gaithersblog.net

The next chapter in the budget crisis story will be played out tomorrow night, at a special session of the Mayor and City Council; the agenda is inserted at the end of this post. [Note that this agenda also includes the two items originally scheduled for that evening, a kick-off for the Kentlands Charrette, and the presentation of the concept plan for the new Olde Towne Youth Center, which, sadly, I’ll be giving short shrift.] The agenda includes a link to a PDF Background document, explaining more or less what they have in mind:

TITLE:

Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer Funds from the FY 2007 Capital Improvements Plan Fund Balance in Order to Allow for the Provision of City Services in the Absence of an Adopted and Ratified FY 2008 Budget.

SUPPORTING BACKGROUND:

The possibility exists that the FY 2008 budget may not be adopted and ratified by July 1, 2007. This would have the effect of causing all of the services provided by the City to cease.

The City Charter requires that we operate with a budget, allows for a veto and override, but does not provide a mechanism for operating if no override occurs. We believe that paragraph 47 of section 19 of the Charter provides the Council with sufficiently broad powers to allow for the plan anticipated by this resolution.

The attached resolution authorizes the City Manager to transfer a portion of the current Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) balance to fund operations. It would require approximately $3.25 million to fund the operating budget for the month of July. We are recommending that an additional $500,000 be authorized to account for unforeseen expenses. The total requested authorization would be $3.75 million. A series of purchase orders would subsequently be created to pay for the various categories of expenses.

These funds would be taken from the CIP #03-1 (Gaithersburg Aquatic/Recreation Center) and would be restored to that account after a budget is ratified. If a City budget is adopted and ratified by July 1, 2007, this Resolution would have no force and effect.

DESIRED OUTCOME:

Vote on Resolution.

So basically, they are proposing to take money they have sitting in the bank — money that they had previously earmarked for a specific capital project — and free it up so that they can use it to pay their bills over the next month. This, of course, raises all manner of questions. For example

• How they are going to get three votes to pass this resolution; this is designed specifically to deal with the consequences of the Mayor’s veto of a budget that is supported by three council members — why would any of them agree to subject themselves to another month of arm-twisting?
• Whence the authority will come to spend this money on specific items; they still will not have a budget — will the next month be a spending free-for-all?

The cited authority for this action is the Charter, Section 19 Paragraph 47, which states:

In addition to all powers granted to the council by this Charter or any other provision of law, the council may exercise any power or perform any function which is not now or hereafter denied to it by the Constitution of Maryland, this Charter, or any applicable law passed by the General Assembly of Maryland. The enumeration of powers and functions in this Charter or elsewhere shall not be deemed to limit the power and authority granted by this paragraph.

In other words, they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as it isn’t prohibited by the Charter or some other law. Note also that the proposed action is a resolution, not an ordinance, so it isn’t subject to the extensive notice requirements (public hearing advertised in the paper ten days in advance) required for ordinances. So the main open question here is, of course, whether what they are doing here is prohibited by some other law. The last thing I am is a legal expert, but I do note the following in the City Charter, Section 42:

No public money may be expended without having been appropriated by the council. From the effective date of the budget, the several amounts stated therein as proposed expenditures shall be and become appropriated to the several objects and purposes named therein. The council shall have the power, after the adoption of the budget, to approve transfers of funds from one purpose to another.

In this case, of course, they don’t have an FY08 budget, and this resolution cannot be considered a budget because a budget can only be adopted as an ordinance. I did not immediately see in the Charter any other mechanism for directly “appropriating” funds. Now, Section 44 of the Charter says:

All appropriations for operating expenses shall lapse at the end of the budget year to the extent that they shall not have been expended or lawfully encumbered. All appropriations for capital expenditures, to the extent that they shall not have been expended or lawfully encumbered at the end of the budget year, shall be deemed to be re-appropriated without inclusion in the budget for the subsequent year unless the council shall specifically provide that such appropriations are not re-appropriated. Any unexpended and unencumbered appropriations for operating expenses shall be considered surplus at the end of the budget year for which they were appropriated and shall be included among the anticipated revenue for the next succeeding budget year.

