From John P. Mallamo:
On October 16th 2012 the County Council held a public hearing on the James Run TIF legislation. It was interesting and enlightening. One of the speakers provided a historical perspective. Used to be infrastructure construction was a cost to developers and the County issued permits and provided engineering quality control. Infrastructure costs are not a burden to developers but the developers with forked tongue now plea they are. Infrastructure costs are what they have always been, a cost of doing business. Any comparisons to a burden are nothing more than a red herring. Quite interesting to now hear how such a horrible burden has been placed on the developer. I guess if you complain loudly enough someone will eventually hear you. That someone should not be the County Council. Here comes the big shift, the speaker thought that residents of Harford County should now pay for the roads water and sewer in new developments. The speaker did not give any rationale, except to state that it was a burden on developers. Such an irrational shift is solely to enhance the developers profit. If developer profit margins cannot meet an adequate return on investment it is without conscience for developers to misdirect the viability of a business plan under the erroneous assumption that they cannot afford the cost of infrastructure.
Another interesting discussion was between the Director of the Office of Economic Development and a member of the Council. The discussion surrounded the topic of road improvements on routes 543, 136 and 7. This discussion was detailed, but not very factual.
To start there will not be 22 million dollars of road improvements. Improvements to roads, other than the entrance and exit to the property, is only 1.6 million dollars plus some portion of the 4.6 million dollars in soft costs that cannot be further broken out. Seems like a significant portion of the soft costs might be paid to the speaker who discussed the burden of infrastructure costs. No doubt he has his own best interest at heart and not the interest of the taxpayers.
A direct comparison between the James Run TIF road improvements and the Beechtree TIF road improvements shows duplication and overlap. Indeed, some of the improvements appear quite similar and the description of one, an improvement to the intersection of Route 7 and Stepney Road, is the same. Hard to tell whether these are necessary improvements, or improvements to get the initial improvements right. If the County assumed their responsibilities for quality control instead of being a participant in forcing development these types of overlap would not be happening.
Another interesting discussion involved the apparent lack of any known plans by the State Highway Administration or the County to improve any of roads in and around the project. When asked by a member of the County Council whether he was aware of any plans by the State Highway Administration or the County to improve these roads the Director of the Office of Economic Development said no he was not. The answer to the question was truthful, but was unfortunately not factual. It is unfortunate that the Director of the Office of Economic Development can endorse road and infrastructure improvements when he is unaware of what the left hand may be doing.
In June 2008, the State Highway Administration completed the Traffic and Intersection Improvement Studies for Base Realignment and Closure. The area of concern was Aberdeen Proving Ground. This study considered the intersections in and around the James Run project quite extensively. None of these improvements has yet been initiated by the State Highway Administration. In December 2010, the County Executive identified priorities for road improvements to support BRAC to the State highway Administration, none of the roads in and around the James Run project were identified. Why wouldn’t the County Executive propose necessary changes to the roads in and around the James Run project or the State Highway Administration initiate the changes they identified if traffic is that bad? Simply because neither party has the authority to do so.
I-95 and the interchanges on it fall under the purview of the Maryland Transportation Authority, an independent agency, with wide ranging authority and responsibility. The Maryland Transportation Authority has initiated and is completing the I-95 section 200 study. The area of concern includes the I-95 and Routes 152, 24, 543 and 22 interchanges.
Did the Director of the Office of Economic Development answer the question truthfully? Yes. Was it a factual answer? No. Is the State Highway Administration improving the roads that the County Executive identified in 2010? Slowly. Is the Maryland Transportation Authority improving the interchanges identified in the Section 200 study? Slowly. Is the money provided in the TIFs sufficient to make real improvements? Not really. The interchange improvements at 543 is estimated to cost between 30 and 40 million dollars. Will 1.6 million dollars make a difference? No. More likely that the money for improvements will be put into an account waiting for the Maryland Transportation Authority to start construction. Makes no sense to spend any without having the complete details of any plan from the proper authority?
