Quick Links
Contact Me
My Webpage
County Council
Twitter
Facebook
It’s budget time. Every two years, the Council reviews the proposed six-year capital improvements program (CIP) budget (FY19-24) submitted by the County Executive. This year’s submission includes funding for Montgomery County Public Schools and Montgomery College construction, Marriott’s new headquarters in Bethesda, and other development around the county. It also includes support for affordable housing, an increase in road maintenance funding and funding for several Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines.
The majority of funding for the CIP is via general obligation bonds. Annual payments for those bonds, known as debt service, have become an increasing concern; debt service payments are part of the operating budget and are the third largest item in the operating budget behind schools and public safety. Last fall, the Council and the County Executive agreed that the general obligation bond borrowing amount should be reduced, which is important for long-term financial stability but also means reduced access to capital funds for new projects. In preparation for the review of the many competing CIP needs in the County, the Council will hold three public hearings on Tuesday, February 6 at 7:30 and Wednesday, February 7 at 1:30 and 7:30. The link to sign up to testify is here.
You may also submit written testimony via email County.Council@montgomerycountymd.gov or the through the mail (yes, some people still write in!) at Council Office Building;100 Maryland Avenue, 4th Floor; Rockville, MD 20850.
To view the County Executive’s proposed capital budget, you can go to the interactive website. at
On March 15, the Council will receive the County Executive’s proposed operating budget for fiscal year 2019. In advance of that release, County Executive Ike Leggett has been holding a series of forums around the county to discuss the budget. His final presentation will be on Tuesday, February 6 at the Bethesda Regional Services Center, 4805 Edgemoor Lane, Bethesda. You can view his slide presentation.
Nevertheless, all three of these plans raced through the Council without sufficient scrutiny or discussion, particularly given the concerns expressed by surrounding communities about the impact of increased densities on school overcrowding and traffic congestion. I do not understand the urgency that required Council review of all three plans within a short time frame, but even if we do need to move quickly, we should get it right. Here’s why I don’t think we got it right in Rock Spring or White Flint 2.
I’ll first discuss Rock Spring, which is the more problematic. The Rock Spring Master Plan is another in a series of plans adopted by the current County Council that significantly increases densities, largely in response to requests by property owners, while giving insufficient weight to the views of the communities most affected by the changes. It also risks seeking to solve a problem that may not exist.
Located in the North Bethesda area near the nexus of I-495 and I-270, the 535-acre Rock Spring area includes office parks, a large regional mall, and other retail uses. The area is surrounded by well-established, in-demand residential neighborhoods, popular public schools and a thriving retail environment. Most of the office buildings are currently in the Employment Office Zone (EOF), which allows for office and employment activity along with a limited amount of residential and neighborhood commercial uses and flexibility in building, circulation, and parking lot layout.
The Rock Spring Master Plan review was triggered in part by the impending departure of the Marriott Corporation headquarters from Rock Spring to transit-oriented Bethesda. Marriott wanted its new headquarters to be near Metro, and their move was heralded as evidence that businesses want to locate near transit and that suburban office parks were passé. Marriott’s move matched the county’s stated policy of concentrating growth near transit. The logical next step would have been to leave the Rock Spring area alone with its existing density, possibly with some zoning modifications, and then see what the market produced since the area is not well-served by transit. And that, essentially, was the recommendation of Planning Department’s professional staff, which called for retaining the current zoning along with some modest density and height increases - a plan that was viewed favorably by the neighboring communities. However, when the staff’s plan reached the Planning Board, drastic zoning changes and density increases were made, and ultimately approved by the Council. These changes were made based on conversations with property owners, and the rationale for the massive density increases and zoning changes was that they were necessary in order for property owners to redevelop their properties to make the area more pedestrian- and bike-friendly. Unfortunately, the reality of this plan does not match the premise.
There are places in the county where high-density mixed-use development makes sense; Rock Spring is not one of them. The area is not adequately served by transit, a necessary component for “transit-oriented development.” It is surrounded by clogged roads and overcrowded schools, problems that are not adequately addressed by the master plan. And there was insufficient discussion of these concerns - transportation questions were barely discussed at the full Council. The Council staff briefing memo noted that there were no public hearing comments regarding the transportation elements in the plan but did not note that the transportation appendix was not publicly available until after the public hearing was held and after the PHED committee had completed all of its deliberations. As one resident noted, it was difficult to comment on something that they had not seen. That same resident then took the time to analyze various transportation and density issues in the plan once he had access to the information, yet his views were not discussed at all.
While transportation goals to move people out of their cars and to alternative transportation modes were mentioned, there was no meaningful discussion of how those goals would be achieved. The North Bethesda Transitway is mentioned as a possible solution to make the area more transit friendly, but this plan does not require that the Transitway be in the works prior to additional development in this congested area, nor does it require that new development be allowed to proceed only after increased transit use goals have been met.
Regarding schools in this already overcrowded area, I very much appreciate the efforts by area PTA leaders to work with the Council to identify parcels that could accommodate a school site. However, the language in the plan does not ensure that a site will be found. It simply requires that each parcel that comes to the Planning Board for development review be assessed for its suitability for a school site, which means that despite a school site being the highest priority on the list of amenities, the Planning Board is not required to ensure that a school site is actually acquired. All or most of the properties could be redeveloped without a school site ever being secured.
