gaithersblog.net

From the City’s website:

City Manager Position Available
Posted 4/4/2008

Alliance Resources Consulting, LLC has been hired by the City of Gaithersburg to conduct a national search for Gaithersburg’s next City Manager. The position has been vacant since the retirement of former City Manager Dave Humpton on October 26, 2007. The consultant has solicited input from the Mayor and Council, citizens and staff to define the ideal qualities and qualifications for the successful candidate. The position description and formal announcement of the job appear below.

Master’s degree in public or business administration (or related field) and a minimum of 10 years of managerial experience in a medium-to-large sized city, county, or comparable organization.  Gaithersburg is a CHARACTER COUNTS City and candidates must have high ethical standards and the integrity and courage to express their opinion and disagree when appropriate.  The person should be able to do what is right, not necessarily what is popular.

It is desirable that candidates have knowledge of community development, budgeting and financial management, planning, economic development and redevelopment (including mixed-use projects), public works, negotiation, intergovernmental relations, and community relations.

The City Manager is appointed by the City Council and is the chief administrative officer of the City, responsible for managing the City’s organization and administrative operations in accordance with policies and procedures set forth by the City Council.  Work is performed under the direction of the Mayor and City Council.  The City has over 250 full-time employees and an annual operating budget of $53 million.  The City Manager’s Office also oversees several special programs such as Environmental Affairs, Economic Development, Human Services, and the Public Information Office.

Salary Range: $117,804 - $186,191 (Grade 146) (Depending on Qualifications)

Generous benefits package including retirement plans and health, dental, life, and long-term care insurance.

Interested candidates may apply for this position and obtain additional information at http://www.allianceresourceconsulting.com/Public/jobprofile.aspx?pid=357

Confidential questions, inquiries, and nominations may be directed to:
Eric J. Middleton, Managing Partner
emiddleton@alliancerc.com
Alliance Resource Consulting LLC

1940 Duke Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, VA  22314
703.684.3120 (Telephone)
703.548.9446 (Fax)            

From the City’s website:

Public Invited to Provide Input on City Manager Search
Posted 2/21/2008

A representative of Alliance Resources Consulting LLC, the firm hired to assist Gaithersburg in its search for a new City Manager, is seeking input from the public at a Community Open House on Thursday, February 28 from 6 to 8 p.m. in the City Hall Gallery, 31 South Summit Avenue in Olde Towne Gaithersburg.

Mr. Eric Middleton of Alliance Resources will host the event, and would like to hear suggestions from residents, businesses and organizations as to the ideal qualities and qualifications for the next City Manager.  Please note that the Open House will not be televised.

 With input from elected officials, staff and a broad cross section of the community, Alliance Resources will then conduct a national search, with the entire process expected to take approximately six months.

David B. Humpton retired on October 26, 2007 after twenty two and a half years of service to Gaithersburg, serving as City Manager since 1995.  James D. Arnoult, Director of the Department of Public Works, Parks Maintenance and Engineering, has been Acting City Manager since Mr. Humpton’s departure.

For more information please contact Sarah Paxton, Executive Assistant to the Acting City Manager, at 301-258-6310, or cityhall@gaithersburgmd.gov.

From the City’s website:

Gaithersburg Mayor and Council Begin Search for City Manager
Posted 12/7/2007

The Gaithersburg Mayor and City Council have authorized City staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) from executive search consultants as the first step in the process of selecting a new City Manager. The proposals are due December 14, 2007.

David B. Humpton retired on October 26, 2007 after twenty two and a half years of service to Gaithersburg, serving as City Manager since 1995. James D. Arnoult, Director of the Department of Public Works, Parks Maintenance and Engineering, has been appointed Acting City Manager.

It is anticipated that the Mayor and Council will award the consulting contract in early January. The consultant will then solicit input from the Mayor and Council, citizens and staff to define the ideal qualities and qualifications for the next City Manager. A national search will be conducted, with the consultant helping to identify the top candidates. The process is expected to take approximately six months.

To aid the Mayor and Council through this complex process, Gaithersburg has tapped in to the “Range Rider” program, administered by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Range Riders, typically retired, are respected local government managers who help jurisdictions by serving as advisors on such topics as staff reorganization, council relations and senior staff searches. Gaithersburg’s Range Rider will help the Mayor and Council and staff interface with the consultant and keep the process moving smoothly.