So it appears that capital appropriations generally carry forward from year to year unless specifically terminated by the Council. Thus, money left sitting in the FY07 swimming pool budget might be considered as “appropriated” in FY08, despite there being no FY08 budget. Put together with the authority in section 42 to transfer appropriated funds from one purpose to another, this might allow them to use that money for other purposes in FY08. However, note that Section 42 says that this power to transfer funds from one purpose to another is obtained by the Council after adoption of the budget. And I’m guessing that they don’t mean the adoption of some previous year’s budget. Also note that, in the resolution below, they are proposing to transfer FY07 money, not FY08 money. From what I see in the charter, these CIP funds will automatically become appropriated FY08 funds as long as they leave it right there in the CIP until the end of FY07. But if they transfer it to the operating budget in FY07, this carry-over won’t happen; and they’re not saying here wither they are transferring it. Certainly they can’t transfer it to an FY08 budget, because they don’t have one. I would think that they would want to transfer that money in FY08, once the CIP funds get to the other side of the fiscal year boundary. And anyway, none of this explains what is the legal receptacle in FY08 for the funds that they will transfer out of the CIP, in whatever year. I guess I’m just not understanding something about how this resolution is supposed to work.

Anway, here is the text of the proposed resolution:

RESOLUTION No. ___________

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE FY 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FUND BALANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE PROVISION OF CITY SERVICES IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADOPTED AND RATIFIED FY 2008 BUDGET

WHEREAS, the City of Gaithersburg FY 2008 budget may not be adopted and ratified by July 1, 2007; and,

WHEREAS, the absence of a budget would cause the services provided by the City to cease; and,

WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to transfer funds from the current balance of Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) account number 03-1 (Gaithersburg Aquatic/Recreation Center) to allow for the provision of City services; and,

WHEREAS, such services will be provided using the transferred funds for a maximum of 31 days or until an FY 2008 budget is adopted and ratified, whichever is earlier; and,

WHEREAS, the funds transferred from CIP 03-1 will be restored in due course during FY 2008:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is immediately authorized to transfer up to $3.75 million from the FY 2007 Capital Improvements Plan fund balance in order to allow for the provision of City services in the absence of an adopted and ratified FY 2008 budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if a City budget is adopted and ratified by July 1, 2007, this Resolution shall be of no force and effect.

ADOPTED by the City Council on this 21st day of June, 2007.

_____________________________

SIDNEY A. KATZ, Mayor and

President of the Council

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the foregoing
Resolution was adopted by the City Council
in public meeting assembled on the 21st day
of June, 2007.
____________________________
David B. Humpton, City Manager

And following is the meeting agenda:

Agenda - Special Meeting and Joint Work Session, 6/21/2007
Posted 6/18/2007

City of Gaithersburg
AGENDA FOR A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Thursday, June 21, 2007
7:30 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. DISCUSSIONS

• FY 2008 Budget
• Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer Funds from the FY 2007 Capital Improvements Plan Fund Balance in Order to Allow for the Provision of City Services in the Absence of an Adopted and Ratified FY 2008 Budget (if necessary)
  Background Material (pdf file)

III. ADJOURNMENT

Immediately following the special meeting, the scheduled joint work session of the Mayor and City Council and Planning Commission will be held to discuss the following topics:

• Introduction of Architect and Overview of the Kentlands Boulevard Commercial District Community Outreach Activities Charrette Schedule
  Background Material (pdf file)

• Concept Plan for the New Youth Center in Olde Towne
  Background Material (pdf file - 3M)

• Chris Robinson writes, City faces shutdown as veto looms:
  

  A divided City Council on Monday night approved a $50.6 million budget for fiscal 2008, but the mayor is threatening a veto. At issue is $250,000 to assist tenants displaced by redevelopment projects.

  A special meeting of the mayor and council has been called for Thursday night to try and avert the crisis, which could mean no funding for necessities such as police and trash collection services, as well as no means to levy taxes, City Manager David B. Humpton said Tuesday.

  See also my previous posts regarding this issue.

• Chris Robinson’s City Notes column includes a note, Talbott House appeal fails:
  

  A Circuit Court judge last week upheld a Gaithersburg Historic District Commission decision that prevents demolition of the historic Talbott House.

  Hamza Halici, owner of the half-acre property and 85-year-old building at 309 N. Frederick Ave., where he operates the Hair Bar salon, had appealed a Jan. 2 ruling by the commission that narrowly rejected his second request to raze the structure.

  Halici said Tuesday that he was surprised with Judge Robert A. Greenberg’s ruling. He plans to appeal further.

  ‘‘I’m going to fight this all the way, it’s never going to end,” he said, adding that he has buyers interested in the property.

  Halici bought the property in 1989, and soon after applied for and received historic designation for the two-story bungalow. He has said he didn’t understand the full implications of applying for historical designation.

  In 2003, the city granted a permit to demolish the house, but it expired before work was performed. The Historic District Commission denied a second permit based on what they said was a lack of proof demonstrating ‘‘economic hardship.”