What will residents of Harford County get with the TIF? An apartment complex and a shopping mall. Not much, if any, of the property tax revenue projected. The misfortune of Sandy will provide more construction jobs, for a longer term, than the blue sky projections for James Run. Not such a great bargain for the jewel of the Atlantic Seaboard. Harford County deserves better.
Well said!
Good work, John. Maybe send a copy of this past all the Council members to stop these handouts.
Mr. Mallamo,
Thank you for taking the time, energy and effort to show another side of this potential problem. If the corps. on the documents of development, all of them are able to provide the county w/ 6000 new jobs, why can’t they obtain funds for the infrastructure for their project?
If the county does need more apts. or a new shopping center or even more office spaces, why are there so many empty houses, apts., closed stores??
The developers of Beechtree and Holly Woods and Wetlands as well as other around the county made a lot of promises… how many were kept?
I encourage all to call the county council and seek more info about the whys and what we Harford taxpayer will be paying for and how long.
Thanks Mr. Mallamo
Harford County financial position is worse today that it was five years ago. Each year over this period the financial position has deteriorated. General Fund budget gaps persists and water and sewer rates continue to rise. It is obvious that the economic development handouts for unwarranted projects have not provided an economic benefit to Harford County. Quite the opposite the taxpayers outside of the special taxing districts are now and will be in the future paying the cost of government services for those in the special taxing district. The additional revenue these failing special taxing districts are supposed to generate has not materialized. With a lame duck county executive expect much more depletion of the quickly eroding fund balance. On the horizon more debt for school construction the cost of which reduces fund balance because the schools are property of the Board of Education. More debt service for the financing of schools and no fund balance remaining to cover the budget gap. Higher property taxes will happen. With all this happening now and coming why would the county keep throwing the taxpayers under the bus with projects like James Run that are going to make the financial position of Harford County worse? Their revenue assumptions versus cost of government services when compared to historical results is more pie in the sky. The time has come to return to earth and be more realistic.
@Kramer, your statements without facts, figures or statistics to prove your point are worthless. The county’s financial position is better than its ever been with employee benefit pension benefits being fully funded as many other counties in Maryland can only meet the state mandated thresholds of 70%, HCG is fully funded at 100%. The county has a rainy day fund that has over 60 million and the county hasn’t raised taxes (property or piggy back) in years. The county’s water fund is depleting because the council refuses to raise rates for general consumption as environmental costs, new treatment plants and infrastructure needs to be maintained by the consumer. It would be a good idea to separate water and sewer from general govt and create a water authority to manage it and charge the consumer to cover the cost instead of having homeowners pay the brunt of the cost to deliver water.
If the County has a rainy day fund of $60MM, then why do they keep telling HCPS they have no money for teacher raises, and why have they had furlough days for HCG offices, and why is the jail understaffed? This doesn’t make sense to me.
@Concerned Teacher
It’s not raining and Harford County Public Schools need to live within its budget, in fact they should reduce spending.
Maybe because any money left in the county coffers doesn’t belong to you any more than any number of projects and improvements left languishing.
Roman,
Sir/Ma’am
Both you and Mr. Kramer make some very valid points. Your disagreement seems to center on the projection for Harford County’s financial condition based on existing circumstances. While you may correctly assess that the pension fund is in better condition than other counties, and there is a 60 million dollar rainy day fund, there are other issues surrounding Harford Counties finances.
First it is true that property and piggy back taxes have not increased. In fact the property tax rate has been reduced twice. In spite of this, Harford County still has one of the highest property tax rates in the state. The piggy back tax is also one of the highest in the state. With the inexplicable rise in income tax revenue it might be worth considering a tax reduction.