“Gaithersburg is a well-respected City offering outstanding quality of life opportunities,” said Mayor Sidney Katz. “We anticipate that we will attract many well-qualified candidates who will want to help us maintain and enhance our reputation as a great place to live, work, learn and play.”

For additional information please contact the City Manager’s Office at 301-258-6310 or cityhall@gaithersburgmd.gov.

In the Mayor and Council Meeting last night, the Mayor and Council appointed Public Works Director Jim Arnoult to take the role of City Manager between the departure of David Humpton and the hiring of a new, permanent City Manager. Mr. Arnoult was selected in part because he has stated that he will not be a candidate for the position. Mr. Arnoult is a respected manager, and I’m confident that the City will be in good hands during this period of transition.

Note that there will be a brief special meeting of the Mayor and Council at 6:30 pm, for the sole purpose of authorizing a closed executive session, which will be held prior to the regular meeting, which will be held at the regular time of 7:30 pm. The purpose of the closed executive session will be to reach agreement on who to appoint to be Acting City Manager until a new City Manager can be hired. It appears that the new Acting City Manager will be appointed during the regular meeting.

Agenda - Mayor and City Council Meeting, 10/15/2007
Posted 10/12/2007

City of Gaithersburg
AGENDA FOR A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2007, 7:30 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. INVOCATION

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council Held September 17, 2007
Background Material (pdf format)

V. CONSENT ITEM
(resolutions for approval by the City Council that do not need discussion)

Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Contract to Purchase One (1) 2008 Pick Up Truck With Snow Plow ($24,367)
Background Material (pdf format)

VI. APPOINTMENT

Resolution of the City Council Appointing an Acting City Manager for the City of Gaithersburg
Background Material (pdf format)

VII. PRESENTATIONS

1. Proclamation of the Mayor and City Council Designating October 21-27, 2007, as “National CHARACTER COUNTS! Week” in the City of Gaithersburg
2. Fiscal Year 2008 1st Quarter Financial Results
   Background Material (pdf format)

VIII. PUBLIC APPEARANCES

(public is invited to speak on any subject that is not a public hearing topic on tonight’s agenda – each speaker three minutes)

IX. FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL/ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Upcoming City Events

X. FROM THE CITY MANAGER

XI. PUBLIC HEARING

AB-57 - An Ordinance to Abandon 6,509 Square Feet of Existing Land Area Adjacent to Parcel P-936, East of North Summit Avenue; 3,851 Square Feet for Land Area Abutting the Southern Boundary of Gaithersburg Elementary School; and 7,044 Square Feet of Land Previously Dedicated for a 25-Foot Public Alley Adjacent to Lot J, East Diamond Avenue, in the City of Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, Maryland

Background Material (pdf format)

XII. RECESS MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING

---

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of Minutes

• Minutes of a Historic District Commission Meeting Held October 1, 2007
  Background Material (pdf format)

3. Policy Discussion

• Applicant: Archstone-Smith, 320, 402 and 408 East Diamond Avenue, Demolition Permit
  Background Material (pdf format 6.7M)

4. Adjournment

---

XII. RECONVENE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING

XIII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND REGULATIONS
(ordinances, resolutions, and regulations to be introduced or adopted following appropriate procedures required by the City Code, or resolutions that may require discussion by the Mayor and Council prior to approval)

1. An Ordinance to Amend and Adopt the City Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, to Comply With GASB 45 Funding (Ready for Final Action)
   Background Material (pdf format)

2. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 5 of the City Code Entitled “Buildings,” to Include in Article II, Entitled “The International Residential Code (2003),” a New Section R326 “Gaithersburg Green Residential Criteria” (Ready for Final Action)

   Background Material (pdf format)

3. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Changing the Effective Date of Ordinance O-7-07 (anti solicitation) Adopting Section 15-9, and Providing for Future Changes to the Effective Date by Resolution
   Background Material (pdf format)

4. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Montgomery County Public Schools on Obtaining Property for the Extension of Teacher’s Way
   Background Material (pdf format)

5. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Requesting That the Maryland Department of Transportation Include an Analysis of the Kentlands Alignment of the Corridor Cities Transitway in the Environmental Assessment of the I-270/US 15 Multi Modal Corridor Study so the Kentlands Alignment can be Considered When the Locally Preferred Alternative is Selected
   TBA - Background Material (pdf format)
   
6. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council Awarding Matching Grants to Relda Square Homeowners Association and Kentlands Condominiums II ($3,500)
   Background Material (pdf format)

XIV. POLICY DISCUSSION AND STAFF GUIDANCE

1. T- 381, An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 24 of the City Code (City Zoning Ordinance), Article III, Division 22, §24-160G.5, Entitled “Waiver of Development Standards” so as to Amend §24-160G.5(a) so that the City Council May, by Resolution, Waive the Building and Structure Height Requirements in Any District in the Corridor Development Zone (CD Zone) as Follows: for a Commercial District to Allow a Height Not to Exceed Five (5) Stories, or Sixty (60) Feet (Ready for Final Action)
   Background Material (pdf format)

2. T-382, An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 24 of the City Code (City Zoning Ordinance), Article III, “Regulations Applicable to particular Zones,” Division 15,  “I-3, Industrial and Office Park,” §24-143, “Uses Permitted by Right,” to Add New §§ 24-143(12) and 24-143(13), so as to allow Full Service and Limited Service Hotels as Permitted Uses in the I‑3 Zone if Certain Conditions are Met (Ready for Final Action)

   Background Material (pdf format)

3. Z-306, Amendment to the Sketch Plan for the Humane Society (HSUS) Property, Requesting up to 300,000 Square Feet of Office Development in Structures Between 6 and 12 Stories and up to 250-300 Residential Units. The Subject Property Contains 10.5 Acres of Land and is Located East of I-270, South of the Existing Terminus of Professional Drive, and West of MD Route 355, North Frederick Avenue, in the Mixed Use Development (MXD) Zone (Ready for Final Action)
   Background Material (pdf format)

XV. FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, CITY ATTORNEY AND OTHER STAFF

XVI. ADJOURNMENT

---

ANNOUNCEMENT

Notice to the general public is hereby given
that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Gaithersburg
will not conduct work sessions on Monday, October 22 and 29, 2007.

---

THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

WILL BE HELD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007, 2007, 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 31 SOUTH SUMMIT AVENUE

---

UPCOMING COUNCIL MEETING AND WORK SESSION ITEMS
This list is not all-inclusive, and does not reflect priorities or scheduling
But is intended to provide a glance at future items to come before the City Council.

Nov. 7 Meeting:

Oath of Office - Newly Elected City Officials

From the City’s website:

On September 14, 2007 Gaithersburg City Manager David B. Humpton announced his retirement, effective April 1, 2008. Humpton has worked for the City of Gaithersburg for more than 22 years, serving as its City Manager since 1995.

“It has been an honor to serve the residents of Gaithersburg and to work with a dedicated staff to implement the goals, policies and programs of the Mayor and Council for the past two decades,” said Humpton. “I am proud of my accomplishments with the City and I know that the opportunities afforded me here will serve me well into the future.”

With a Bachelor’s Degree from Wake Forest University and a Master’s in Public Administration from American University, Humpton began his employment with the City of Gaithersburg as an intern in 1986. He served as Deputy City Manager from 1990 to 1995 and was appointed City Manager on February 6, 1995.

“This community has witnessed tremendous growth in population and diversity in the past twenty years,” said Gaithersburg Mayor Sidney Katz. “With a well-deserved reputation for team building and collaboration, Dave has skillfully guided us through some significant changes. We are definitely a stronger community because of his efforts”

Among Humpton’s accomplishments are enhanced inter-governmental relationships that have broadened the City’s revenue sources, the creation of a strategic planning process that has helped develop long term goals for the City, and the revamping of the budget process to streamline decision-making. In 2004 he was presented with the Distinguished Leadership Award from the Community Leadership Association.

Humpton has helped manage many significant development projects in the past 22 years, including the Kentlands and Lakelands communities, the Washingtonian Center and revitalization efforts in Olde Towne.

A number of capital projects have also come on line during his leadership, including the Activity Center at Bohrer Park, the Diamond Square Apartments/UpCounty Senior Center, the Arts Barn, and the City’s first green building, the Youth Center at Robertson Park.

During his tenure the City has won multiple awards for livability, economic development initiatives, budgeting and accounting, communications, and recreation services.

At their regular meeting on Monday, September 17 the Mayor and City Council are expected to ratify an Employment Agreement that ensures a smooth and orderly transition and recognizes Humpton’s service to the City. The Agreement compensates Humpton for his services as City Manager until April 1, 2008, and requires at least 30 days’ notice should he announce his intentions to leave before that date.