  I’ve posted about this issue several times in the past. One important aspect of this case that the Gazette has left out is that Mr. Halici’s suit claimed that the Historic District Commission was improperly formed. Since the HDC was created, the only members of that commission have been Mayors and City Council members, while the guidelines for Historic District Commissions generally require the members show a demonstrated interest some area related to historic preservation. The court appears to have rejected this argument. This is the second time this issue has come before a court, and the second time the argument has been rejected.

• Chris Robinson writes, Chief King takes his oath:
  

  New Gaithersburg Police Chief John King was officially sworn in during the regular mayor and City Council meeting Monday night.

• Chris Robinson writes, Candidate to oversee aquatic center has ties to Gaithersburg:
  

  The City Council on May 21 unanimously and without comment approved a three-year, $140,000-a-year contract with Edward Mandley, the current general services director for the City of Alexandria. The council did not consider other candidates for the consulting contract, which is responsible for construction quality management and Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design certification for the planned $25 million Aquatic and Recreation Center.

  Mandley, 57, of Bethesda, said he became aware of the contract position through Pete Geiling, a former employee who is now Gaithersburg’s director of facilities and capital projects.

• Sebastian Montes writes, Anti-solicitation law delayed until September:
  

  City leaders on Monday night formally approved delaying enforcement of Gaithersburg’s controversial anti-solicitation ordinance until Sept. 1 to give Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler time to weigh in on the law’s constitutionality.

• Peggy Vaughn writes, Heritage Days serves up 35 flavors — of history, that is:
  

  The countywide event celebrates a diverse heritage with suitably diverse events, from a hike along the Underground Railroad route in Sandy Spring to a spelling bee at a restored Victorian-era schoolhouse.

  ‘‘We want to draw attention to our heritage, to the historic sites that have played a vital role in our county,” said Cathie Titus, deputy director of the Heritage Tourism Alliance, a nonprofit that promotes enjoyment of the county’s past in association with the business community.

• Sebastian Montes writes, Suspect sought in rape of 16-year-old in Gaithersburg:
  

  A 16-year-old girl was robbed then raped at knifepoint late Thursday night in the Flower Hill neighborhood of Gaithersburg.

• Chris Robinson writes, Rabid bat found in Gaithersburg condo:
  

  A bat found last week in the 400 block of Christopher Avenue, just off Route 355 in north Gaithersburg, tested positive for rabies.

• Chris Robinson writes, World Market veterans applaud program:
  

  Now, as the program — which aims to arm area entrepreneurs with the business savvy to succeed — ramps up for its second year of offerings this September, several vendors featured last year say they’ve seen results of its free business training and in helping boost exposure of their companies.

  Since setting up a booth at World Market for his company, Hands-Off Art, Germantown resident Matthew Roth said he’s seen the reception grow for his works.

• Chris Robinson writes, Nonprofit celebrates family:
  

  Hundreds of families from around the state visited Bohrer Park in Gaithersburg on Saturday for the third annual Musiganza, a free community-based family fun day hosted by The Family Services Agency Inc.

• Sebastian Montes writes, Library users lay out their renovation wish list:
  

  Call it a renovation of the renovation plans. But before going forward with long-delayed plans to renovate the Gaithersburg Library, county planners took a moment to step back last week and give library patrons a chance to weigh in.

• Chris Robinson writes, Seniors to keep affordable homes:
  

  A housing authority that serves Montgomery County this week celebrated the purchase of a 175-unit Gaithersburg apartment complex that will now be able to retain subsidies for its low-income senior tenants.

From the City’s website:

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 6/20/2007
Posted 6/8/2007

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA*
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

June 6, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting
Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Z-304 – Fairfield Broadstone, LP
Request to rezone 14.157 acres of land, currently known as Parcel A, Lots N-943, N-994, N-888, and N-939, the Broadstone Apartments, located at the Md. Rte. 355/West Deer Park Road intersection, Gaithersburg, Maryland, from the existing R-20 (Medium Density Residential) Zone to the CD (Corridor Development) Zone, in accordance with § 24-196 (map amendments) and § 24-160G.6 (procedure for application and approval) of the City of Gaithersburg Code
Note: no additional testimony will be taken at this time.

and
SDP-06-004 – Fairfield Broadstone, LP
Request for approval of the schematic development plan (SDP) known as Parcel A, Lots N-943, N-994, N-888, and N-939, the Broadstone Apartments, located at the Md. Rte. 355/West Deer Park Road intersection, Gaithersburg, Maryland. The proposed plan includes 334 multi-family units, 53 townhouses, and 28 two-over-two units.
Note: no additional testimony will be taken at this time.
Background Material Part I (pdf format)

