More News

The election is Nov. 3.

Shelley Aloi (R)
The mayor and Board of Alderman approved the Crum, Thatcher and Summers property annexations after allowing time for research, Planning Department input and public comment.

Their decision was made in accordance with both the city and county comprehensive plans and took into consideration not only the requests of the property owners and developers, but also the comments and concerns of neighbors and other community members.

The mayor and Board of Alderman held workshops, deliberated issues and negotiated annexation agreements making their final decision to the best of their knowledge and ability.

This is what we ask of public servants — to do their best with the information and resources at hand and to make educated decisions for the good of the whole and the benefit of all.

The controversy that has arisen as a result of this decision is evidence that we as a community must encourage more active citizen involvement and mutual cooperation among government agencies during such processes to avoid a future of bickering and in-fighting after decisions have been made.

Amanda Haddaway (R)
There was, and continues to be, a breakdown of communication between the city and the county on the recent annexations.

Neither party is at fault for expressing their viewpoints, but the methods and manners that they have chosen are questionable.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to have a "discussion" on an issue that has a serious impact on the city's growth plan via letters to the editor and commentary in online forums.

Furthermore, the city's decision to send a letter to every registered voter with the city's seal, but not disclose that it was paid for by private interests, raises ethical concerns. The next administration must find ways to effectively work with the county on important issues such as annexations.

The city and county will often not agree, but as an alderman I will find effective and appropriate way to have open and public discussions for the benefit of our citizens.

Chris Huckenpoehler (R)
I am certainly pro-growth, but as alderman I will be compelled to be a true representative of the people that elected me.

The majority of people that I talk to do not want the annexation to occur, and I am in agreement until modifications are made to existing infrastructure. While the annexations have been planned for many years, I don't have to knock on many doors of folks that have to travel the I-270 corridor to discover that they do not want thousands more houses and millions of square feet of business added to the north.

In addition this is land, and it's not going anywhere soon. However, what really concerns people I talk to is the risk of increased traffic to already dangerous intersections on Route 15.

There must be reassurance that the interchanges are going to be built and completed prior any residential or business expansion. We should take care of the city we already have in place, making it safe to live and work, and a true destination city that others can visit and also enjoy.

Alan Imhoff (R)
My position on the annexations is a matter of record both at both Planning Commission and board meetings.

I began a process three years ago to ascertain the city's existing inventory of un-developed properties by land use category in preparation for annexations. Two years ago in August, the Board of Aldermen began the process of evaluating potential annexations and how they would be prioritized for review.

The board prioritized 14 applications according to criteria established in January of 2008. This was a very deliberate process. I would not do anything different.

For those who chose not to be involved during the past two years, it is easy to say "no" or "wait." But the city has chosen to say "yes," which is not easy because it means government must now act to achieve its goals under its Comprehensive Plan, a plan approved over decades by a multiple number of officials with input from thousands of citizens.

Goals and city plans need to be implemented to insure our quality of life goals and future economic vitality through job creation. The city has chosen to provide substance to those goals through definitive action.

Carol Krimm (D)
Annexations are handled according to the legal process as outlined in the Land Management Code (LMC) and Article 23A of the Maryland Annotated Code.  

The public hearings for the three subject annexations went late into the evening. As a veteran of offering public testimony at a late hearing, I know it is difficult for citizens who have families and must rise early the next morning for their job to stay late to offer their testimony.

If possible, I would have tried to have an earlier hearing time to accommodate citizens' input. The city should apply to the Maryland Department of Planning for the annexed area to be designated a Priority Funding Area (PFA) as part of the city.  

The PFA designation will help the city receive state funding for infrastructure needs.

Donna Kuzemchak (D)
I have repeatedly stated that this process should not have happened so close to an election because it makes it too easy to politicize the process instead of allowing the process to work. Sadly, that is exactly what is happening. 

I studied annexation information, listened to citizens and other elected officials and helped craft conditions I felt were appropriate to protect city residents.

I was the sole vote against one annexation and voted for the other two. These annexations have been on both city and county Comprehensive Plans for years. 

