Dear Friends,

It has been far too long since my last newsletter, and for that I apologize.  Much of significance has happened in our County over the past four months, some of it better than others.  I will undoubtedly leave out something that you feel is important, but in the interest of producing a report slightly less lengthy than War & Peace, here are some highlights:   

The Budget

Arguably the Council’s most important responsibility is to fund County programs and services while maintaining a balanced budget.  In good years, when our revenues are ample as they were in 2006-2007, that is not a particularly difficult task.  In a rising tide, floated by revenues from a strong economy, we could fund the programs and services our community has come to expect in Montgomery County and keep our commitment to you not to exceed the “Charter Limit” on property taxes (for those of you who do not follow the County’s budget process closely, the Charter Limit was passed by the citizens to essentially limit increases in property taxes to the rate of inflation, unless a supermajority of the Council, 7 members, votes to override it).   

In bad economic years, like this one, when the national economy is tottering on the edge and revenues from development and real estate transactions have fallen off the chart, it is a horse of a different color. We entered the last stage of the budget process staring at a $300 million projected deficit, the largest projected deficit in the County’s history.  The options at that stage are not good ones. 

The County Executive proposed  to the Council that we achieve a balance by increasing property taxes by $138 million over the Charter Limit, increasing the property tax rate, and reducing the rate of growth in government spending.  I, for one, found that particular combination to be unacceptable.  I felt that it put too much of the burden on our taxpayers, and did not achieve enough savings.  For that reason, I initially voted against the budget, a vote that forced the Council to consider other options. 
  
Most importantly, I felt that it was essential that our employees, generally slated to earn 8% more this year than last year, and whose compensation represents approximately 80 percent of the County’s budget, should be part of the solution.  I felt that it was not right to ask our taxpayers to pay this much over the Charter Limit without a sense of “shared sacrifice.”  I was not seeking to “balance the budget on the backs of our workers,” but I was hoping that there would be a meaningful recognition that in an economy in which our taxpayers are really struggling, some modest voluntary concession on their part, particularly given the size of the increase they were otherwise entitled to, would demonstrate that we must all be in this together. 

A number of our county employee unions -- the police, firefighters, and government employees --  indicated their willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue to explore such a result, and I was gratified by that response.  However, the Board of Education President testified publicly that the school system would fully fund their contracts regardless of what the County Council did and claimed the legal right to do so.  This same message was conveyed privately in no uncertain terms.  In the absence of a comprehensive understanding with all County employees, there could not be a deal at all. 

As a result, my colleagues and I were only able to negotiate an additional $20 million increase in savings, some coming from the school system, but none coming from employees, which resulted in a $20 million decrease in the property tax hit that would otherwise have occurred. 

Given that we needed seven votes to pass this budget (since it would exceed the charter limit), it became clear that this was as good an outcome as I was going to be able to accomplish.  It did not please me, and I stated publicly that this was “not a budget to celebrate.” 

The bottom line is that we passed a budget that had greater savings than the County Executive proposed, lower property taxes than he proposed, and held the line on the property tax rate, which limited the increases on commercial properties and many District 1 residences.  While directionally better, I take no pleasure in sharing this result. 

That is not to say that our budget doesn’t fund good things.  It does.  Included at the very end of this newsletter  is a Budget Highlights section that summarizes the programs and services, including school improvements, we funded this year. 

Infill Development Reform Progress Report

 As you may know, I have been working for more than a year to find a better balance between individual property rights and neighborhood compatibility when it comes to infill development issues.  The goal is to achieve a more graceful transformation of our older communities, one that still allows for a natural economic evolution, but an evolution that honors the character of the community. 

I am cautiously optimistic that we will achieve this goal by the fall of this year.
 
I have had the great fortune to work with a citizens Task Force comprised of neighborhood activists, builders, architects, engineers, real estate agents, a group that was ably aided by county government officials and trained facilitators.   This work led to the introduction of legislation that, if adopted, will significantly change the rules of the game in determining how large a home can be on smaller lots. 

Under the current rules, the size of a house is essentially determined by the zone in which a home was built.  Most of the residential zones in our older community fall within one of three categories: R-60, R-90, and R-200.  Generally speaking, these zones were thought to roughly approximate lot sizes of 6,000; 9,000; and 20,000 square feet.   However, the reality is that the lot sizes within these zones vary widely.  Given the variation within zones, our task force concluded that it didn’t make a lot of sense to use zones as the determining factor for the size of the house; instead, the task force unanimously agreed to base the size of a house on the size of the lot.

