. I will also continue to support the Frederick Innovative Technology Center Inc. (the county’s first business incubator, known as FITCI), and I would like to explore the development of other categories of business incubators in the county, including one for Agricultural-related and value added businesses.

I have been supportive of, and served as liaison to the Frederick County Tourism Council, which has done an outstanding job of promoting the county, and will soon be opening a new Tourism Center along the new gateway to the City of Frederick.

And I would continue to be mindful of the fact that one of the best ways to attract, cultivate and retain diverse and successful businesses here is to ensure that the county continues to be a desirable place to live, with excellent schools, good parks, safe neighborhoods, diverse cultural amenities and activities, and a variety of other important elements of our quality of life.

What steps would you take to promote greater cooperation between the County government, our municipalities and Fort Detrick, in order to encourage businesses to locate or expand here?

The ups and downs that have characterized the overall communication and relationship between the county and our municipalities is one of my greatest frustrations about the tenure of this board.

The fact is that the county and our municipalities work together all the time, on all sorts of things, and most of the time everyone works fine and things go well. There is no question, however, that there have been fundamental disagreements, with some municipalities about a few specific and controversial issues that have exacerbated tensions between the BOCC and one or more municipalities. Some of that is inevitable.

I think the county was right to oppose the two northern annexations, for instance (after not opposing the seven or eight that were completed shortly before those two), for a variety of reasons I won’t rehash here and now (I’m pleased to note that we have been productively working through some of those issues with the new mayor and board of aldermen). I also think it was reasonable for the BOCC to apply the county’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to areas currently in the county but that may or will be annexed. Annexation should not be a way for a large residential development, for example, to avoid concerns about school overcrowding, road adequacy and the like, especially when county taxpayers foot the bill for new schools that may be required, libraries, fire and rescue services and many other costly facility or services that will be provided to the newly annexed development.

On the other hand, I strongly opposed the one-time reduction in the tax equity disbursement, arguing that it should not even be on the table as a consideration during the budget process.

But these tensions have been worsened overall, I think, but some of the unnecessarily pointed and heated rhetoric that has come from one or two individuals on the Board of County Commissioners. When we agree or disagree, it is essential to be able to do so in a civil manner, focusing on one issue at a time in a proper process, and moving on to the next with a clean slate.

Recent changes in state law (and likely more to come, in my opinion) have significantly increased the requirements for communication and cooperation between counties and municipalities with regard to planning issues, and especially with regard to annexations. I see these changes as positive, and appreciate that they lay out a process that should decrease the problems that arise around controversial annexations.

I am pleased about the process that is being set up to thoroughly examine the current tax equity formula. It is a good idea on its face, but also sets a standard for how to approach some of the other issues that have generated tension and conflicts.

The State of Maryland currently funds a statewide biotechnology tax credit to help grow and attract biotechnology companies to the state, which helps bring high paying jobs to the area. Would you support establishing similar, additional, local tax credit incentives to make Frederick more competitive in the bio and hi-technology industries?

Yes

During my term as a commissioner, I have consistently supported these sorts of tax credits, tax districts, etc. and will continue to do so when they are well-crafted and appropriately targeted. I would definitely be willing to explore ways in which the county might be able to establish additional incentives.

Comprehensive Planning & Good Government

What have you done to familiarize yourself with the recently enacted Comprehensive Plan and could you provide your insights about and reaction to the Plan?

It would be hard to imagine how I could be much more familiar with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan!

During the term of the previous board, I was appointed to serve on the Citizens Zoning and Review Committee, which spent a year and a half reviewing and discussing and debating – and making recommendation about – the entire comprehensive plan…line by line.

As an interested citizen, and as the Director of the Frederick Regional Action Network, I sat in on a great many of the meetings of both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners during the previous board, and especially so during the process of updating the New Market Region Plan.

During the last four years, I have been the BOCC liaison the Frederick County Planning Commission, and, of course, as a county commissioner, As such, I have participated in virtually every public conversation about the plan, met with community groups, landowners, developers and others, worked with staff, and with my colleagues on the board with regard to every chapter of text, every map, every parcel.