Second there are multiple funds and revenue sources within the County budget. Each with its own balance. Looking to Mr. Kramer’s point about the deterioration of the County’s financial condition it is clear that fund balances have been used extensively to construct and balance the annual budget. Some of this is a result of unanticipated increases in revenues for the budget year that yield a fund balance for the succeeding year. There are other fund balances that appear to have been accumulated over multiple years that are used to offset budget year expenditures. Two cases that are of some consequence are the estimates and revenues compared to actual expenditures for transfer and recordation taxes. These revenues are allocated to Parks and Recreation, Water and Sewer, Agricultural Preservation and School Construction. If current year revenue estimates don’t meet actual collections, then fund balances must be used when expenditures exceed revenues. This has been the case in the previous years, which has caused the balances in these accounts to be drawn down. With the likelihood that there will be more school construction, the transfer and recordation revenues will be critical to paying for the additional debt. Without an increase in economic activity, the debt must be paid with other revenue sources.
Therein lies the problem. In spite of the economic conditions the County budget has been increasing, even though at a smaller rate than prior to 2010. All of the additional revenues received have been allocated for programs other than the single biggest cost of County government – employee salaries. The main reason that the county was able to maintain lower spending level was that there were no pay raises to the workforce, not because the workforce was reduced. Not extending pay raises or limiting them cannot last forever, and in fact the County Executive has proposed a 4 percent salary increase for County employees. Because the size of the work force has not changed significantly, the cost of government will will begin growing, again. Couple that with increased debt for desired/proposed school construction, proposals to construct a 60 million dollar cultural arts center, costs of replacing aging equipment, costs for repairing and maintaing roads and other infrastructure projects that were deferred, and it is reasonable to carefully consider Mr. Kramer’s concerns.
As to the water and sewer fund and the Councils unwillingness to increase rates. I believe that you are in error. The Council has raised the rates as requested. Most recently the rate was increased by Council action in December of 2011. The reluctance if any by the Council to raise rates seemed to be more closely associated with the method used to calculate the increase. That issue may still be under consideration.
My conclusion is that even though the County’s finances may be better than other Counties in the State, and they may be improving, they are still vulnerable. Harford County is not in any position to forfeit tax revenue particularly on highly speculative projects like the James Run TIF
county workforce is lower due to attrition, retirement incentives and changes in how employee status (classified vs. grant funded). Check your figures, a few years ago 40 employees retired due to the changes to obtain medical insurance incentives for retired employees. The county’s workforce is significantly smaller by dept, except for the executive’s office, chief of staff and the new addition by the council, aides, law and auditor department created by the council. Rank and file are less of and middle management positions were eliminated. you can look at the last 3 budgets to see the personnel reductions in force which haven’t been increased since. In fact some depts shifted managers work to staff and they haven’t been given a raise to compensate for the extra responsibility, duties and nature of their work relative to their previous position. Some people have gotten raises such as the council administrator while the person that did her job prior to her appointment did not get a raise or a promotion. got paid the same, did get a raise or a promotion, when position was posted it was given to a new person (political payoff no doubt). It is a hard job to work for the county and not be paid according to your responsibilities. Private sector finds a way to pay according to talent and hard work, but the county could care less. the taxpayer could also care less as long as their needs are met. Mr. Mallamo, while you are well read and well spoken most of the time, your political view prohibit you from seeing every thing from a clear perspective or you just don’t know better.
Roman,
Sri/Ma’am
At your suggestion I did cheeck Harford County’s budget, again, (page 117) to determine the number of personnel employed by Harford County government.
In FY 11 there were 1144 full time and 15.95 part time employess
FY 12 1147 full time and 13.30 part time
FY 13 1156 full time and 13.9 part time.
I believe that will substantiate my discussion regarding numbers of employees. Total number has not decreased.
Re your discussion on pay for Harford County employees. I do, absolutely, believe that Harford County’s employees should be adequately compenstated. I also believe that compensation is more than just salary. It includes health benefits, retirement, leave and vacation and holidays. For the most part Harford County’s employees do go unnoticed, until their services are reauired. Hopefully as the economy grows and tax revenues increase Harford County’s employees will be among the first to be recognized.