The biggest challenge was in coming up with the new lot coverage ratios.  For example, under the rules that have been in place for decades, a home on a 6,000 square foot lot in the R-60 zone can be built on 35% of the lot.  According to Park & Planning estimates, this is more than double what is the norm for older homes in our older communities – the average older home today occupies only 17% of the lot. 

The legislation that I have introduced (you can see the PHED Committee packets for the July 21 work session which includes the legislation by clicking here and here) , with the support of three of my colleagues (Councilmembers Andrews, Elrich, and Trachtenberg) would reduce the lot coverage ratios on smaller lots (6,000 square feet) from 35% to 30%, a 16% reduction in overall square feet.  This reduction on small lots will still allow a homebuilder to construct a house approximating 4,500 square feet – which is not a small house!  For every 1,000 feet of additional lot size starting at 6,000 feet, the lot coverage ratio drops 1% (e.g., a 7,000 square foot lot can have 29% lot coverage; an 8,000 square foot house can have a 28% lot coverage, etc.).  

I am greatly encouraged by the fact that the Task Force, after working hard to address legitimate concerns of the home builders (incorporated in an agreement in principle that can be reviewed by clicking here) has now unanimously agreed that all members of the task force will either support or not oppose the legislation.  This agreement means that neighborhood activists and the builders/architects/real estate agents who worked for more than a year on this legislation, the people who know it the best, are now in basic accord.    

Having found common ground within the Task Force, I am even more confident that we can find common ground on the Council on this issue.  The Council held a public hearing on the legislation on June 17, during which the legislation was both lauded and criticized.  Regretfully, there is much misinformation that has been disseminated about the bill, such as concerns that the bill gives neighbors “veto” rights over their property.  That is simply not true.  Homeowners retain all of their existing rights, but for the modest reduction in the size of homes on smaller lots. 

I am continuing to work to improve the legislation based on the public comments that were provided.  For example, the current version of the legislation requires homes to be smaller even if they sit on lots that are a half acre or larger.  In my view, homes on a half acre do not raise the concerns common to “McMansions” on small lots, and therefore should not be included within the scope of the legislation. 

The legislation now moves to the Council’s Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Committee (PHED) on July 21st for its first work session.  It is unlikely that the Committee will conclude its consideration before our August recess, and therefore it is my hope that the Committee will favorably report out the bill in a time frame that will allow for a full Council vote in early October.  

If you have views on this legislation, either pro or con, you should feel free to share them with the full Council by sending an e-mail to county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov, which will then be distributed to all members on the Council.     

“The Greening of Montgomery County” 

I am very pleased to report that the Council met the goal I set in my last newsletter by passing all seven of my global warming bills on April 22nd – Earth Day.  It was a very nice Earth Day celebration indeed!  Thank you to all the individuals and organizations that voiced their support for this legislation. 

 The legislation formally adopts the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.  This is a daunting challenge, make no mistake about it, and the measures incorporated in these bills are merely a small hint of the actions that we as a society will have to take if we are to meet this environmental imperative.  Doing so will not be cheap or easy.  However, I am one of those who feel we have no choice – the risks to our planet if we do not act, and indeed, even if we do, are simply not acceptable.  Indeed, there is growing concern that the scientific community has understated the pace of the change that is already taking place. 

 The Council’s support for this comprehensive package of 25 initiatives puts Montgomery County at the very forefront of what must be a national, and federal, undertaking.  The package attacks the issue of global warming at its source – in our transportation, building and utility sectors through energy efficiency, renewable energy, alternative fuels, trees, land use, and utility advocacy. 

 The “crown jewel” of the package (according to a Washington Post editorial you can see by clicking here) is a first for any county in the country – a requirement that all new homes built in Montgomery County meet EPA’s Energy Star standard.  This requirement will mean that our homes in the future will be at least 15% more efficient, and could save homeowners more than $1,000 annually on their utility bills.  In addition, the approved legislation offers $250 in tax credits for homeowners who retrofit their homes with energy saving devices and up to $2,500 in tax credits for homeowners who install solar and geothermal units. 
 
The legislation also creates a Sustainability Working Group (“SWG”) to come up with a Climate Action Plan that will ensure that we meet our reduction targets.  The SWG has also been charged with, among other duties, creating a Tree Canopy Action Plan.  I sincerely hope that those of you with an interest in this issue will follow the work of the SWG closely and share your ideas with the group and my office staff. 

 But government can’t do this alone, or even get close.  That is why the Bethesda Green initiative is so exciting.  This public/private partnership continues to evolve and to expand its reach.  In May, I attended Bethesda Green’s official kick-off event, followed by the dedication of dozens of recycling containers, sponsored by Bethesda’s own Honest Tea and a number of citizens, placed around the central Bethesda area.  The various working groups are always looking for new participants, so please visit their website at http://www.bethesdagreen.org/ in order to volunteer. 