Not surprisingly, I think the new, updated Frederick County Comprehensive Plan is an immense improvement, and an excellent blueprint for the county. I’m proud of what was accomplished: accommodating growth to meet state population projections while pulling back on sprawl, addressing infrastructure much more than earlier plans, incorporating a range of important environmental concerns, preserving agricultural areas and rural communities, and much more.

Those who want to become more familiar with the plan are encouraged to go here:
http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/index.aspx?nid=170

Do you believe some action should be taken by the Board of County Commissioners to address adverse consequences suffered by those whose properties have been downzoned in the Comprehensive Plan?

No

I believe the process – which did result in applying less intensive zoning categories to some properties – was thorough and fair. It was not approached as if the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners was looking at the landscape from 10,000 feet. Both the Planning Commission and the BOCC held extensive discussions and debates about each parcel where zoning changes were made, received email and letters and public testimony from individual landowners and/or their representatives, visited and revisited many of these properties many times, and very much considered the broader and specific circumstances and history, etc. As a result, many changes were made along the way that reflected that process and information.

Obviously, in the end, there were still a few property owners that were not pleased with the final results. But zoning can not be a one way ratchet, in which one board – any board – can come in and, for instance, dramatically expand more intensive zoning, but no future board can make adjustments…if it was too expansive, in the wrong place, done without consideration of adequate infrastructure, located beyond planned growth areas or combinations of those and other problems.

Do you support the decision of this past Board of County Commissioners to impose a moratorium upon certain kinds of growth for a two year period?

Yes

First of all, let’s be clear. the moratorium was applied only to major residential subdivisions that had not reached a certain early point in the approval process. It did not apply to minor subdivisions. It did not apply to non-residential development (commercial, office, industrial, etc.).

It came at a time when the major residential subdivisions in the pipeline (not affected by the moratorium) were substantial, and when the residential housing market was slowing down. Please note that even the large development that had ALL of their approvals, perhaps had even started construction, and could build any time they wanted, chose not to build much, or at all, during the market downturn (developments in both the county and in municipalities – from the Linton property to Brunswick Crossing.

The moratorium allowed the county to engage an extremely thorough, though still very ambitious, two year re-write of the county’s comprehensive plan, without placing additional demands on staff or creating a mad rush by some developers to get vested before the final plan was approved and in place.

Clearly, during this time, the county did not experience a housing shortage. Far from it, in fact. Additional homes placed on the market during that time would have only added to the oversupply of homes, and applied more downward pressure on housing values and prices.

Frederick County currently operates under a Commission form of government, instead of a Charter form, in which there is an elected County Executive and County Council. Do you support changing our form of government to a Charter?

I am not necessarily for or opposed to charter government in Frederick County. That is not to avoid the issue, at all. Let me explain…

I think that a change to charter government is virtually inevitable for Frederick County, at some point. It has failed to generate enough support in the past, and would likely be difficult to accomplish right now.

Charter government is not a completely set structure a county approves and applies. We don’t pull the “charter government guidebook” off the shelf and go from there, so to speak. Rather, an appointed charter writing committee has to write it…first.

I think it is much more important to do charter right than it is to do it fast. Those who want to fast – or right now – are often not aware of, or concerned about the fact that charter is not just charter. In fact, there is a broad range of possibilities, and the differences between one potential charter and another are significant, and matter.

Just a few of many examples of my concerns: If the charter includes a county executive (it doesn’t have to), what is the balance of authority between the executive and the county council when it comes to major items such as budgets and land use? Would long time, highly experienced division directors (a key to the efficiency and effectiveness of county services) be replaced with one elected official’s political appointees? How much more would charter government cost (it almost certainly would cost more)? How many council members? Would they be elected by district, at large or both (Montgomery County, for instance, has both)?

Also, currently, Frederick County government is among the most open and transparent county governments anywhere. This is due to a combination of factors, including our lobbying reform legislation and the county’s ethics ordinance, the fact that almost all meetings are fully public (and televised and streamed on the internet). The ensure, an more. This openness and transparency is something to protect.