“We think this agreement serves the best interests of all parties,” said Mayor Katz. “Dave has been an invaluable asset to this community, and we want to recognize his contributions while at the same time allowing him the flexibility to pursue new opportunities. We wish him nothing but the best.”

The City will hold a work session on Monday night to discuss the details of a home ownership assistance program. You may recall that a dispute, ostensibly over the funding of this program, nearly shut down the City government earlier this year. The following is text of the cover sheet to the background materials for the work session:

On July 9, 2007, the Mayor and City Council approved a rezoning application for the property at the intersection of MD 355 and West Deer Park Road, the site of Broadstone Apartments. As a result of the rezoning approval and planned redevelopment of the property, the Broadstone tenants will have 120 days to locate other housing, with final vacancy scheduled for November 15, 2007. In addition, it appears likely that the Archstone redevelopment project on East Diamond Avenue will move forward.

In light of the pending and potential redevelopment projects, this work session will focus on various components of a potential homeownership program for residents displaced by residential redevelopment.

To assess various options for a City homeownership assistance program, staff surveyed homeownership programs at the federal, state and local level and also reviewed similar programs across the country. A table summarizing programs currently available to City residents is attached to this coversheet.

In addition, staff held a series of internal review meetings in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Deer Park Pilot program, identifying successful elements of that program as well as factors that would create additional success.

Staff also met with representatives of the Housing Opportunities Commission, the agency charged with administering the pilot program, to seek guidance on ways to improve participation levels. Although the program achieved a measure of success given that seven former tenants attained homeownership and remain in good standing today, staff identified a number of issues that contributed to the relatively low participation rates achieved by the program. Those include:

1. There was a relatively high vacancy rate at West Deer Park Apartments by the time the program was ultimately approved and underway.
2. Housing prices were exceptionally high when the program was initiated, putting homeownership out of reach for many occupants even with the available assistance.
3. The one-year term in which tenants were required to purchase a home did not provide sufficient time for this population of residents to cure poor credit records and otherwise arrange their financial affairs.
4. Insufficient contact information was compiled to sustain communication with residents once they vacated the premises.
5. Higher grant amounts (ie, $15,000) would have likely increased participation.

Staff recommends that these factors be considered in formulating any future homeownership assistance program for the City.

In addition to evaluating the West Deer Park Pilot program, staff examined various funding sources needed to support the proposed homeownership assistance program as well as other programs in the event of future redevelopment projects. On June 21, 2007, the Council adopted the City’s FY08 budget in which $300,000 was allocated for a homeownership assistance program designed to assist residents faced with relocation. Of that $300,000, $147,000 remained from the West Deer Park Pilot Homeownership Assistance Program while $153,000 in new funds were allocated.

One additional viable source of funding would be the use of CDBG funds which may be used to provide down payment and closing cost assistance to households earning up to 80% of AMI. An analysis of the income data of Broadstone residents shows that 80% of those residents earn below 80% of AMI and thus fall within this category of eligibility under federal guidelines. Other sources of funding would be required to assist the remaining 20% of that population, those earning above 80% of AMI and thus ineligible for CDBG funding. Potential revenue sources for those residents include permit fees or, alternatively, a special redevelopment fee.

While allocating a portion of permit revenues for the homeownership assistance program would reduce City revenues in the current fiscal year, the redevelopments would generate higher City property tax and income tax revenues when complete. For example, ACM Tomasello has calculated that the positive economic impact of the redevelopment project would be approximately $140,000 per year.

The form in which this assistance may be provided also requires consideration. Under the West Deer Park model, direct grants were awarded to eligible participants. One possible alternative format is a loan-based program in which zero percent deferred loans, repayable upon sale or refinancing of the property, are issued to qualified applicants. Under this model, participants would not be required to make monthly repayments, but would be required to repay the loan at the time of sale or refinancing. Alternatively, the City might consider adopting the Montgomery County model which provides low interest (5%) loans on a 10 year term.

In summary, the adoption of a homeownership assistance program requires the Mayor and Council to consider a number of policy questions prior to implementation. Those questions are:

1. Should the program be grant-based or loan-based?
2. How should the program be funded?
3. May participants purchase units outside of City limits?
4. How large of a grant or loan should be made available to residents?

This is the second of the agenda items from tonight’s Council meeting that I found interesting enough to post about.