 And there are other community initiatives on the environment that are worthy of praise.  In March and April, Carderock Springs and Cabin John, two District 1 neighborhoods, showed their creativity and dedication to the environment by organizing a friendly scrap metal recycling competition.  This project involved young and old in bringing small metal items to drop-off points in their communities for special pickups by the County.  Larger items, such as grills and appliances, were collected through the county’s regular curb-side pickup.  Through this recycling challenge, these communities not only collected 17 tons of scrap metal, they also educated their residents about the need to recycle metals and other materials in their daily lives.

 Pictured with me to the right are organizers Martha Donnelly, Tom Rojas and Jennifer Jordan along with Ritch Kepler, aka Recycle Man.   I invite you to think about whether your community would like to experiment with a similar type of project and to contact our office with any ideas.

Hillmead

 No issue in my tenure on the Council has generated more controversy, or more personal anguish, than the Council’s deliberations over the use of the Hillmead property, a block off Bradley Blvd. in Bethesda. 

 This property was imbued with controversy from day one.  Originally, the owner of the parcel wanted to subdivide the property into four lots.  Some community activists fought that proposal, arguing that the property, which sits right next to a small community park, should be used as a park.  Our Park & Planning Board disagreed, and granted authorization for the development.   

 However, the approval came late, after the housing market had peaked, and the developer backed out.  At this point, the owner approached the Planning Board again and asked whether the County would like to acquire the parcel as a park.  Park & Planning concluded that this would make a fine addition to the small community park, and negotiated a price for the property, $2.5 million, that was represented as below market and a decent deal for the County.  Park & Planning recommended demolishing the old large home on the property because the home occupied the precise place contemplated for expanded park use.   Since the purchase contemplated using a particular source of funding that only the Council can authorize, the matter came to us. 

 There has been a long-standing disagreement between a number of my colleagues on the Council and the Planning Board with respect to the use of existing structures on park grounds.  The Planning Board states unequivocally that it is in the parks business, and doesn’t seek to become a landlord.  Some of my colleagues contest that view, and believe that our purchase of park land provides a broader opportunity to address other community needs.  As a result, the Council voted, over my objections and the objections of the Park & Planning Board, to prohibit demolition of the home until after alternative uses were explored by the Executive Branch. 

 The Executive explored alternative uses, focusing primarily on transition housing for a large homeless family.  Housing large homeless families in Montgomery County is particularly difficult, and costly.  This large home was thought by homeless advocates to be a good opportunity.  However, notwithstanding this need, the County Executive did not recommend using this particular site for special needs housing.  Thus, when the issue came back to the Council for our ultimate decision, there was no recommendation from the Executive to use this home for the homeless, and strong opposition from the Planning Board. 

 Unfortunately, these kinds of debates brings out the worst in people.  Things were said in e-mails and blogs that reflected sentiments that I certainly do not share, and in some instances, were an embarrassment to our community.  Equally regrettable, it was also suggested, quite unfairly, that our “leafy” Bethesda community was shirking in its responsibility to the homeless.  Let’s be very clear about this point:  Bethesda houses more homeless families than any community in Montgomery County other than Rockville, far more than Takoma Park, far more than Silver Spring.  The Bethesda community has nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to our commitment to the homeless and I felt it was shameful to have suggested so.

 Nonetheless, this question, with the help of the press, made Hillmead ground zero as to whether affluent communities will open up their neighborhoods to the homeless.  I did not accept that this was a fair frame for this site specific decision. 

 Nonetheless, I, along with a number of colleagues, seriously explored a range of options, including whether we could sell some of the park land and use the proceeds for the homeless.   Unfortunately, this was not a viable legal option, and ultimately, we had to decide, straight up, whether we were going to use the property for the purpose originally intended, or use the property for the homeless. 

 I concluded, along with a majority of my colleagues, that we should maintain the integrity of our $2.5 million purchase of this property for parkland, which required, in our view and in the view of Park & Planning, the demolition of the home.  Not demolishing the home, given the extent to which it would have impacted the property as a park, would have resulted in spending almost $3 million (after the retrofits necessary to make it livable for any family) for a home for the homeless.  There are far more cost effective ways to help the homeless, particularly given the number of foreclosed properties on the market today. 

