Questions from Ron Hartman to Commissioner Demmler;
Response provided by Lawrence F. Haislip, Esquire, Miles and Stockbridge, P.C.:

Question:   What is the legality of the substantial change to the original intent of Elkton West as relates to Artesian?  Considering the substantial changes from the intent of the original "Elkton West" can this be simply considered an extension of the original...or is it in fact a different concept and should require a fresh RFP?

Response: The Commissioners have extensive power to grant franchises for water and wastewater systems, as well as to enter into options, memoranda of understandings, letters of intent and the like respecting the disposition of County property (See, generally Md. Ann. Code art. 25, Sections 3D and 8).  No RFP process was needed for the solicitation for franchisees in the first place.  Nevertheless, under the terms of Section 183 of the County Code (governing procurements) as well as under the terms of the actual RFP in this instance, the Commissioners reserved power to themselves to alter the terms of the solicitation, as well as to negotiate or alter the terms of  the proposal from the presumptively acceptable responder (Artesian in this instance).  I do not believe that the County is legally required to issue a "fresh" RFP (or, as I have said, any RFP, for that matter).

 Question:  Section (6.2) appearing on page 19 states "The Franchisee shall work cooperatively with the County with all due diligence and dispatch to prepare and submit to the County proposed amendments to the County's Master Water and Sewer Plan so that the latter may be made to conform to the development of the Water System contemplated by this Agreement.  Thereafter the County and the Franchisee shall cooperate and exercise due diligence to conclude the amendment to the Master Water and Sewer Plan."

 Does this mean that the entire areas that are now contained within the expanded RFP will receive amendments to the master water and sewer plan to allow the upgraded densities (which will then allow maximum density afforded lands with infrastructure.)?  If so, what time frame are we talking about?  Will the amendments be granted within a short time frame, or only as they are needed for future developments as they are proposed?

Response: The reference to amendments to the Master Water and Sewer Plan, contained in Section 6.2 of each of the water and wastewater franchises, is really not meant to have any impact on densities, or otherwise affect the County's growth and development policies as they are now in place.  The reference to amendment of these provisions was meant to comply with the terms of Section XIV.H.  of the RFP which, correctly, anticipated that, technically, corrections to the County's Master Water and Sewer Plan would need to be made if the franchises were issued, in order that the Master WSP would conform to the new reality that a franchise area had been created.  As you know, Maryland law requires the County to have a Master Water and Sewerage Plan, and it requires it to be amended at least triennially, to reflect changes to water and wastewater management plans and systems improvements in the jurisdiction.  The reference in the RFP and in the franchises to the amendment is for the purpose of reminding everyone that the plans need to be updated and coordinated to reflect the franchises.  The proposed amendments do not foment or increase developability anywhere - that is the job of the County's zoning and land use controls, beginning with the County's zoning ordinance and its master plan and its Urban Growth Boundary Plan.  And all of the areas covered by the franchises are already within the designated growth areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan or in the Urban Growth Boundary Plan - and, as in the case of Meadowview, are already served by existing systems.