Background Material Part II

SITE PLANS

CSP-07-001 – GE Technology Park

I-3 Zone
100 Edison Park Drive

Three Office/Warehouse Buildings
CONCEPT PLAN
Background Material (pdf format - 4.3M)

AFP-07-016 – Seneca Center II
E-1 Zone

18753 N. Frederick Avenue
Revise Parking Lot Layout
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN
Background Material (pdf format)

FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN

PI-V 060023 – Crown Farm
MXD Zone
Fields Road
FINAL FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN AND

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Background Material (pdf format - 7.5M)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

PLEASE NOTE:

* THE ITEMS AND PERTINENT INFORMATION ON THIS AGENDA ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

From the County’s website:

• The rape occurred at 133 Water Street on Saturday 6/9 at 2215 hours. The victim met the suspect on a bus and after they went to a restaurant, returned to the suspect’s residence, where he forced intercourse. Officers from Major Crimes went to the suspect’s residence and talked to two h/M’s but no further information was indicated in the report. Investigation is continuing.

  Suspect: H/M, 25-35 yrs. old, 5’7”-5’8”/165-175 lbs

  Water Street is near West Diamond & Muddy Branch.

• An aggravated assault occurred at Water Street & Mills Road on Thursday 6/7 at 1613 hours. The adult victim was chased by the suspect from the above location to her residence on Water Street. The suspect never said anything and when he caught up to her, he attempted to conceal a knife in his shirt. When she fled, he displayed the knife but again said nothing.

  Suspect: B/M, 17 yrs. old, 5’8”-130-145 lbs., thin build, red bandana, black long-sleeved shirt

• The aggravated assault at Washingtonian Boulevard and Rio Boulevard occurred on Thursday 6/7 at 2120 hours following a traffic dispute between the suspect and the victim. There are discrepancies in the victim’s story and what a witness saw.

• There were three robberies on Sunday 6/10 that each involved multiple suspects. Below are just the events that occurred during the time frame of this report. Prior robberies in this area were detailed in last week’s Summary; refer also to the most recent alert issued, CAS # 07-490.

  FRI 6/8 165 hours	13 E. Diamond Avenue Roni Rodriguez arrested, knife used (has been in jail since)
  SUN 6/10 2021 hours	1 N. Summit Drive (M07-031543) Five B/M’s, one was 5’8”-5’9”, 130-140 lbs., muscular, white tank top, jeans W/M club/sticks & knife used
  SUN 6/10 2121 hours	211 N. Frederick Avenue, 7-11 (M07-031548) B/M, 5’5-5’10”, green ‘reggae’ hat, tan shirt over a black shirt B/M, beard, white fisherman hat, long-sleeved black shirt & pants silver gun used
  SUN 6/10 2328 hours	109 E Diamond Ave (M07-031558) ‘Big Head’, H/M, 5’4”, scar on the right side of his face,baseball cap, red T-shirt,black pants B/M, corn rowed hair, thin, black pants, Timberland boots Unknown race M, white shirt, black pants Vehicle: red Toyota Tacoma

• A sex assault occurred in a field behind the 18300 Lost Knife Road on Monday 6/11 at 1630 hours. The adult female victim was walking when the suspect joined her and attempted to start a conversation. The suspect only spoke English and the victim only speaks Spanish, so it is unknown what he was saying. He grabbed her buttocks and when she said she would call the police, he walked off towards Mid-County Highway. The victim waited an hour to report the incident.

  Suspect: B/M, 20-30 lbs., grey baseball cap, white T-shirt, blue jean shorts

• MCP SID obtained information that a suspect was keeping guns in his vehicle. They stopped the vehicle at S. Frederick Avenue & Game Preserve Road on Wednesday 6/6 at 1512 hours and found a loaded .25 gun and a loaded .38 revolver in a rear compartment. The suspect also had a small amount of cocaine and $1002 on him.

  Defendant: Gary Wade, B/M, 47 yrs. old, 6’3”/200 lbs., of 19405 Frederick Road

  To my knowledge, Game Preserve Road crosses North Frederick, not South Frederick, so that address may be a typo.

• There were at least 5 victims of theft from vehicle in the 9700-block of Washingtonian Boulevard between Thursday 6/7 and Friday 6/8. An officer responded to 9721, and said there were three other vehicles in the lot with their windows broken. He was unable to contact the owners and left notes on the vehicles to contact the police; the final victim was at 9715 Washingtonian Boulevard. For the two thefts where contact was made, stereo equipment was known to be taken.