John, As a male employee of the county, i can tell you that those numbers do not reflect current paid positions but positions on the classified system and many of those positions haven’t been filled either due to classification plan changes that haven’t been implemented or each dept budget just doesn’t fund all the positions listed. You can probably get the true budget paid figures from human resources. Even if your numbers were true, the number of positions listed is not significantly higher than 4 years ago and as many senior employees left, if replaced they new employees get paid a significantly less amount of money. Changes to employee benefits also mean that employees hired after July 2010 will not get the same post-retirement benefits as those in the system prior to that time. Less accrued leave, pension and health care premiums are higher for new employees than previous (pre-2010)employees. The fact is that the county has become more lean, reduced compensation costs, benefit costs, pension costs and the rank and file is thinner than in years past. On the other hand, upper level positions have increased as also the creation of two new depts by the county council which costs over $1million more to run than in previous years.
Sir,
The numbers I used came from an official document published by Harford County. The numbers were also used to pass the budget, which is a legal document. If you are correct that the numbers are inaccurate, then there would seem to be a larger problem than the issue we are currently discussing.
In any case to get back to the earlier caution by Mr. Kramer on the financial circumstances of Harford County, and your counterpoint.
These are the approved budget figures from 2009 to 2013
Total budget 2009 $886,044.142 Operating budget $617,108,599
Total budget2010 $764,265,716 Operating budget $576,637,463
Total budget 2011 $704,904,576 Operating budget $580,396,381
Total budget 2012 $741,368,149 Operating budget $608,790,132
Total budget 2013 $749,943,142 Operating budget $625,745,860
In spite of any efficiencies or changes to benefits, the cost of government is rising again, and seems to have exceeded 2009 levels. The operating budget for the current year exceeds that of 2009. Again, a significant factor in the reduced rate of growth was the furlough and salary freeze in 2010, and the salary freeze in each of the succeeding years. When the new Capital Programs discussed are added, it is quite apparent that we will be back to 2009 levels quite quickly. I believe that Mr. Kramer’s caution is well worth considering.
Regardless, the issue is still the James Run TIF and whether it stregthens Harford County’s financial position. It does not, and should not be approved.
Obviously HCG is spending more due to inflation, higher energy costs (just like private business), increases in health care costs due to inflation. The difference between year 09, and 13 is $9 million which doesn’t seem like a runaway number to me as an increase of 0.014% over 09 fiscal year. This also doesn’t mean it was spent on salaries or more positions as your numbers indicate that the difference between those years is a total whopping 9 full time positions which clearly didn’t get salaries of $1 million each. The tax rate has not increased and the county’s budget is balanced and add the increase due to teacher pension contributions mandated by the state, which wasn’t an expense before this year. Your numbers may read as they are and I don’t dispute the numbers but your reasoning behind the increases in spending is flawed. As usual you spin the numbers as you want but the fact remains that most depts have less rank & file doing everyday things and new departments created increased cost and do not provide direct services to the public. Why don’t you make the argument for better services and increased efficiency instead of crapping on county employees instead.
Roman,
Sir,
You have made the point Mr. Kramer and I conveyed. When the biggest cost of operating has been held flat, that is employee salaries, and the cost of doing business is still rising, then there is reason to be concerned.
Spin has nothing to do with it. Nor do your sensitivities to the obvious.
Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) – Is this concept one that the County Council and County taxpayers really want utilized in Harford County? Have the County Council and taxpayers explored both sides of utilizing taxpayer dollars to finance business development? Does it make sense for Harford County to fall into this mode of operating just because “other counties do it, too, and it wants to remain competitive?” What is the precedence and where will this habit lead? Have the local groups who are lobbying for the TIF considered how they would feel if the project were targeted at an area in a different part of the County?
Here are some interesting comments from an article entitled, “Giving Away the Store to Get a Store” by Daniel McGraw which is in the archives of reason.com. The title in and of itself is a dead giveaway. The subject matter is a Cabela’s in Fort Worth, TX. (Some of my own language is also added in italics.)
