Green Business Certification

It is challenging to run a business in Montgomery County because of regulations, taxes and high rents. This County has a reputation for continually adding fees, changing the rules, or imposing regulations. The perception is out there that we are unfriendly to commercial enterprises. Well, it is time to change that atmosphere, and Green Business Certification Program takes one small step toward doing so.

Consumers are caring more and more about what they are purchasing, and we have many businesses that deserve a great pat on the back for what they are already doing. I am convinced that many Montgomery County companies would do much more if: 1 - they knew how, 2 - knew they would be acknowledged for what they would do, and 3 - knew there would be a bottom-line savings.

So I brought this idea to the Executive – that we craft a way to give our consumers the information on which County businesses are going green and give local companies that employee green practices the promotion and recognition they deserve.

This program will reward those who go the extra mile to protect our climate. I strongly believe that environmentally friendly efforts made by our companies, big and small, should be recognized. Our initiative will have three components: a logo for the certified businesses to display, a County website that will list them so consumers can find them, and promotional practices, such as County press releases, when a company achieves certification.

Our companies have long been known as the gold standard; now they should be recognized for their green standard as well. To learn more, click on the link to the right.

Realigning Priorities with a Carbon Surtax

Today I introduced a Carbon Surtax Resolution as a way of reaffirming my commitment to the environment. My plan targets our energy taxing efforts on the fuels that are most destructive to the environment while allowing us to continue to fund our energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction goals for the future.

The Carbon Surtax would be applied in a graduated manner with the dirtiest fuels being taxed at the highest rates and the cleanest fuels being taxed at the lowest rates.

With Montgomery County residents and businesses tightening their belts in the face of increased State income and sales taxes, increased gas prices and a proposed property tax hike, there are some who would say that now is not the time to ask residents for more. I agree.

My plan would result in about $11 million in revenues for the County while costing the average homeowner less than $10 for the entire year. I am working hard to lower the County Executive’s proposed 7 ½ cent proposed property tax so that, essentially, we can keep ourselves on track with environmental preservation without doing harm to residents’ pocketbooks.

I am not recommending new programs to be funded by the Carbon Surtax right now. Rather, I am suggesting we will realign our revenue structure to be more consistent with our priorities. By placing our tax burden on energy consumption rather than real property, we give people more control over their own obligation, and we pave the way for future revenue to pay for some of our most important conservation and efficiency initiatives, such as the Clean Energy Rewards program, free Ride On trips on code red days and tree planting programs.

To learn more, click on the links to the right. I look forward to your guidance on this issue.

Is the Growth Debate Over?

A recent Washington Post article points out that the economic downturn has slowed growth to a point where it has affected local government revenue sources. While some folks had argued that we must slow growth in order to catch up on infrastructure, we now are in a position of scaling back our capital projects because decreased transfer, impact, recordation and income taxes have left us with a big budget shortfall, an estimated revenue loss of $78 million in FY08, in fact.

According to the County’s Department of Finance, there are three economic indicators of particular note. First, the County continues to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state, but job growth in payroll employment remains anemic with businesses adding fewer jobs in the past twelve months. Second, while home prices are still increasing at a low rate, home sales have declined nearly 34% during the fiscal year to date. Finally, because of the decline in home sales and the increase in the inventory to sales ratio for existing homes, the outlook for any improvement in residential construction is not encouraging.

I also find it interesting to note that the County's Department of Economic Development reports: from the second quarter of 06 to the second quarter of 07 (the most recent data available) private payroll jobs in Montgomery County dropped by 4,653 bringing the total number of private sector jobs to the lowest level in two years.

In a December column in the Gazette about our recently adopted growth policy, I worried that bringing growth to its knees would have an adverse effect on the county’s fiscal bottom line. As we now face school and transportation impact taxes about 1/3 lower than anticipated, we’re looking at delaying high school modernizations, deferring construction funding on five fire stations, delaying land acquisition for the Montrose Parkway East and cutting the Ride On bus fleet expansion. We’re falling behind, not catching up, on infrastructure and necessary programs and services.

In my April 4 post, I encouraged more discussion on the base budget issues. Here I solicit your views on the bigger picture. Do you agree with the Post that the “growth” debate is over? Do you have any thoughts on whether we should think about revisiting any current policies?