• There were four thefts from vehicles on the night of Sunday 6/10 to Monday 6/11 on Coral Reef Drive. All had a rear window or a rear vent window broken.

  • 2030-0530 hrs. Coral Reef Drive Auto Stereo taken.
  • 2030-0745 hrs. Coral Reef Drive Nothing taken.
  • 2000-1000 hrs. Coral Reef Drive Took loose items, attempted to take stereo.
  • 0100-0700 hrs. Coral Reef Drive Nothing taken.

  Coral Reef Drive is near Muddy Branch, south of West Side Drive.

• […]Ten of the thefts from vehicles in the beat occurred between 2130 hours on Sunday 6/10 and 0630 hours Monday 6/11. The vehicles were either left unlocked or had ‘unknown entry’ noted. One victim on Hayshire Court reported seeing her vehicle light on between 0100 and 0300 hours. She closed her door but did not realize the theft occurred until later that morning. Only loose items from the vehicles were taken. The map [below] shows the events.
  

  Hayshire Court is a cul-de-sac northwest of the intersection of Quince Orchard and MD28 (Darnstown Rd). The map above is taken from the County’s web page, and it’s pretty hard to read (they appear to have changed from posting PDF output — which could be zoomed in so you could read the graphics — to posting an HTML page with a static map.) Below is a Google map of the same area.

  Center of map

• An indecent exposure occurred in the 700 block of Clopper Road on Tuesday 6/5 at 2300 hours. The suspect stepped out of his apartment, unzipped his shorts and exposed his penis to the adult female victim. The suspect made a sexual gesture while staring at the victim. The victim told officers that the suspect had exposed himself to her three times in the last week and at least ten times since the victim had moved in (unknown when). Officers went to his apartment and noted that his pants were unzipped. Officers are going to obtain charges.

• There were three thefts from vehicles on Thursday 6/7 at 0135 hours. The first victim’s motion sensor light came on and woke the victim up. She saw the suspects looking in various vehicles and trying the doors. The suspects saw the victim watching them and they went up the foot path towards Christopher Avenue. The second victim checked her vehicle after the alarm went off. Two victims had left the doors unlocked and the third was noted as ‘unknown entry’. Only loose property was taken.

  • 1500 block of Tanyard Hill Road
  • 1900 block of Windjammer Way
  • 1400 block of Wake Forest Drive

  Suspect: B/M, 5’7”-6’, black baseball cap, grey sweater

  Suspect: W/M, 5’7”-6’, red baseball cap on backwards, grey hooded sweatshirt

  Suspect: unknown race M, 5’7”-6’, grey hooded sweatshirt

  Those addresses are all off of Travis Avenue, east of Watkins Mill.

• Officers responded to a dental office at 101 Lakeforest Boulevard on Wednesday 6/6. The employees said that the suspects came into the office between 1100 and 1210 hours and claimed they were from Verizon. They asked questions about the phone bills and wanted to see them. An employee contacted Verizon who said they had no one working in the area. When pressed to show ID’s, the subjects refused and then left.

  Subjects: two W/M’s, both 24-28 yrs. old, one 5’5”-5’6”/150-170 lbs, both in two-piece suits

• A residential burglary occurred on Edgewood Drive on Thursday 6/7 at 1500 hours. An occupant of the residence heard a voice in the living room and found the suspect talking to the family dog. The witness only speaks Romanian and yelled at the suspect. The suspect threw an envelope on the floor and fled. The envelope belonged to a neighbor who denied knowledge of the suspect.

  Suspect: H/F, 5’4”-5’5”, heavy build, NFD

  Edgewood is south of West Deer Park, near Rosemont Elementary.

• An indecent exposure occurred in the area of S. Summit Avenue on Monday 6/11 at 2105 hours. A Gaithersburg City officer called out with it and arrested the suspect nearby. No report has been turned in yet; information is via the CAD.

  Defendant: Cesar Beltran, H/M, 29 yrs. old, 5’5”/140 lbs.

• Both of the residential burglaries occurred during the daytime hours on Wednesday 6/6; both locations are fairly close to each other and each site was ransacked.

  • 0830-1240 hrs. 19000 block of Sedley Terrace Entry via an unlocked side garage door. The unknown suspect crawled through the victim’s vehicle inside to get to the unlocked door to the residence. All the rooms were ransacked but at this time it is unknown what was taken.
  • 0730-1930 hrs. 18800 block of Cross Country Lane A rear basement door was kicked in and multiple rooms were ransacked. Only a large amount of jewelry was taken.

  Those addresses are near Centerway and Snouffers School Road.