I’ll note that it also seems that many who are anxious to make the change immediately have, as a result, developed an interest in showing the current system to be dysfunctional and wasteful, at least – or even in crisis. While I understand some of the frustrations some have about the current system, I disagree that it is structurally dysfunctional (or in crisis), and I think Frederick County operates very efficiently and well compared to other counties, and with lower taxes than our peer counties in Maryland. Again, not something to risk casually.

If elected to the Board of Commissioners, will you support the creation of a commission to draft a charter for inclusion on the 2012 ballot?

See my response above. It depends.

If we don’t have a certain level of agreement from a range of diverse stakeholders in the community, who are open to and supportive of the process – and the charter writing committee – a great deal of time and effort will be invested in a charter that is unlikely to gain the support of a majority of the voters in the county. That has already happened twice in Frederick County, and happened very recently in Washington County, even though they designed a charter that made considerably fewer structural changes than is usually the case.

Transportation & Public Infrastructure

Do you support expanding the capacity of I-270 with two additional lanes in each direction during peak hour, using reversible lanes where feasible, from where the current HOV lanes end (north of I-370) to the City of Frederick?

Yes

I support the preference/recommendation made by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, as the county’s Preferred Alternative for the I-270 / US15 Multimodal Study. At an August, 2009 Workshop, the BOCC voted to support Alternative 7B: two additional managed express toll lanes in each direction and Bus Rapid Transit as the preferred transit mode on the Corridor Cities Transitway.

The BOCC also supported the following: Further study of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes within the context of any future managed toll lane scenario; Maximum mitigation through minimization of all associated build alternative impacts; Further study of direct access from the managed lanes to park & rides, specifically to the MD 80 / Urbana Park & Ride; Inclusion of additional premium bus service in the corridor including the provision of express service originating in Frederick County directly to Shady Grove Metro and consideration for routing additional Frederick County originating routes to provide local bus service along the Corridor Cities Transitway; Inclusion of a shared use path parallel to any transitway alternative; Consideration of extending future rail north into Frederick County; In addition, we do not support the consideration of using reversible lanes in Frederick County.

I believe the these recommendations best support the existing need for and management of long-term travel movement in the corridor. Frederick County has contributed local funding to advance numerous projects in the corridor (such as the Monocacy Boulevard Interchange and the Meadow Road Interchange) and will continue to partner on important projects in the future.

It is important to note that because the total cost of the I270 corridor improvements will exceed four or five billion dollars, and take a long time, the project will be funded and proceed in smaller “breakout projects,” many of which are identified as individual priorities on the county’s “Transportation Priorities” list.

What two other highway or other transportation projects are your highest priorities in Frederick County and what would you do to address them?

There is a long list of what many or most would consider long overdue and desperately needed transportation projects in Frederick County, and many of them are on state and federal roads.

In recent years, the county has listed the US 15/Monocacy Blvd interchange as highway priority #1, and I agree with that. The county has helped advance that project by funding half of the design and engineering phase. Unfortunately, there is not funding identified yet for construction. But this is an important project for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it will enable the permanent closing of the very dangerous at-grade intersection at Hayward Road.

It’s a close call as to what I think is most important after that. The list of top candidates includes the I-70/Meadow Road Interchange (currently is partially funded for Project Planning), the US 180/340 Interchange, the I-270/MD 85 interchange (which will also end the bottleneck on the I270 bridge over Route 85), any widening of I270, and the widening of Highway 15 through the City of Frederick. These are all very expensive projects, that will take a long time to complete. And that list doesn’t even begin to get to some of the bypasses, road realignments, widening and other improvements that are desired or needed on various county roads. Nor does it include a broad range of other potential local transit projects.

The county has partially funded phases of some of these projects in order to help advance them. In addition to that, we have and must continue to work well with the State Highway Administration and lobby the members of our delegation and others to prioritize some of these projects on the state’s list, and provide funding to advance as many as possible (but at least the top one or two priorities as soon as possible).

The other thing the county (and our municipalities – especially Frederick) can do is to approach planning and development with a realistic understanding of the sort of funding and the length of time we are looking at for these projects to be undertaken and completed. There is no easy or quick solution, and it is our responsibility not to make decisions that only make the traffic congestion much worse in the meantime.