To read the Post article, my Gazette piece, the Department of Finance’s economic indicators, or the Department of Economic Development's Montgomery's Pulse, click on the links to the right.

Working Out a Budget

In his proposed FY09 Operating Budget, the County Executive lays out a plan to maintain most services in the face of decreased revenue projections, including what is likely to be only minimal State aid (I’ll let you know when we find out how much we will get from the State). His budget reflects an overall 3.9% increase over last fiscal year, including a 4% increase for Montgomery County Public Schools.

To achieve this budget, he proposes to abolish about 225 County positions and add an ambulance fee. He also proposes to increase property taxes by 20.7% for commercial property and 23.7% for rental property. A variable scale for residential property would mean a 6.2% increase for homes assessed at $343, 200, and an 11.9% increase for homes assessed at $500,000, and a 15.8% increase for homes assed at $1 million. Given that these increases would be in addition to the State’s bump in income taxes and the sales tax, I’m not convinced the community can bear them. On the other hand, the alternative would be significant cuts in service, which I’m not sure folks are willing to do either.

We will hold public hearings all next week and then start committee worksessions. We’ll pass a final budget at the end of May. Let me know what you think. To see the entire proposed budget, click on the link to the right.

Use for Property at Hillmead Park

This week the Washington Post details the ongoing controversy about the potential use of an existing house on the County’s newly acquired parkland in the Hillmead neighborhood. While the County proposes placing a 14-member homeless family in the house or using it as special needs housing, neighbors argue that such plans represent an inappropriate use of County resources. At this time, we don’t know the cost of making the house habitable. You can learn more by visiting the links to the right. “Post: Hillmead Property” chronicles the history of the controversy while “HOC Strategic Plan” provides details of affordable housing needs and strategies in the County.

Folks may not be aware that currently Montgomery County has over 21,000 families on waiting lists for housing help of one sort or another. With the foreclosure crisis, this number will no doubt grow. While affordable housing issues have been studied every which way for many years, we really have not made tremendous progress in addressing the basic needs--increasing the supply of new affordable housing and protecting existing affordable housing. But one thing all the various reports and studies have recommended is that the government use public land to support the effort.

The proposal to save the existing home on the property that the County has just acquired for an extension of Hillmead Park is a small step in that direction. Certainly, there are a lot of variables to work through. But, the need for more housing that is affordable (or at least a stop-gap solution for families and individuals in crisis) is huge. The Hillmead solution could be a win/win--saving a lovely piece of green space in perpetuity for public use and using a small part of it to serve folks who need a hand.

What do you think? Here are examples of the emails I’ve been receiving on this issue:

Excerpt 1: “I am writing to you to express my support for the joint DHCA and DHHS proposal to use the recently purchased Hillmead House to provide a home for a family exiting homelessness. As you know it is extremely difficult to find suitable housing for large families; in many cases their homelessness is prolonged for this reason alone. It seems like a perfect solution to put a family in such a wonderful neighborhood, utilizing a home already owned by the county. I know that you have traditionally supported inclusive communities throughout the county and hope you will do so in this case as well.”

Excerpt 2: “Since when is the county in the business of buying and developing some of the most expensive real estate in the country for housing homeless at the expense of taxpayer money when those funds can be more effectively used to provide services for a greater number of needy families? The house on Hillmead could generate revenue of about $10,000 a month. That is enough to cover the rental of FIVE to SIX single family homes for homeless families--a far more effective use of taxpayer money. What is next? Do we start housing homeless families at the Four Seasons, when there are more affordable options out there that will serve more needy families with the same funds?"

Time With Family for Spring Break

As the Council starts its spring recess, I’m looking forward to spending time with my 91-year-old mother-in-law who unfortunately has not been in the best of health lately. I’m also looking forward to seeing my two sons. Since they live in San Francisco, I don’t get to see them as much as I’d like. I hope you also will have the opportunity to enjoy time with your family. The Council will have its plate full when we return on March 31.

Action on Transportation CIP

While I was disappointed that the County Executive’s recommended FY09-FY14 Capital Improvements Program for transportation included the smallest increase in 8 years when adjusted for inflation, I feel good that the Council has approved $100 million over the next six years for a number of much needed projects.