• Gang-related graffiti was found at the Recreation Center, 8100 Mountain Laurel Lane, on Tuesday 6/5. Blue paint was used to write “WSM West Side” and unknown symbols and words.

  Mountain Laurel Lane is off Flower Hill Way, opposite Snouffers School from the Airpark.

From the City’s website:

At the Mayor and City Council Meeting on June 18, 2007, the City Council, by a three to two vote, approved the FY 2008 budget for the City of Gaithersburg. Mayor Sidney Katz stated that he is considering a veto of the budget. At issue is the amount of funding set aside in a line item for a homeownership assistance program.

The Mayor has called for a special meeting of the Mayor and City Council on Thursday, June 21 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers to continue discussions on the FY 08 budget. The posted work session scheduled for June 21 will take place afterwards.

The Gaithersburg Charter provides that the budget must be adopted by ordinance and be approved by the majority of those Council members present and voting. The Mayor then has seven days to sign the ordinance, not sign the ordinance, or veto the ordinance. The Council may override the Mayor’s veto, but must do so with a favorable vote of four Council members, and they must do so within 35 days of the veto.

The Charter requires the adoption of a budget, requires that the City operate on an annual budget, states that the budget shall be prepared and adopted in the form of an ordinance, and states that no public money can be expended without having been appropriated by the Council. There is no provision in the Charter for a continuing resolution to allow the City to operate on an extension of the current budget year. Fiscal year 2008 begins on July 1, 2007.

It is my sincere hope that the Mayor and City Council can reach an agreement during the June 21 meeting to put an FY 08 budget in to place. However, City staff and I are exploring every opportunity and mechanism and are working to develop the necessary documents that might allow the government to continue with minimal disruption to City residents should no agreement be reached.

Still no word, of course, on what is really going on that justifies this sort of risk-taking.

In last night’s meeting, the Mayor and Council continued to spar over the budget. In a continuation of the dispute at last week’s work session, Council members Sesma, Marraffa and Schlichting continued to support the addition of $250,000 to the home ownership assistance program, voting to approve the budget which included this provision. Council members Edens and Alster voted against this version of this budget, insisting, among other things, that the $250,000 funding level is arbitrary and unsupported by a dedicated funding source, and unlikely to be needed in its entirety in FY2008. They also were concerned about the impact of taking these funds out of the contingency budget and that the program they were funding had not yet been fully defined. (*)

While all this might be true, much of it is also true of many other budget line items. The contingency budget, for example, is more or less by definition arbitrary. Projects often need to be funded before they can be fully fleshed out. Many City programs run at a loss, and have no funding sources other than taxes, or are unable to recover all their costs through user fees. They are committing us to an aquatic center which will perpetually run at an operating loss projected to be in the million dollar range. They set aside money in the operating budget to purchase furniture, software and vehicles in future years. In the discussion, it was pointed out — on both sides of the argument — that how much they put (or don’t put) in this line item at this point isn’t all that big a problem, as they can always move it later in the year. This is certainly true; for example, money that was in last year’s CIP for improving West Diamond Avenue was spent on a consultant — the Staubach Company — to help market two City-owned properties in Olde Towne.

Thus, it seems to me that the fiscal standard the dissenters are attempting to apply to the home ownership program just doesn’t make sense in the context of the rest of the budget — which, as I suggested last week, just tells me that the overt argument is little more than a proxy for a covert argument that they don’t want us to know about.

The Mayor, who doesn’t have a vote in these matters, continued to threaten to veto the budget that the Council has now approved on a 3-2 vote. If the Mayor decides to veto this budget, there could easily be a stalemate. The Mayor’s veto will stand unless the Council can muster four votes to override. But with the Council members stubbornly split 3-2, these four votes will be hard to come by. However, if the Mayor vetoes, and the Council doesn’t override, the City will still not have a budget, which has to be in place by July 1 — less than two weeks from now — for the City to continue operations. It is my understanding that the City’s charter does not allow for a continuing resolution. In order to get out of this mess, they will need to have at least three Council members to vote for some new budget. But if the three who have voted for this budget refuse to vote for any budget that does not include the $250,000 for home ownership assistance, and the Mayor continues to insist on vetoing any budget that contains it, then the whole process will just seize up.

