SALISBURY, Md.– A $4.1 million project bringing drinkable water to the Salisbury-Ocean City Wicomico Regional Airport is in jeopardy as the Wicomico County Council remains at odds over a significant vote to move it forward.
All that remains, according to Salisbury Chamber of Commerce President Bill Chambers, is the council’s vote in favor of the pre-annexation agreement approved by the county and City of Salisbury last fall. Chambers expressed concern that a failure to move forward with the project would put at risk having Piedmont Airlines continue to operate at the airport.
"Having city water at the airport has been a requirement for a number of years for Piedmont before 2016,” Chambers said. “The business community is concerned that American Airlines has other options."
There had been talk that the issue would be brought to the agenda at Tuesday’s council meeting, which was conducted via Zoom. Public comments were made by Chambers, and members of the Greater Salisbury Committee as well as the Tri-County Council, all of which urged the council to vote in favor of the pre-annexation agreement.
Two other comments were made by residents of Walston Switch Road and Kilbirnie Estates that called for a public hearing by one and a vote against the agreement by the other. Several council members, including Joe Holloway, echoed the need for a public hearing. "
There are about 250 at Kilbirnie and 100 more on Walston Switch Road,” said Holloway. “Those folks would like a voice before this is voted on."
In the end, the issue was not put on the agenda. Council Vice President John Cannon expressed concerns about the pre-annexation.
“I have great reservations that the pre-annexations and water line issues weren't on the agenda today,” said Cannon. “My opinion is when you don't allow these resolutions to come to the table, you don't allow the benefit of the citizens nor the seven members of this council to even discuss these issues politically."
As it stands, the contract with GMB, who won the bid to do the work, has been extended 90 days which would expire May 12.According to Chambers, the state could potentially take the $4.1 million back, a move he believes would not only hurt the county’s bond rate but also its ability to fund future projects.
"The Chamber of Commerce is dismayed and our members are angered that this seems to be an issue the council can't figure out and solve and get off their desk and agendas. It's unconscionable that we are even having this discussion," Chambers said.
The office of County Executive Bob Culver issued a statement saying, in part, “The County Council’s decision today is not only disappointing but it is also misguided and based on false assertions…The council has had over three years to seek further clarifications and pose questions…The hysteria that certain council members have created is inexcusable and not in our citizens’ best interests. And it is also counter-productive to our economy at a time when economic stimulus is clearly needed.”
At this point, it remains unclear if the issue will be put on the agenda for the next council meeting.
