Fiscal Responsibility
Fiscal Responsibility
A financial gamble? Red flags for taxpayers.The Dredge Proposal: High Costs & Heavy Traffic
The Administration's plan to truck Wicomico River dredge spoils to Connelly Mill places a significant and potentially uncalculated burden on taxpayers.
The Trucking Burden: The plan would require potentially tens of thousands of truckloads to transport dredge spoils from the river to the park. This does not include the additional truckloads required to bring in forest slash.
Moving this volume of material by road is costly and impactful. Beyond the direct cost of transport, the sheer volume of industrial heavy haul traffic on Connelly Mill Road, Riverside Drive, and others, raises serious concerns about road degradation. Who pays to repair the potholes and pavement damage caused by thousands of dump trucks? Citizens do.
The US Army Corps of Engineers held a public meeting in 2021 specifically for the Wicomico River dredging projects. They discussed transport methods and the importance of efficiency.
Source: Wicomico River Maintenance Dredging Project (US Army Corps of Engineers).
This increased traffic is not only costly and disruptive but also dangerous. Citizens along the trucking route face an increased risk of traffic accidents and fatalities. Government studies and reports indicate that transporting cargo by truck is ~724 times more likely to result in fatalities than by waterborne vessels.
A Pattern of Risky Decisions: "Safari At The Quarry"
The dredge proposal follows a pattern of fiscal mismanagement established during the "Safari at the Quarry" contract negotiations. The Administration demonstrated a willingness to bypass standard financial safeguards.
How Smart Spending Practices Were Ignored:
- No Financial Vetting: No financial review (proforma) of the event organizer (Live Wire Media LLC) was performed before signing. This made it impossible to predict if the event would be profitable.
- Undefined Costs: No economic impact studies were conducted regarding traffic control or policing costs.
- Risky Profit Sharing: The contract used a profit-sharing model rather than a fixed site-fee. This required the County to share in potential losses and rely on the organizer's accounting, rather than collecting a guaranteed fee like Ocean City's event permit structure.
- Insurance Risks: The risky nature of the events might require the county to upgrade its insurance coverage, potentially leading to higher premiums.
Overall, the contract appeared rushed and lacked proper due diligence, potentially exposing taxpayers to unnecessary financial risk.