Do you support the construction of a waste-to-energy facility at the McKinney Industrial Park as part of a long term plan to provide alternative energy and manage non-recyclable solid waste in Frederick County?

No

It’s almost hard to know where to start answering a question that isn’t fairly or accurately stated in the first place. The facility will be a waste-OF-energy, not a source of “alternative” energy. And it will not “manage non-recyclable solid waste” in Frederick County, but incinerator and convert to ash a large amount of otherwise very recyclable and compostable materials. That said…

I am utterly and adamantly opposed to the proposed (and approved) so-called “Waste-to-Energy” facility – a 1,500 tons per day, regional, mass burn incinerator planned for the McKinney site, along Route 85, between Frederick and Buckeystown, along the state scenic Monocacy River and looming over the Monocacy National Battlefield Park. As I have responded to others making this inquiry:

To wit: I am on the record with the following comment:

—————-

If re-elected, I, Kai Hagen, am absolutely committed to voting to end Frederick County’s participation in the 1,500 tons per day regional Waste-to-Energy (incinerator) project as soon as possible after the new Board of County Commissioners is installed on December 1, 2010.

—————-

Of course, no one commissioner can do that alone. Reversing course here will require a majority of three commissioners committed to reversing course.

In addition to my comments below, I would be happy to send you additional comments, information, links and more about this important issue, if you like. I have been engaged in this issue since before I was elected to serve our community on the Board of County Commissioners. While I am proud of much that has been accomplished by the current board, I have been alone on the board in opposing the incinerator…and the approval of the facility has been, by far, my greatest disappointment during my tenure as a commissioner.

While I think the selected site is wrong for many reasons, I am on the record opposing the facility at any location in the county, for many and distinct reasons that I find highly compelling, individually and collectively.

I think the incinerator is the biggest mistake the county could make, investing hundreds of millions of dollars to become the first community in the country to embark down this path in almost two decades. Frederick County would be irretrievably locked into this facility for thirty years or more, locking ourselves out of far less risky, fully practical, integrated solutions, and rapidly emerging alternative technologies that are more appropriately scaled, far less costly, far more environmentally-responsible and notably more flexible.

The incinerator is a massively expensive, silver-bullet “solution” to a problem that is better served by a flexible and dynamic, integrated combination of proven strategies and practices and emerging technologies.

Make no mistake, however, that even doing what we are doing right now (which includes continuing efforts to reduce waste, expand recycling, evaluate commercial composting, and hauling a diminishing amount of waste out of the area, for a while), is a MUCH better “alternative” to the incinerator.

The economic modeling used to justify and defend this largest-ever county investment and thirty-plus year commitment is shaky from the start. It assumes that the county will NEVER achieve a combined rate of waste reduction, recycling and composting of more than 60% – never – even though we are currently around 45%, without having even picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit, and even though a wide variety of other communities are proving what is possible. The model assumes average household waste generation rates will continue to increase. It includes population growth projections that are likely high, and fly in the face of state smart growth policies being implemented. It assumes that the substantial unused-by-Frederick-County-for-years-to-come will be filled by multiple other counties hauling their waste here for somewhere between 10 an 20 years (which also requires that, even with the hauling costs, we offer the cheapest option, since other counties have no other incentive to haul their waste here). The list of variables is much longer than that. Yet, even with highly questionable and inherently uncertain assumptions across so many key variables, the incinerator is projected to cost more than what we are doing today (even without other improvements that are available to us) for well more than a decade.

And that is before whatever additional millions will almost certainly have to be invested to upgrade the facility as federal and state standards continue to evolve with regard to air emissions (from heavy metals – like mercury – to dioxins and furans, to ultra-fine particles, which are a rapidly emerging new public health concern, and are currently unregulated).

The incinerator is not even a net energy benefit to a country dealing with energy issues. It is a waste of energy. In the end, it will take three to five times as much energy to replace (from raw materials) the otherwise recyclable materials (that would be incinerated), as would be generated by converting them permanently to ash.

The materials that could not be incinerated, and the ash, would be roughly comparable to what the county would have “left over” if we continued to ratchet up our varied resource recovery and recycling efforts.