Following the public meeting tonight, the Mayor and Council went into executive session to receive legal advice from the City Attorney. It was disclosed that the City Attorney had prepared a “confidential” packet for the Mayor and Council, containing background on what the consequences of a veto might be; I expect that it contained all manner of doom and gloom over what, exactly, they would and wouldn’t be able to do if they had no money to spend. As a simple example, I would expect that they would have to cancel the 4th of July celebration, but at a more basic level it is open to question as to whether they will be able to carry out their public safety obligations, or even turn the lights on in City Hall. Council Member Sesma attempted to begin a conversation about the contents of those confidential packets, suggesting that the public should know what risks we face as a consequence of this standoff. Mr. Sesma asked the question of where facts left off and legal advice began, suggesting that they should at least be able to talk about the facts in open session. However, the City Attorney said that what was in the packets was a legal analysis of the facts, and it was not straightforward to separate the two. She said that during the executive session they could decide what to disclose to the public, and ultimately, I think having made the basic point that the public was not being fully informed here, Mr. Sesma let the matter drop.

The Mayor mentioned that it was his understanding that he had seven days to sign or veto the budget, but that he also understood that time was of the essence. On Thursday night, they had scheduled a joint work session with the Planning Commission to discuss the concept plan for the Olde Towne Youth Center, and to kick off the Kentlands commercial district charrette process. They will be adding to that schedule a special session to have further discussion about the budget, and it is unclear if they will be able to address all three items that evening.

I suggest that all Gaithersburg residents contact the Mayor and City Council in the next day or so to let them know that you expect them to walk away from this brinkmanship and come up with a budget before the deadline, or at least to come clean about what, exactly, they are really arguing about. Personally, I don’t even think it much matters which side of this argument — certainly at least the overt argument — you think is right, and which side you think is wrong. At this point some sort of compromise seems necessary.

(*) Moreover, they were uncertain that the program that has been in place since the approval of the West Deer Park redevelopment project was ideal; the West Deer Park project fell through, eliminating the expected funding source for the program, and only a very few tenants ultimately qualified for the assistance. The Mayor seemed also to be suggesting that he would prefer that this program be available more generally, rather than being tied to multi-family redevelopment projects.

From the City’s website. I expect that this remains unindicative of a trend.

Saturday, June 16, 2007
Armed Robbery
On 06/16/07, at 4:57 p.m., police responded for a report of an armed robbery that occurred in the 400 block of West Side Drive. The victim was walking when he was surrounded by five suspects. He was struck in the back and began to struggle with one of the suspects who pulled a gun from his waistband. The victim was able to get away when unrelated individuals started yelling for the suspects to stop. Investigation is ongoing.

Suspect #1 - Hispanic male, 5′ 06″, 175 lbs, 26 yrs of age, brown short curly hair slicked back, wearing blue shorts, blue t-shirt.
Suspect #2 - Hispanic male, 6′ 00″, 140 lbs, black short hair, wearing a blue t-shirt with “world” design on it and tan cargo pants.
Suspect #3 - Hispanic male, 6′ 00″, 150-160 lbs.
Suspect #4 - Hispanic male, wearing a white shirt.
Suspect #5 - Hispanic male, wearing a white shirt

On 06/16/07, at 2:50 p.m., police responded to the unit block of N Summit Drive for the report of a robbery. The victim was in the field between Gaithersburg Elementary School and Gaithersburg Middle School when he was approached by the suspect, who put a gun in the victim’s chest and stole his wallet. The victim then chased the suspect to the unit block of N Summit Drive. Investigation is ongoing.

Suspect #1 - Hispanic male, wearing a white t-shirt, blue jeans and armed with a handgun.

On 06/16/07, at 6:50 p.m., police responded to the 500 block of Summit Hall Road for the report of an attempted armed robbery. The victim advised she was followed by the suspect from the bus stop at W Deer Park Road and Route 355. The suspect approached the victim, shoved a knife into her stomach and demanded her purse. She stated that she had no money and he sexually assaulted her. He then apologized and walked away.

Suspect - Black male, 18-22 yrs of age, thin, 5′ 08″ - 6′ 00″, dark complexion, wearing a black baseball hat, white short sleeve t-shirt, black backpack with padded shoulders worn over both shoulders, black sweatpants, and dark colored shoes.

---

Friday, June 15, 2007
Sexual Assault
On 06/15/2007 at 2:30 pm victim was in unit block of West Diamond Avenue when suspect approached, displayed a knife and exposed himself. He sexually assaulted victim before fleeing scene on foot. Investigation to continue.

Suspect: Black male, approximately 18 years old, wearing white t-shirt, dark blue shorts and baseball hat

Significant Events
On 06/15/2007 at approximately 11:00 pm a vehicle struck a residence in the 500 block of Midsummer Drive and fled the scene. Driver and vehicle located. Investigation to continue.

I’ll try to update my map & incident counts later this evening.

Back in January, I linked to a Post story about the growing frustration over the dozens of day laborers congregating at the Home Depot on Rhode Island Avenue in the District. In Sunday’s Washington Post, there was another story about this situation, which does not appear to have been resolved.