You’ve all heard parents of college students say, “My child has applied to all these colleges. Now, we’re waiting to see which one comes back and offers the most money.” Well, that’s what businesses do with TIFs. Originally used to help revive blighted or depressed areas, TIFs now appear in most cities. Businesses can shop cities and play them against each other to see who will give the best hand-out. (I wonder how many other cities have been explored by the James Run Development Company.)
“There is always this expectation with TIFs that the economic growth is a way to create jobs and grow the economy, but then PUSH THE COSTS ACROSS THE PUBLIC SPECTRUM,” says Greg LeRoy, author of The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation. “But what is missing here is that the cost of developing private business has some public costs. Roads and sewers and schools are public costs that come from growth.” Unless spending is cut – and if a TIF really does generate economic growth, spending is likely to rise, as the local population grows – the burden of paying for these services will be shifted to other taxpayers. ADDING INSULT TO INJURY, THOSE TAXPAYERS MAY INCLUDE SMALL BUSINESS FACING COMPETITION FROM WELL-CONNECTED CHAINS THAT ENJOY TIF-RELATED TAX BREAKS. In effect, A TIF SUBSIDIZES BIG BUSINESSES AT THE EXPENSE OF LESS POLITICALLY INFLUENTIAL COMPETITORS AND ORDINARY CITIZENS.
What is worse and not talked about is the shift of taxes being paid from wealthy corporations to small businesses and regular people. “The rest of us pay taxes for normal services like public safety, building inspections, and street maintenance, and those services come out of the general fund. And as the cost of services goes up, and the money from the general fund is given to these businesses through a TIF, the tax burden gets shifted to the regular people who don’t have the same political clout. It’s a crummy way to treat your taxpaying, law-abiding citizens.”
Local governments “sell” the TIF concept to the public by claiming they are using the funds that would not have been generated without the TIF district. Local governments also like to point out that the TIF district may increase nearby economic activity, which will be taxed at full value.
Sound familiar – In the case of the Cabela’s in Forth Worth, the TIF district was created to build roads and sewers and water systems, to move streams and a lake to make the property habitable, and to help defray construction costs for the company.
“What cities are saying is that no development would take place but for the TIF…The average public official says this is free money, because it wouldn’t happen otherwise. But when you see how it plays out, the whole premise of TIFs begins to crumble? “ TIFs move some economic development away from one part of a city to another.
Local officials usually do not consider how much growth might occur without a TIF. (I direct anyone who is interested to read this article about a study that was conducted in a Chicago area with and without a TIF.) The upshot is that TIFs are diverting tax money that otherwise would have been used for government services.
**Such concerns have had little impact so far, in part because almost no one has examined how TIFs succeed or fail over the long term. Local politicians are touting TIFs as a way to promote development, promising no new taxes, then setting them up without looking at potential side effects. It’s hard to discern exactly how many TIFs operate in this country, since not every state requires their registration. But the number has expanded exponentially, especially over the past decade. **Concerning
**Love this – First used in California in the 1950s, TIFs were supposed to be another tool, like tax abatement and enterprise zones, that could be used to promote urban renewal. But cities found they were not very effective at drawing development into depressed areas. **What did they do? Cities realized that if they wanted to use TIFs more, they had to get out of depressed neighborhoods and into areas with higher property values, which generate more revenue to pay off development bonds.
Until the 1990s, most states reserved TIFs for areas that could be described as “blighted,” based on criteria set forth by statue. But as with eminent domain, the definition of blight for TIF purposes has been dramatically expanded. The result is that a TIF can be put almost anywhere these days. You could “declare the entire Western world blighted.”
**Given the competition between cities eager to attract new businesses, TIFs are not likely to disappear anytime soon. “Has it gone overboard?” asks University of North Texas economist Terry Clower, “Sure…But the problem is that if a city doesn’t offer some tax incentives, the company will just move down the road.” According to Clower, “In a utopian world, there would be no government handouts, and every business would pay the same tax rate. But if a city stands up they aren’t doing TIFs anymore, they will lose out.”
**Instead, it’s the competitors of the TIF-favored businesses that lose out. “This is not a nonprofit, not a library, not a school. They are a for-profit business, a competitor of ours.”