Among other things, I think we should seriously examine the option of converting our transfer station to a materials recovery facility (it is located at the landfill now, and was originally designed to accommodate such a conversation). We can address our problem without the economic, public health or environmental risks associated with a total commitment to a massively expensive facility for decades (as the overwhelming majority of other communities have) – and we’d generate more local jobs at the same time!

The following is a link to a power point presentation I made to the board on November 18, 2008:
http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=8505
The presentation can be viewed via streaming video on the county website.
http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/media/
Archived Meetings —> Board of County Commissioners —> 2008 —> BOCC Worksession (Solid Waste Discussion)

Feel free to contact me for additional information.

If you do not support the plan to construct a renewable waste-to-energy facility, do you support the siting of a new landfill, and where specifically should such a landfill be located within the County?

The argument that people who oppose the incinerator must support a new landfill is completely false.

The county should not continue to move forward with the over-sized and over-priced, regional mass burn incinerator. And, if it doesn’t, the county does not need to site a new landfill instead.

In fact, between the significant amount of material that can not be incinerator, and the amount of ash that is left over after incineration, there is no less need for a new landfill with an incinerator than with a successful combination of waste reduction, recycling and commercial composting.

Even the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority has clearly stated that there is no shortage of landfill space available in our region. We can and should continue to pursue waste reduction strategies, ratchet up our recently implemented recycling efforts (there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit, and we are already at roughly a 45% percent waste diversion rate.

We should seriously examine the development of a much lower cost and lower risk state of the art Resource Recovery Facility in the county, perhaps with a series of private partnerships, and with a modern Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

In the meantime, we can continue to ship an every decreasing amount of material out of the county. Please note that EVEN with the rosy numbers in the county’s economic model for the incinerator, which includes less aggressive waste reduction efforts, out of county hauling is considered less expensive for well more than a decade. There is a lot we can do in the next decade that makes a lot more sense, and includes a lot less risk, than investing hundreds of millions of dollars on an already out-of-date approach to waste management.

What would you do to improve cooperation between the County and the City on sewer and water issues, in particular, on current discussions regarding a sewer agreement?

The county and the city have generally worked very well together on a broad range of water and sewer issues and projects. The perception that they have not is almost entirely (if not entirely) the result of the disagreement that has occurred more recently regarding the provision of sewer capacity to the controversial annexations of the Crum Farm and the Thatcher Property (where 1,200 homes and more than 2 million square feet of office and commercial space are slated to straddle both sides of Route 15, along the Monocacy River.

While some have found it easy to blame the county for not agreeing to provide the sewer, yet, for these developments (the city could provide it, but it would cost a great deal more), little attention has been paid to the fact that, even though there was no sewer agreement in place, the city chose not to discuss or negotiate this particular infrastructure issue with the county during the process of negotiating the annexation agreements.

One local delegate even attempted to pass legislation in Annapolis that would have forced the county to provide sewer to those particular properties.

I don’t know how this issue will be resolved. But there is time, since the first phase of those developments have to wait five years to begin construction, and the bulk of the development in the annexations has to wait until the full grade-separated interchange at Route 15 and Biggs Ford Road is constructed (and that is going to take a long time, perhaps a very long time, since it is VERY low on the state’s priority list and it is unlikely the developers will want or be able to finance it themselves.

Business Climate & Fiscal Responsibility

Name three specific measures you would take to address future shortfalls in the County budget.

During the last two budget processes (FY2010 and FY2011), the Board of County Commissioner has made budget reductions totaling $47 million. That is roughly 18% of the non-FCPS portion of the county budget.

Current projections (which are generally conservative and likely high) are that the BOCC may have to close a $17 million budget gap.

So far, the county has navigated the economic downturn and very challenging budgets without crippling vital county services, but every additional million or ten million get increasingly difficult. Nevertheless, I am committed to continuing to manage this financial shortfall without raising taxes.