 While I thought that the proposed use of the house – for any purpose – was fundamentally and irreconcilably in conflict with the original purpose of our $2.5 million purchase, I also thought that we should fix the process so that we deal with this issue upfront.  As a result, with the unanimous support of my colleagues, I  amended my resolution so that in the future, whenever Park & Planning explores buying land that has an existing building on it, that it engage the executive branch agencies in an examination of whether the building would be suitable for other important societal needs, and if so, whether such uses would be compatible with the use of the property as a park.  That analysis will now come to the Council at the same time as the proposal for purchase, which will go a long way to making sure that this same flawed process is not replicated.

 I have great respect and admiration for those in our community who felt passionately that we needed to use the Hillmead property for the homeless.   Indeed, our decision to the contrary does not end the debate regarding the role of affluent communities in providing more homes for the homeless or more affordable housing.  We do need to do more, particularly with respect to affordable housing.

 The economics of affordable housing is not easy anywhere, but it is even harder in more affluent communities.  That is why we must use all of the tools at our disposal, including the use of county owned land where appropriate, to do more.  I have been an advocate of looking at our county owned facilities -- ranging from police stations like the one in downtown Bethesda to our libraries -- and exploring whether we can achieve both renovation of our facilities and affordable housing on the same site.

 If you are wondering at the length of the treatment of this issue, it is a reflection of how difficult I found the controversy.  I have heard from family and dear friends alike, asking for an explanation as to how I could have voted to demolish this structure.  Now you know …..

Scotland Community Center to Get Long-Awaited Renovation

Early in my tenure on the Council, I, along with many of my colleagues on the Council, made a promise to the residents of the Scotland Community to support and fund the renovation of the Scotland Community Center.  It was a promise to renovate the Center so that the children and residents of this historic, underserved, African-American community may enjoy access to safe, healthy, and productive activities and programs.
 
I am pleased to report that the Fiscal Year 2009 – 2014 Capital Budget, approved by the Council in May, includes funding for the planning and design of the Scotland Community Center as well as the Good Hope, Plum Garr, and Ross Boddy recreation facilities.  Because of the strong commitment to moving these projects forward, my colleagues and I set aside $20 million dollars in reserve for the construction costs related to these four projects.  This was not an easy task given the fiscal constraints we were facing, but demonstrates the Council’s commitment  to the residents of the Scotland, Good Hope, Plum Garr, and Ross Boddy communities. 
 
 The Council’s actions did not take place in a vacuum.  There are many individuals who have worked tirelessly to make these renovations a reality. Though there are too many to mention here, I feel I must recognize the advocacy efforts of people like Bette Thompson, Judy Walser, Odelia Cooper, Candy Smith, Rev. James R. Phifer, Brandi Swales, and Joyce Siegel.  Action in Montgomery (AIM), a faith-based coalition of congregations throughout the county, had also made this issue one of their very top priority items.  AIM’s constant vigilance ensured that my colleagues and I did not waiver in our own commitment to helping our underserved African-American communities, and they deserve great credit for this victory.      

Bethesda Naval Medical Center Update

 On July 3rd, I attended the groundbreaking for the $1 billion expansion of the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda along with Congressman Chris Van Hollen (MD-8).  The President addressed us, and paid appropriate homage to the men and women of our armed services who need the best care our country can offer in exchange for the heartbreaking sacrifices they have made.   

 Under the mandate of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC), Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. and the National Navy Medical Center will consolidate and become the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.  As a result of the consolidation and service enhancements, the number of employees at the campus will increase by about one-third to approximately 2,500, and the number of daily visitors will double to approximately 1,860. 

 Obviously, this growth in employees and visitors will have a major impact on traffic in the area.  This has been the principle focus of my work on this issue with the surrounding community, and the work of our County.  While the Department of Defense has not yet accepted its full measure of responsibility to mitigate the traffic impacts on our community, there has been some encouraging progress. 

In early May, the Navy submitted a request to the Department of Defense to fund two projects at Navy Med under the “Defense Access Road” (DAR) program, including an east-side entrance to the Medical Center Metro station and turn lane improvements at the Northwood entrance on Rockville Pike.  The Defense Department responded favorably and agreed to fund the Northwood Road turn lane improvements at a cost of approximately $1 million.   The east-side Metro entrance funding request is still under consideration.

Most recently, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Fiscal Year 2009 Transportation-HUD bill, which includes an additional $3 million for BRAC-related projects along MD 355. 

Because of the significant additional traffic that will result from the expansion of Navy Med, the expansion of Navy Med is currently a mixed blessing for Montgomery County.  However, I am hopeful that if the federal and state governments continue to work closely with us, this project will be a benefit to our community as well as the brave soldiers, sailors and Marines who will be treated there.