TIFs HAVE BECOME THE STANDARD HANDOUT
**If TIFs continue to multiply at the present rate, we may see the day when every new 7-Eleven and McDonald’s has its own TIF.
Response to John Mallamo:
I appreciate Mr. Mallamo’s interest in Harford County’s land use policy – an interest I share – but he continuously misses the mark on James Run. There are three misconceptions in this post about the transportation component of this development.
First, he concludes that the James Run traffic improvements aren’t necessary on the basis that the O’Malley Administration chose not to fund them. Really? The O’Malley Administration isn’t funding them because the State is broke. There are an estimated $12 billion in unfunded road projects statewide – and that’s only counting each jurisdiction’s single top priority, not the entire list. The overwhelming majority of legitimate local traffic improvements in every county aren’t funded because there is no money in the Transportation Trust Fund. Thus, the James Run traffic improvements remain a public frustration today due to lack of funds – not lack of merit.
Second, he states that the traffic improvements included in the James Run plan are for the personal enrichment of developers, yet none of the traffic improvement projects are located on the developers’ parcel. In fact, they are all on public land and for public roads, as required by law.
Most importantly, Mr. Mallamo ignores the actual testimony of Harford County residents at the October 23 hearing. Several residents testified that they could no longer endure the traffic jams on Routes 7 and 543, among others, and supported the James Run development traffic improvement plan.
We can all bury our noses in government studies and memos, or we can actually listen to County residents. There was overwhelming support for James Run at the Council meeting last month and rightly so. I can’t wait to shop there and I know the increased business will be good for the county and job seekers.
I saw the testimonies, and the room filled with JR supporters in t-shirts, very impressive. Until I learned they were all Dixie Construction employees.
Unfortunately you are wrong on this. Not all of the supporters were Dixie Construction Employees. There are many supporters of this James Run Project who don’t work for or are affliated with Dixie Construction.
Diane,
Ma’am
Are you the Diane who wrote in a previous post, the same Diane Kozel who wrote to the AEGIS extolling the virtues of the James Run TIF project? The same Diane Kozel, CEO, at Nyberg ,Fletcher and White possibly the PR firm that provided the T shirts, did the direct mailing and is running the PR campaign for the James Run TIF?
If so then might your interests be biased?
Not sure who’s side I’m on but I’m pretty sure you scored on that one.
Your first two comments are correct. The last 3 are Not. No, my firm is not involved in any way with the James Run Project so we obviously did not provide any PR or the James Run T-shirts. I happen to live within two miles of this project and would welcome some better restaurants and shops along the 543 corridor. Too many of you are either interested in no development in Harford County or if you have development, its only on the Route 24 corridor. As we all know, there is enough congestion in that area. There is more to Harford County that just Route 24.
Diane,
Ma’am
Your facts are a bit off the mark.
First the O’Malley administration has nothing to do with funding the improvements at the I-95 and 543 interchange. That is a function of the Maryland Transportation Authority, with annual revenues exceeding 500 million dollars. A completely separate agency that does not fall under the Maryland Department of Transportation, nor the State Highway Department, nor is it budgeted by the State assembly. It does not receive funding from the Transportation Trust Fund unless by special act. To your statements about the State being broke, yes it is. It is interesting to note that the County Executives priorities were funded and are currently under construction. Did the MdTA fix interchanges in their study area. Well the interchage at 22 was improved, as was the interchange at 24. Do I believe that the intechange at I-95 and 543 will be improved? Most certainly. My suggestion to you would be to get your facts straight before making public statements. Failure to do so discredits your case.
Second, actually ma’am the largest road improvement on the list of improvements is identified as the entrance on 543, a 2 milloin dollar project. The other $1.6 million dollars in improvements are as you note required by law. Do they enrich the developer or improve traffic? Hard to believe that theI-95 543 interchange project estimated at between 20-40 million dollars will benefit from 1.6 million dollars. Does not seem to fit the scale.