The first and most immediate measure will be to find more ways to reduce spending, finding efficiencies, reducing or eliminating some programs, continuing the hiring freeze (which has been in place for two years now), and so on. It would be irresponsible to say what would be cut now, since the proper way to go about it is the way we have for the last two years, meeting at length with all division directors and many department heads, and examining the budget program by program, line by line, making increasingly difficult cuts as necessary.

Longer term, it is essential that the county focus it’s planning and development policies around smart and efficient development and redevelopment, aiming for a high proportion of non-residential development, while utilizing of existing infrastructure when and where possible.

I would also advocate for the restoration of some of the deep reductions we’ve seen in various state funding, such as the State Highway User Revenues. If we could only get back the portion that did and should be returned to Frederick County taxpayers, it would, for instance, almost be enough to cover the entire deficit currently projected for FY2012.

In light of the current fiscal crisis the County is facing, do you believe our primary focus should be:

Creating more jobs and growing our tax base without raising tax rates; Imposing more cuts to County programs and services and/or deeper reductions in employee compensation and benefits; or Increasing taxes on residents, businesses, or a combination of both?

The short answer is that the county will have to make more cuts in programs and services, that we should not raise taxes, and that we must expand our tax base IN A MANNER that actually benefits the broader community, increases county revenues and does not result in higher taxes (as poorly planned growth often does, even though it expands the tax base).

But I think it is poor thinking and bad government to approach the many responsibilities of county government as if they are unrelated matters, to be dealt with separately. Many short-sighted decisions have been made because of that kind of thinking.

While the “fiscal crisis” is serious and ongoing, and the budget is the most important responsibility of the county commissioners, it is not good overall planning or wise fiscal management to deal with the budget as if it is not fully connected with and integrated into most other aspects of government decision-making.

In the short term, it is essential to approach the financial management of the county in a thoughtful and methodical manner. But in any longer timeframe, it is no less essential to consider how everything else we do – and most especially, how we deal with growth and development issues – has significant short and long term economic/budget effects.

A significant part of my “focus” is to keep all of this in mind, always, and to bring an integrated perspective and approach to all policy decisions.

Many of these decisions may not seem significant or major at the time, but effects can be substantial and ongoing. But some are clearly very significant, and may also come with addition uncertainty and risk that can and should be avoided. Personally, I would put the incinerator in that category. It would be, by far, the largest investment the county has ever made in a capital project, and it would come with immense ongoing operating costs, and a tremendous economic risk to the county (and there is no turing back once it is mostly constructed, and we own the debt for decades). Some people are confidently projecting a very long term – and fairly modest – cost savings (which doesn’t even begin to be a savings, even with the rosy scenarios, for many years) associated with the incinerator. That may be a big mistake, or not, but the one thing it is for certain is an extraordinary and serious risk to our financial well-being.

I know the question wasn’t really about the incinerator, but adding it to my response here is a reflection of just how significant it is as a potential fiscal crisis of its own.

Over the course of the last two and a half years, the current Board of County Commissioners has faced very challenging budgets, with tax revenues down and major cuts from state government (some $24 million, including, for instance, more than $13 million in cuts to our share of the State Highway User Revenues). We have approached these budgets in a very detailed, thorough and exhaustive manner, making difficult and deep cuts throughout county government, finding efficiencies, and producing balanced budgets without raising taxes at all.

Altogether, the last two budgets have reduced the non-education portion of the county budget by more than 18%, while maintaining high quality public facilities and services, and enhancing our already excellent bond rating.

Although Frederick County has weathered the global and national economic downturn better than most places (anywhere), and will likely bounce back sooner than most places, we know that the county will be facing more challenging budgets ahead. I am committed to managing that challenge that without raising taxes.

Education & Other Issues

Education accounts for over 50% of the County budget. What role should the BOCC play in working with our school system to strike the right balance between good results in the classroom and sound fiscal management?

BOCC members occupy a number of other important roles when it comes to public schools in the county. No BOCC member should – or could – perceive their role as limited to funding matters. But the context is one in which the Frederick County Board of Education is a duly elected decision-making body, and any good and productive relationship much acknowledge the distinct roles and responsibilities.

County Commissioners need to communicate well and work effectively with the Board of Education, with the Teachers Union, with the PTA, with individual communities and with parents, to solve problems in a collaborative manner, not a adversarial one.