I think it is appropriate that these properties are under development control of the city to prevent the sprawl that so many speak against. The growth/anti-growth pendulum swings much wider in the county than in the city. 

We don't know how the next Board of County Commissioners is going to handle growth, which is why the city is a more appropriate venue to control this.  Having said that, I spoke strongly against sending a letter to each resident and did not sign the anti-referendum letter.

Michael O'Connor (D)
They have been handled poorly. Each of these annexations is significant. They should have been prioritized and taken one at a time. The six-month moratorium on the introduction of annexations prior to elections should be expanded to include public hearings and votes as well.

The Summers Farm annexation has been unfairly grouped with the northern annexations. Their invitation to the community to visit the farm and hear about the annexation should be the model for future requests, involving each Neighborhood Advisory Council having the opportunity for review and questions.

It is my hope that eventual development of Summers occurs as part of an area plan for the west side.

Annexation represents the best opportunity for the city to control land use at its borders and ensure infrastructure needs are addressed. The agreements for Crum and Thatcher/COPT leave many of these details, including road improvements, emergency services, and schools unresolved.

Further, the city ceded control over sewer for these properties to the county. The city and county won't always agree. I do expect my elected officials to communicate about issues of mutual interest. Our citizens deserve better than 11th-hour lobbying efforts and developer-funded letter-writing campaigns.

Kelly Russell (D)
After several years of moratorium on annexations due to water shortage, the city reopened applications in 2007.

To prepare for future development, the city passed an APFO and MPDU ordinance. We signed the Potomac River Water Supply Agreement with the county (in which these three properties were named). Only then were annexation applications accepted.

Priority areas were then determined after discussion at open meetings. These properties, shown in our Comprehensive Plan, were included. These applications were submitted in February 2009. The city held over a dozen public hearings from April to September prior to voting.

Months of negotiations resulted in commitments by the petitioners to provide road improvements and infrastructure projects at no cost to the city. I was present at most of those hearings.

Processes provide predictability and consistency. The city followed its processes. That said, we must always ensure our processes do their best to include and inform citizens.

I would have reached out to residents via NAC meetings. I would have insisted the final agreements be available for public inspection for at least a week prior to the vote.

I would have requested they be the sole items on the agenda for the voting meeting.

Paul Smith (R)
The city handled them very well and secured substantial valuable benefits for the city and its residents that will help the city remain economically strong for the next 50 years.

The city secured $8 million to $10 million of contributions towards needed road improvements; plus substantial incentives for additional contributions for two major interchanges on US Route 15 before commercial development can occur; plus 37 acres (from Crumland) for schools, fire & EMS services and parkland; plus substantial annual tax revenues once the commercial properties are developed; plus $600,000 from Summers.

These annexations are prime examples of smart growth and sustainability practices that will bring jobs close to the city, where the people live, and where they can be served by public utilities.

The northern annexations will provide major help in improving traffic safety by building the grade-separated interchanges on US 15 that will allow the closure of the dangerous Hayward Road intersection. These annexations are in full conformity with existing county and city growth plans.

By unilaterally abandoning regional growth plans, the county has created serious problems. All annexation laws and procedures were properly followed. City officials thoroughly examined the annexation petitions and secured valuable benefits for the city.

Karen Young (D)
The process for annexing the three farms started several decades ago when they were included in both the city and county's Comprehensive Plans. In 1992 and 2002 a BOCC (including Gray, Gardner and Thompson) affirmed these properties in the County Comprehensive Plan for future development in the Frederick City Growth Area. 

This "process" continued when the current BOCC signed a Potomac River Water Supply Agreement on March 16, 2006, which included and identified by name all three properties. The document clearly stated that the properties would be developed in the City of Frederick and served by county water. 

The city delayed annexations while it enacted an APFO.  Finally, the city asked for property owners to submit letters of interest for annexation ending its seven-plus year annexation moratorium. This occurred in February 2008, and the BOCC raised no objections. 

Applications were submitted in February 2009. These annexations were reviewed by all city agencies from February through April. From April through September there have been at least 13 public review opportunities. On Aug. 20 a public community meeting was held at the Summers Farm to address neighbors' questions.

I believe that the annexation process has been well-planned, thorough and transparent.