Do the residents at 7 and 543 require better traffic conditions. Certainly, and so do the rest of us. My solution would be to encourage the development and use the additional tax revenue to make some real fixes, not just the band aids proposed. Although I do not believe the fiscal projections in the proposal, no doubt Harford County will accrue some additional tax revenue from the project. That coupled with the County Executive’s request to improve the area would go much further than the false hopes put forward by the various parties involved.
As to listening to County residents. It occurred to me while listening to the majority of those speaking in favor of the project that they all had a vested interest. Maybe that was just me. Is it appropriate to conduct a study before embarking on a major road improvement project? Absolutely. Doing otherwise would be of little benefit to those affected. By the way, what is the anchor store in the proposed shopping mall?
As I said before, an apartment complex, and a shopping mall for the jewel of the Atlantic Seaboard. Harford County deserves better and should not settle for less.
Diane,
Ma’am
Please do not construe my statement to encourage the development to mean support of the TIF. The TIF is of no benefit to the County and should not be approved.
Mr. Mallamo- It was clear at the James Run hearing how big of a joke you actually are. Your lack of knowledge about anything and everything having to do with HC is absolutely astounding. No wonder the entre council pretty much laughed at you as you tried to make your 3 minutes even somewhat coherent.
John,
Sir,
If at the end of my life my sole accomplishment is to have provided a few people the opportunity to forget whatever else is on their minds and to have a hearty laugh, even if only for a brief moment, then I will count myself as a success.
Thank you for pointing out that the entire council had a laugh with me, perhaps at me.
You have enriched my day.
Do you have anything other than that to contribute to the discussion?
Nothing in what Mr. Mallamo has written here would suggest he’s anything other than knowledgable and congent. I think some of the vitriol is based upon fear – if they didn’t think his concern was threatening to what they’d like to accomplish they wouldn’t react with such rabid personal attack. James Run isn’t called James Run for nothing – it’s in the Bush River watershed. Unfortunately for developers much of the land left to development is in the far northern parts of the county or situated within what otherwise should be protected areas. Good lord they’re down to sacking golf courses and invading wetlands in order to find large enough tracts. As bad as that might seem then asking the taxpayers to front the money…sheesh…
Apologies, Diane – the supporters were not all Dixie Construction. We also had a representative from RG Steel, Nick from the Peterson Company, a speaker from Architectural Design Works, Mr. Hertsch from Morris Ritchie Associates, the engineering firm… the lawyer representing the project, the owner of JR Lodgings… and one Tom Kozel.
Accident involving school children at 543 and 22 on Thursday. Pretty scary you would not want this problem fixed.
John,
Sir,
No not scary at all.
Actually, the intersection at Route 22 and 543 is not on the list of off property improvements that are proposed for funding with the James Run TIF. It is well outside the area that will be influenced by traffic from the James Run Project.
I believe that what you have interjectected is called a red herring.
Very interesting reviewing the input from the various parties involved in the James Run TIF
One very articulate person thought that the new shopping venues would be great, and couldn’t wait to start shopping. Very honest and well thought out, but nothing in the County charter discusses the County’s obligation to provide new shopping venues.
Legal counsel to the developers thought it would be a great project, bringing new revenue, new jobs and needed road improvements. Actually the property tax revenues do not begin to accrue to the County until build out, estimated to be sometime in 2017. At that point the tax revenues should exceed debt service and the County will collect the difference between the increase in property taxes and debt service. Unfortunately build out is predicated on the office space component of the project. Counsel forgot to mention that the market for office space in Harford County is saturated, and therefore it is unlikely that any offices will be built on the site. That means property tax revenues will remain fixed at pretty much what they are now, probably for the life of the bond, as any increases will be used to pay debt service. New Jobs? Construction maybe, beyond that not many. Even with the Office space component the job projections are unrealistic. Unfortunately for construction, Harford County has reached build out. The James Run TIF is not a long term solution to that. Road improvement. Don’t count on it. For anyone interested in real road improvements, read the Section 200 plan from the Maryland Transportation Authority. They have already identified the alternative that they will pursue to improve the intersection at I-95 and 543. It is pretty interesting to see what they considered and how they arrived at the solution. Seems more like Counsel to the project is most interested in improving the firms billable hours, than in all the County revenues, jobs and road improvements.