Furthermore, the plan’s general vision is reactionary. By moving away from office/commercial, it pre-supposes that the office market will not rebound – even though it is quite possible that market forces may eventually bring about higher office occupancy as rents become more affordable than office space closer to transit. In fact, Rock Spring remains a viable office market even with “higher than historical market vacancies,” according to a report prepared for the Planning Board.
The plan’s heavy emphasis on new multifamily residences, indifference to public transit and existing clogged roadways, and the lack of requirement for a school site will continue to add pressure points to strained county budgets that are struggling to keep pace with the additional cars on our roads and students in our schools. Although at least one of my council colleagues was disturbed by the way these master plans were being “jammed through,” in the end I was the only one who did not vote for approval of the Rock Spring plan.
White Flint 2. This plan, too, sped through the PHED Committee and the Council. White Flint 2 is adjacent to the White Flint area, and is at a greater distance from transit. This is significant because the nationally accepted standards for walksheds - where people are most likely to use transit – are determined to be within ¼ mile for commercial development and ½ mile for residential; beyond that is not considered transit-oriented development. All of White Flint 2 is beyond ¼ mile for commercial and ½ mile for residential. Like Rock Spring, it is not transit-oriented development.
When the Council adopted the first White Flint plan in 2010, we spent a long time trying to get the incentives and requirements right to promote smart growth and help pay for the necessary infrastructure, including Bus Rapid Transit on Rockville Pike. Disappointingly, that planning area has not built out as quickly or as extensively as we had hoped. By approving rezoning and development incentives in the White Flint 2 area, it is quite possible that the Council has created a situation where redevelopment there will compete with, and undermine, development in the first White Flint area, the one that is closest to transit and more in line with smart growth principles.
Additionally, the rezonings and increased densities on two properties incentivize the elimination of existing market-rate affordable housing. The Walnut Grove condominiums and Oxford Square apartments, both multi-unit buildings, provide affordable rental and ownership options with up to 3-bedroom apartments – in other words, family friendly housing. As noted in the appendix to the White Flint 2 Master Plan, newly built multi-family units are mostly small (and expensive) one-bedroom rental units (see Appendix 2 Housing, pages 13-14 of the White Flint 2 Sector Plan). It is important to note that Walnut Grove provides affordable home ownership. And the professional planning staff recommended retaining the existing zoning on these properties. However, property owners asked for increased height and density, the Planning Board ignored staff advice and granted the increases, and the Council concurred, once again using the weak rationale that it is better to replace a large number of market-rate affordable units with fewer units whose rents are controlled under the county’s Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program – even though we end up with smaller and fewer affordable units.
Regarding school site identification and construction, I have the same concerns as I did in Rock Spring. It is completely possible that each parcel of land could be redeveloped without a school site ever being secured.
Both the Rock Spring and White Flint 2 plans disregard the principles of smart growth and show an indifference to preserving existing affordable housing. They also lack actual solutions to transportation and school problems and fail to acknowledge that the County has finite and increasingly strained financial resources. We must make sure that future development is sustainable. We can – and must – do better, and until we do, I will continue to vote against poor planning.
In December 2017, the County Executive announced that income tax revenues were lower than expected, triggering the need for reductions in the current budget spending plan. Last week, the Council passed a total of $53.3 million in operating budget savings and $9.3 million in the capital budget, reducing spending for general government operations as well as for the Montgomery County Public Schools, Montgomery College, and the Park and Planning Department. The Council adopted most of the savings measures recommended by the County Executive, but reduced the recommended cuts for programs in the Department of Health and Human Services and Fire and Rescue Services.
Occasionally, mid-year revenue shortfalls occur because revenue forecasts cannot always be precise, but this shortfall was unexpected because of the current low unemployment rate, some economic growth in the County, and a rising stock market. One explanation is that certain taxpayers were waiting to see what would change in federal tax law, which was only decided at the end of December.
Both the County Executive and the County Council agreed that mid-year reductions were necessary in order to avoid possible larger reductions at the end of the fiscal year. These mid-year corrections help protect the budget reserves, which have been an important factor in the County’s long-standing AAA bond rating. It is possible that the next distribution of County income tax revenue, due later this month, will counteract the shortfall announced in December, but the opposite could also happen. Additionally, the impact of the new federal tax law is still uncertain and a possible federal shutdown could also affect revenues.
The details of the reductions and discussion of fiscal issues are included in the staff savings plan memo to the Council.
For more information about factors driving the cost of government, see the staff memo to the Council.
Often it may feel that our county government is a large, bureaucratic entity that makes decisions that impact our lives without residents’ involvement. But you are the government, and I am here to be your advocate. County government affects our lives in many ways, from the roads and buses we use each day to our children’s schools, our local parks, and our taxes. If you have an issue, concern or suggestion, please take a moment to let me know, and I will do my best to serve you. My staff and I look forward to hearing from you.
Dale Tibbitts is my Chief of Staff and handles the budget, rapid transit and environmental issues, as well as happenings Up-County; Tiffany Ward focuses on Health and Human Services and Education Committee issues, as well as Mid-County; Mara Parker follows the Public Safety Committee and the East County and also handles my schedule; Debbie Spielberg focuses on transportation, environmental issues and landlord/tenant issues, Silver Spring and Western Montgomery County; Claire Iseli handles planning, land use, environmental and zoning issues. Please don’t hesitate to contact our offices at 240.777.7966 or via email at councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov.
Marc Elrich, Councilmember At-Large 100 Maryland Avenue, Sixth Floor Rockville, MD 20850 Phone: (240) 777-7966