As stated in the memo below from Assistant City Manager Fred Felton, while the County’s Annual Growth Policy does not apply within the City, the schools and transportation impact taxes do. The County is now engaging in their biannual review of this policy, and some of the proposed changes are concerning. I think that the approach that Mr. Felton recommends here is quite reasonable, and for the most part I’ll let his memo speak for itself. I will add a note about the consequences of the conflict between the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and the County’s Annual Growth Policy.

According to Mr. Felton’s memo, the County is proposing that development will be allowed to proceed as long as the schools are at less than 135% of program capacity; developers would be required to pay an additional tax if the capacity is between 110% and 135%, toward the end of providing additional funds to alleviate the overcrowding. While allowing more children to be sent to such already-overcrowded schools is somewhat frightening, I believe that this tax should never have to be paid within the City of Gaithersburg, because, by the City’s APFO, proposed developments will not be approved if the schools are at 110% of capacity or more; the City also uses a more restrictive test to determine capacity.

Nevertheless, some schools attended by Gaithersburg students could well be driven to as high as 135% or more of program capacity because the school districts routinely cross the City boundary and include students from developments outside the City. I’m not sure there’s much that the City can do about this; they’ve already made a fairly strong statement of their opinion of this sort of folly via their APFO. However, as residents of the County, we can all at least directly tell the County Council what we think of this proposal.

The proposed waiver of impact taxes within Strategic Economic Development Projects could be another big help to the revitalization of Olde Towne, and the 50% credit of transportation impact taxes near MARC stations is a strong smart-growth proposal for the entire County.

The original of this memo, as well as the attachments to which the memo refers, are contained in a PDF that is part of the background materials for tonight’s meeting. Again, this was an OCR’d PDF, and I had to make a number of corrections, especially in formatting and punctuation. Please refer to the original for an authoritative copy, and let me know if you see any errors in my transcription.

MEMORANDUM TO:	Mayor and City Council
VIA:	David B. Humpton, City Manager
FROM:	Frederick J. Felton, Assistant City Manager
DATE:	July 5 2007
SUBJECT:	Montgomery County Annual Growth Policy and Impact Tax Legislation

On May 18 2007, staff sent a memorandum to the Mayor and City Council that included the Montgomery County Planning Board’s recommendations for the 2007 Annual Growth Policy (AGP) and modifications to the impact tax legislation. While the County’s AGP does not apply within the City of Gaithersburg, the County’s impact taxes for both schools and transportation are applicable to development in the City.

Over the last month, staff has attended a series of County Council hearings and Committee work sessions on the AGP and the impact tax. During the June 19, 2007 Public Hearing, former Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Scott Reilly provided testimony on behalf of County Executive Leggett. Given that the Executive is proposing significant modifications from the Planning Board recommendation, I have attached a copy of Mr Reilly’s remarks for your review.

Schools Test

Over the last three AGP cycles (2005, 2003, and 2001), the City has commented extensively on the schools test formula. In particular, the City has expressed serious concerns about sharing of capacity between schools and allowing residential development to continue with affected schools going as high as 110% of AGP capacity

In January of 2007, the City of Gaithersburg adopted an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that included a schools test that was significantly more restrictive than the current County schools test. The City’s schools test was modeled closely after the City of Rockville’s schools test and closes an area to residential development if any of the receiving schools will exceed 110% of program capacity. Additionally, the City’s schools test does not permit sharing of capacity within or between clusters and only gives credit for Capital Improvements that are scheduled to be completed within a two-year timeframe

The Planning Board’s current proposal for the schools test reflects a new approach that both the County Executive and some County Council members have expressed concerns about. Rather than attempting to ensure that the current and forecasted schools can support students generated as a result of development approvals, the Planning Board approach attempts to generate significant revenues for future school construction. The Planning Board’s proposal evaluates elementary schools and middle schools on a cluster wide basis, but does not permit sharing of capacity between high schools. The Planning Board’s proposal would allow residential development to continue until a school’s capacity reached 135% of program capacity, but a substantial “special facilities payment” would be required for each anticipated student when capacity was between 110% and 135% of program capacity. These payments would range from $32,524 at the elementary level to $47,501 at the high school level. For your review I have attached an excerpt from the background material for the July 2, 2007 PHED Committee work session that discusses this issue in some detail.