Legal counsel also bemoaned the fact that banks would not lend money on a project like this. Wise decision on the part of the banks. From their perspective they probably looked at the project and determined that their was insufficient collateral, the party’s involved were undercapitalized and if their was a default on the loan there was no single entity to foreclose. A losing proposition for them. How is it any better for the County?
The representative from engineering firm doing most of the surveying seemed most put out by the County’s requirement that developers pay the infrastructure costs for their projects. That has been the requirement for some time, and probably should not be changed for a marginal project. There was also concern for all the construction workers who would not be working unless the TIF were approved. Doesn’t seem that there is an applicable section in the County Charter that requires the County to approve projects so that construction workers have jobs. Again, the unfortunate fact is that Harford County has hit build out. Seems like the engineering firm representative was more concerned with the work his company would get from the project.
The representative from the retail component was happy to be coming here. There was no mention of what stores would be coming. Not even a discussion of the anchor store. There was a discussion of all the traffic moving on I-95 that made the James Run project a great location. Just like the TIF project in Prince Georges County. Still those vehicles are moving on I-95 to get to a destination, James Run may not be that destination. What would attract people to the James Run location? A huge anchor store, maybe a gambling venue, or some other attraction that was not discussed. Gambling in lieu of office space? Maybe. The big difference between the project in Prince Georges county and the James Run Project is that the Prince Georges project is a destination by itself, and now there is gambling there, too.
Discussions on the lodging house component were interesting. Seems the owner of the parcel for this piece of the project decided in April that there was no market for office space and so doubled down on more apartments. It is still not clear whether the temporary residents in the Lodging House can stay for a day, a week, month year, multiple years. The owner of the property declared that his group could afford the taxes, but not the cost of the infrastructure. There was no discussion of the 250 room hotel on two of the other parcels.
The local construction company representative spoke at some length about construction and the need for more. Seems that the company recognized that Harford County had reached build out. Their best chance for more work is to move to other areas as a partner with other larger companies, as a subcontractor, a small business or as an independent looking to expand. Looking for more work in Harford County may not be profitable for some time. If the company were honest with its employees, it would tell them that their best opportunities for the foreseeable future might be in other geographic areas.
Now it appears that the developers in a great show of community spirit have agreed to deed 2 acres of land with access to Route 543 for a fire station. Seems like before deciding that this is too great a deal to pass up, there should at least be a site survey to determine where best to locate a new fire station for the area. Particularly so when all the growth in the area is on the other side of I-95. It cannot be a good situation to move people and equipment across a major intersection.
As a result of action by the County Council, construction on the retail and housing components of the project are to be built concurrently. Still not clear whether that is all retail, and housing or just some. The hotel and its associated retail, and the retail pads were not discussed. Odd situation to say the least. Seems like the scope of the program is still too vague for anyone to figure out what is going on. None the less, once construction starts, it is too late to stop it.
Finally there is the Planning and Zoning piece to the puzzle. Seems like a final site approval might not have been issued. Not hard to imagine, since there is no single entity for the James Run Project, or a single plan. It appears to change on the developers decision of the day. After all there are multiple parties, each owning their own piece. Additionally, it does not seem that there is a final definition of just what will be built and when. Coupled with what seems to be a conflict with the definition of mixed office zoning, and the retail and housing components that are seeking approval to proceed with construction.
It is gratifying to see that there are those altruistic individuals who are looking out for the county ant its residents. But using them to promote their own interests at the expense of everybody else is shameful. Perhaps those who have the most to benefit should use their own fortunes and assets as collateral for a loan, do the work as partners or share holders on speculation that the project will be successful, and take their profits from the project, rather than putting this off on Harford County taxpayers.
All in all, quite a mess. Hopefully the Council will not approve the TIF in its present form, if at all.