In As Plan for D.C. Day-Laborer Center Idles, Anger Over Workers Grows, Post Staff Writer Yolanda Woodlee (who also wrote the January story) writes:

On one side of the barrier wall at the Home Depot in Northeast Washington, dozens of day laborers were sitting yesterday on a grassy hill, jumping up to beg for work every time a pickup truck approached.

On the other side were the residents who live in the modest working-class community in Ward 5. They are upset about the presence of the laborers, some saying the workers urinate on the wall, litter their streets or sleep under their porches.

I’ll let y’all read the bulk of the article on the Post’s website, but I will call attention to one particular quote:

George Escobar, of the D.C. Office on Latino Affairs, said the meetings have been productive, although he’d like to see more dialogue with the businesses. The officials had hoped to place portable toilets at the site, but the businesses rejected that.

“We’re trying to build bridges between two different communities, but it’s difficult when someone has private property,” Escobar said. “Every week, there seems to be breakthroughs, but then the next week you find there are still hurdles.”

Yeah, private property — obviously that’s the problem.

Two stories that I’ve mentioned before have been in the news again. First, Mamaroneck, NY. Last December, I wrote about a Federal Judge’s ruling against the town of Mamaroneck in a lawsuit brought by a half-dozen anonymous day laborers. At the time, Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the two parties to work out a settlement. This past week, after months of negotiations, that settlement was finally reached. Quoting Fernanda Santos in the New York Times:

Under the settlement, Mamaroneck will pay $550,000 in fees to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, bringing the total cost of the litigation to more than $1.2 million. In addition, the village agreed not to assign officers to patrol places where day laborers assemble, except to respond to complaints, and to post signs on nearby streets for a year directing workers and contractors to the church site.

Also,

Trustees accepted a court-mandated settlement forbidding police officers from asking such workers about their immigration status.

As part of the outcome of this case, an actual, indoor day laborer center is being provided — previously the laborers hung out along the street near a park.

This ruling is, to understate what I’ve seen, quite unappreciated by many who are opposed to illegal immigration. Judicial Watch, for example, characterized the situation like this:

A New York town will pay six illegal day laborers $550,000 and forbid its police department from checking suspects’ immigration status to settle a discrimination lawsuit that claims the men were harassed because they are Hispanic.

The case stems from a much-needed police crackdown on disruptive and violent loitering in a public park in Mamaroneck, a town of about 20,000 residents located some two dozen miles from New York City. Multiple complaints of hundreds of drunken men fighting, littering, urinating and defecating at the park’s makeshift day laborer hiring site led to police to shut it down.

Most of the comments posted on that page are filled with anger over the ruling and the settlement.

But there is one essential element to all of this that I don’t think can be ignored. To the extent that the facts laid out in Judge McMahon’s ruling (page 1 here) are correct, the town of Mamaroneck just went too far in its efforts to control or shut down the assembly of laborers. Quoting an article by Candice Ferrette in Sunday’s Journal-News:

Now that the case is nearly settled - with the village adopting an agreement prohibiting local police officers from asking the laborers’ immigration status, or patrolling the area where they gather - there’s more talk on how to manage large groups of men on public streets without sparking a legal battle.

“This was an important decision by a federal judge,” said Bennett L. Gershman, professor of constitutional law at Pace Law School. “The facts are critical. I don’t know that other communities would be as blatant and obvious about their discrimination, but we’re probably going to see a lot more of this type of litigation in the future if they are.”

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon’s 72-page decision, handed down in November, found the village had harassed day laborers by closing their former hiring site and increasing police patrols in the area where they gathered.

Testimony from one day laborer, who said a police officer stared at him with his hand on his gun, helped build their case, as did a comment made by a local official comparing the day laborers to locusts. The village, Gershman said, wouldn’t have stood a chance on an appeal.

My personal opinion is that the entire episode has been unfortunate and frustrating for just about everyone. I’m certainly unhappy about the extent to which the legal status of immigrants has come to mean almost nothing in this country. But at the same time, given the history of court rulings on these issues I don’t think that anyone should be surprised that the Judge would look on immigration status as largely irrelevant to this case — and if you take away the immigration status issue, all you’re left with is the approach that the Mamaroneck authorities took to deal with what may well have been disruptive and illegal activities by the day laborers. Then, when I read through the court ruling, even taking it with a grain of salt, I find it difficult to accept the authorities’ behavior — which was quite aggressive — as proper. And to tell the truth, I don’t think I’d find it proper even taking the immigration status into account.