Impact Taxes

As previously noted, Montgomery County impact taxes are assessed on new construction in the City of Gaithersburg. The Planning Board is recommending significant increases to both the school impact taxes and the transportation impact taxes. For example the school impact tax for a single family detached dwelling would increase from $8,464 to $22,729 per unit. The transportation impact tax for a single family detached dwelling would increase from $5,819 to $8,380. For your review, I have attached a memorandum dated May 14, 2007 from Research and Technology Chief Karl Moritz that outlines the Planning Board’s rationale.

While most County Council members appear to be supportive of some level of impact tax increase, a number of members have expressed concern that the recommendation may be excessive. An equally important issue is the timing of any impact tax increases. There has been some discussion of phasing in an increase over time to lessen the impact on projects in the pipeline.

At one point, the County allowed an exemption that would limit or waive impact taxes for Strategic Economic Development Projects. The County Executive’s staff has recommended that this exemption be reinstated in the current legislation.

For many years, the County has only charged 50% of the transportation impact tax for projects located in Metro Station Policy areas. In previous years the City has requested that this reduced rate also be applied to projects near MARC stations but the County Council has not acted favorably upon this request to date.

Staff Recommendations

Staff is recommending that the City of Gaithersburg make the following recommendations to the County Council with regard to the AGP and the impact tax legislation:

1. That the County’s schools test be modified to be more in line with the schools test adopted by the City of Gaithersburg and the City of Rockville.
2. That any impact tax increases be phased in over time to minimize hardship on development projects already in the pipeline.
3. That the exemption for Strategic Economic Development Project be reinstated, and that Olde Towne Gaithersburg be specifically designated as a Strategic Economic Development Project.
4. That development projects located in the vicinity of MARC stations (including Olde Towne and Metropolitan Grove Road) be given a 50% credit for the transportation impact tax.

I will be seeking guidance on the development of the City’s position on the AGP and impact tax legislation during the July 9, 2007 Mayor and City Council meeting. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter please feel free to contact me.

FJF/ms
Attachments

Update 2: The video of this meeting is now available. Also, the City Manager has released a statement:

The Mayor called a special meeting of the Mayor and City Council on Thursday, June 21, 2007 to continue discussions on the FY 2008 budget. At issue was the amount of funding set aside in a line item for a homeownership assistance program. The original budget, approved by a 3 to 2 vote on June 18, included $397,000 for the program. The Mayor took no action on the budget prior to the special meeting.

At the June 21 meeting, Council Member Geri Edens proposed a compromise budget amendment which would set aside a total of $220,000 for the assistance program. This amount is equal to the amount allocated for a pilot homeownership assistance program specifically for the residents of West Deer Park Apartments, established in 2006.

Council Member Sesma recommended modifying Council Member Edens’ amendment, suggesting $300,000 for the program and noting that there are several redevelopment projects pending.

The Council unanimously approved the compromise amendment, allocating $300,000 for the homeownership assistance program, and adopted the revised FY 08 budget accordingly. The Mayor agreed to sign the revised budget.

A work session on the proposed homeownership assistance program has been scheduled for July 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 31 South Summit Avenue. For more information contact the City Manager’s Office at 301-258-6310.

Update: The Washington Post has a story on this, by Mariana Minaya: City Pledges Aid to Displaced Tenants

It took them around an hour of talking about it, but in the end the Council wound up finding a compromise. Council Member Edens led off with a motion to restore the homeownership assistance program to the $220,000 figure (which would include the $147,000 left from last year plus an additional $73,000; Mr. Sesma had asked for the $147,000 plus an additional $250,000, while Ms. Edens had not previously been willing to move past the $147,000 level) at which it had started out when they first enacted it for the West Deer Park redevelopment. She also asked that the others on the Council recognize her main point that — I’m paraphrasing here — the Council shouldn’t be wily-nilly funding programs without due consideration. Council Member Sesma acknowledged and accepted Ms. Edens’ point, and welcomed her offer of compromise. Mr. Sesma further made a counter-proposal of $300,000 in total funding. This resulted in much additional discussion, but ultimately they all accepted the $300,000 figure, Ms. Edens restated her motion with this new amount, and this motion carried 5-0. The budget, thus amended, passed on a 5-0 vote, and the Mayor — who, after this vote, took the opportunity to state that he had decided not to veto the budget even without the amendment — promised to sign it as amended. There was much additional discussion about the entire process and how it could be made better, and they generally agreed to have work sessions on this issue. I’ll put up a link to the video when it available tomorrow.

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 the