So far, the Council has tentatively approved action to fund construction of part of the North County Maintenance Depot to house Ride On buses. Currently, the County has room to park only two more Ride On buses. This plan will ultimately provide room for 250 more.

We also are funding the construction of the Bethesda Metro’s southern entrance (at Elm Street). While we need it whether or not the Purple Line gets built, it is a key connection for that line, just like the Silver Spring Transit Center at the other end.

We also are funding the Montrose Parkway East, a four-lane road with parkway features between Parklawn Drive and Veirs Mill Road. This project will be a next step in completing the full Montrose Parkway between I-270 and Veirs Mill Road and is the only project in the County’s transportation budget that will actually address congestion. (Montrose Parkway West has recently opened, so take a ride and try it out.)

To learn more about these and many other projects, including neighborhood enhancements, street trees, bikeways and sidewalks, click on “Transportation CIP” to the right.

One Step Toward a Music Venue in Silver Spring

Our approval of $2 million for the project takes us one step closer to a music venue in downtown Silver Spring, although it is by no means the last step. The deal still needs concurrence from the Planning Board, and further negotiations are needed among the County Executive, the Lee family and Live Nation. We don’t know exactly where the plan will go from here, except that the landowner is being asked to make the property available to the County. We do know, though, that businesses in Silver Spring are counting on a major splash from the music venue to generate foot traffic. I had a terrific lunch at Nicaro on Georgia Avenue today. More needs to be done to encourage shops and restaurants like it in the area. And one more thing--I’m really disappointed that NPR is not in the mix anymore. What a great addition that would have been.

The Silver Spring Music Venue economic development project provides for the J.C. Penney site on Colesville Road in Silver Spring to be converted into a Live Nation Fillmore brand entertainment venue. Lee Development Group will donate the land to the County and the County will own the concert hall. Live Nation will lease the hall from the County. The J.C. Penney facade is historic and will be maintained. This week's funding brings the project to its final total of $4 million. For more information click on the Silver Spring Music Venue link to the right and scroll to page 5.

Communities Recognizing Their Best

I want to thank the Greater Olney Civic Association for inviting me to their awards ceremony on Sunday. They did a great job in recognizing the members of their community who have made the most impact. My hat is off to GOCA and the other civic associations who celebrate civic leadership in this way. Congratulations.

Getting Started

Here goes. The point of this blog is to allow us (not just me) to have an extended conversation about the issues that come before the Montgomery County Council. I really want to find ways to improve our ability to work with one another. In order to keep us all on the same page when it comes to information and context, I will try to keep you updated as to our ever-changing schedules, and I'll include links to related staff work so you can know what I know around the time I know it. No doubt you know way more than I do on many subjects, and I'm looking forward to learning from you.

Understanding the Forest Conservation Bill

The first issue up is forest conservation. We've already heard the "seeing the forest for the trees" joke, so we can skip that one. The Planning Board has proposed changes (mostly cleanup) to the current Forest Conservation Law, and Councilmember Elrich has proposed various changes to that. We had our first work session on the subject on February 19, which was spent largely on trying to understand the whole thing. What does the current law entail? Who is subject to it? What is a "forest"? That sort of thing.

The law acknowledges that trees and forest cover constitute an important natural resource because they filter groundwater, reduce surface runoff, help alleviate flooding, and supply necessary habitat for wildlife, among other things. The law, therefore, is designed to prevent the loss of forest as a result of development and other land disturbing activities through procedures, standards and requirements for afforestation and reforestation as well as tree conservation projects and other forest conservation methods.

While the law supposedly applies to "forests" (wooded areas of 10,000 square feet or more) on lots 40,000 square feet or larger, it apparently is applied to smaller land areas under certain circumstances, such as with champion trees. While I am a lawyer, and have spent many years parsing this land use stuff, I am not sure the Planning Board's and/or Marc's changes help to clarify where the law applies and where it does not. It has been suggested that a separate tree ordiniance may help to straighten things out.

Do you also find the law unclear? What would be your advice for dealing with this? Because we are so busy with budget, I am not sure when we will return to this, but I'd love to have your comments now, so we can think on them.