BOCC members also need to be strong advocates for education in lobbying the Frederick County members of the state delegation and others in Annapolis to maintain state funding levels.

Previous BOCC members created the county’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, which helps to ensure that growth does not happen at a pace or in a place that overcrowds our public schools. And the current board strengthened it in some key respects. In the end, future BOCC members will choose to maintain, strengthen, or weaken this important ordinance (and we have seen numerous efforts to eviscerate the effectiveness of the ordinance).

BOCC members make all the major land use (planning and development) decisions that ultimately drive the need for new schools, determine their location, affect potential redistricting, etc. And BOCC members set school impact fees (within certain constraints, but with some degree of choice).

BOCC members make the ultimate decision about the overall CIP budget (Capital Improvements), in which new schools, as well as critical and expensive renovation, rehabilitation and expansion projects, are blended into a long term plan and budget with other important capital projects in the county.

Altogether, it would be hard to overstate the importance of the many ways in which the priorities and policies of the BOCC affect public schools in Frederick County.

There is no question, in my mind, that the overall relationship and the general tone between the BOCC and the BOE has been too adversarial at times.

Beyond the operating and capital budgets, this board has done a number of things that do support public education in the county. A short list of key items (among others) would include what we have done with the re-write of the county’s Comprehensive Plan to emphasize better planning and smart growth; the extension of the Frederick County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to areas (currently in the county) that are annexed into our municipalities; and increasing the school portion of the county’s impact fees.

On the latter, it was difficult to raise those fees during an economic downturn, but was the right thing to do when one considers that the fee level is still not sufficient to cover the full costs of constructing new schools facilities to meet the demand created by the new growth that is subject to the fees (and the accompanying fact that our older communities and current residents have to subsidize those costs).

I will also note, with some disappointment, that the Board of Education did not choose to publicly support the extension of the APFO to the areas yet to be annexed into municipalities, many of which do not have their own APFO, even though major annexations could compel re-arranging the CIP calendar to prioritize new or expanded schools at the expense of other priority projects.

Finally, I want to be clear that I believe the county should not request waivers to Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level funding. MOE is state law, and the county should certainly not choose to ignore the law and fund below MOE (and have an additional penalty levied against the schools system as a result).

Maintenance of Effort is clearly intended to be a floor, and that makes sense. The idea is that, as a community (a state, a county…), we will not compromise our commitment to quality education by enabling volatile ups and downs in funding levels as we experience inevitable economic highs and lows. Predictable and reliable funding levels are essential for a stable, adequate and effective public school system. It is not a coincidence that Maryland has established this requirement and, for the last two years now, has been rated as the top state school system in the country.

At the very least, waivers should be rare. In other words, I think there may be circumstances where a county government AND a county school system, in agreement, and working together, ought to be able to get state support for a modest waiver, depending.

I don’t think it serves our broader interests to adhere so absolutely – without any exception, for any reason – to the requirement that it could become a deterrent for a county to increase funding during economic boom times. It isn’t hard to imagine one county, having increased school funding substantially over a period of a few budgets (well above MOE), and another county that has not done so, at all. MOE doesn’t make a distinction between the two, in any way.

If elected, what other legislative initiatives would you pursue while in office?

I would continue to support the implementation of the current comprehensive plan. I would continue to approach our challenging budgets in the manner I have. I would continue to support a wide range of economic development initiatives and programs, and work to gain support on the board for an examination of other sorts of business incubators in the county. I would continue to support the efforts of the county’s Office of Environmental Sustainability, which has helped to save county taxpayers a considerable amount of money, while better positioning the county to take advantage of many of the new strategies and programs and technologies that represent the future of green business opportunities. I would make a motion and vote to reverse course on the regional incinerator, and work to increase county efforts to support waste reduction, additional recycling, commercial composting and other materials management strategies and systems (working with local businesses and our local haulers). I would work very hard to build on the foundation laid in the new comprehensive plan for successful and dynamic redevelopment, primarily in older, low-density, single use commercial areas (such as the 355/85 corridor).

There’s more, but that ought to keep me busy for a while!