The City Manager’s office has just released two new documents. The first is a press release entitled “Work Session Scheduled to Discuss Employment Center Site“. The second is a document entitled “City of Gaithersburg Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (Summary)“.

In the press release, we learn that the City is negotiating with the owners of the Festival at Muddy Branch shopping center to lease space for a day labor center:

City Manager David Humpton announced today that a potential location for a Montgomery County-run employment center has been identified at Festival at Muddy Branch. The Mayor and City Council will hold a special work session on Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at Gaithersburg City Hall to discuss the site.

“A storefront at the Festival at Muddy Branch shopping center has recently become available, and could serve as an ideal location for an employment center,” said Mr. Humpton. “It is centrally located in the City, public transportation is readily available, and it is easily accessible by contractors and workers. City staff feels it meets much of the criteria set forth by Gaithersburg’s Day Laborer Task Force. With public support, we are hopeful that the center could become operational before the winter season.”

[…]

The Festival shopping center is just South of I-270 on Muddy Brach Road. Major stores include the Grand Mart, Petco, Gold’s Gym, Tuesday Morning, and Performance Bike. You can see the shopping center from southbound I-270, to your right after you pass under Muddy Branch Road. The site has both good points (accessibility, central location, public transportation, distance from schools) and bad points (residences in the area, alcohol sales). My initial impression is that it is better than the existing site, especially from an access standpoint; that shopping center is rarely really busy (except the Grand Mart, which fills the parking spaces at that end), and it will be very easy for contractors to get in and out of there with plenty of parking for large vehicles. There’s access to I-270 either via Muddy Branch to Diamondback to Sam Eig or Muddy Brach to Diamond Ave. It also is not far from some affordable housing. There will likely will be a lively debate at the work session.

The second document provides an outline of how the City and County will work together to create and run this center:

  • Montgomery County will be responsible for negotiating and executing a lease and paying all occupancy expenses for a site mutually agreed upon by the City and County.
  • The County will also fund all costs necessary to make the leased site suitable for operation, and will select and fund a contractor to operate the Center.
  • The County will use its best efforts to meet the City’s desire that the contractor be a faith-based, nonprofit organization knowledgeable of the local community. As necessary, Gaithersburg will provide police support to the location to ensure adherence to all rules and regulations set forth in the lease, in City ordinances, and in applicable State laws.
  • The City will also promote the availability and utilization of the Center. The City and County will establish an Advisory Committee to assist the Center operator in addressing issues that may arise from the operation of the Center at the selected location and to provide feedback to the contractor.
  • The City and the County will also develop evaluation criteria for the contractor prior to the opening of the Center, and will meet on a regular basis to evaluate the operations of the Center, the specific services provided, and the overall performance of the contractor.

One concern is that this document does not mention anything about an anti-solicitation ordinance, which the Day Labor Task Force felt was essential to a successful center. Such an ordinances generally prohibit solicitation of work except at the day labor center, and would be key to keeping ad-hoc pick-up sites from springing up elsewhere in the City. The document also dances around the CASA de Maryland issue, which is likely to continue to be contentious, with the County remaining a major supporter of CASA, while there is strong anti-CASA sentiment within the City.

There’s a lot to think about in there, and I’d highly recommend that everyone with any interest in this issue grab a copy of the documents and read them through. I’ll update this item as I have more information. Please feel free to leave comments on this topic below.

Update: these documents are now available on the City’s website.