littmann campaign banner
June 10, 2013
Jared S. Littmann
Alderman, Ward 5, Annapolis

912 Forest Drive 
(office at K&B True Value)

410-268-3939 (office)
443-926-2399 (cell)

 
June 10 

7:00 p.m., City Council Regular Meeting, City Council Chambers 

 

June 17
7:00 p.m., City Council Special Meeting, City Council Chambers

 

June 20
1:30-4:30 p.m., City Council Work Session, City Council Chambers 

 
Greetings!

The next City Council session is tonight, Monday, June 10, at 7 p.m.

Tonight's big issue is the budget, and if you want to get right to my views on that, click here. But, b
efore I get into the agenda issues, I'd like to update you on a few other issues of interest:
  1. I've heard a rumor that the Annapolis elementary schools may get redistricted and that Hunt Meadow residents will no longer go to Hillsmere Elementary. According to a person with the public school system, the Annapolis area will be going through a redistricting review this year, but there have been no proposed changes. I'll keep you posted if anything new develops.  

       

  2. Crystal Spring - The developers filed their Forest Conservation Plan on May 21. You can see it by clicking here. For a discussion about the size of this project, please go to my Facebook page where I have outlined the issues and several people have commented (click here and here). Also click here to see a recent article in The Capital.  

      
  3. Downtown -
    Old Fawcett's site: On May 13, the Council held a closed session during which we heard potential business terms and negotiations regarding a transaction involving City-owned property and 110 Compromise Street (otherwise known as the former Fawcett's site). The Council goes into closed sessions when it is getting legal advice from the City Attorney, in this case relating to negotiations between the parties. There are many unanswered questions that I suspect will be answered during the negotiations. The chief concerns I've heard from residents and outside businesses include a speculated loss of parking, a fear about a negative impact on the boat shows, and a concern about the potential loss of maritime industry. I suspect we'll hear a lot more about this in the coming months. In the meantime, the Planning Commission met on June 6 and gave a favorable recommendation to the proposed zoning change.  

    Market House - I have no information to report about an expected open date, but I've been enjoying seeing the construction progress through pictures on Facebook. Hopefully, we'll be able to shop and eat there soon.

      

One other note about schools. At tonight's Council session, the Council will have one last opportunity to introduce an Ordinance I and 2 co-sponsors proposed that would require the City to consider, before approving a development, the development's potential impact on school capacity. This is a contested issue on the Council. This Ordinance is not about rejecting growth, but advocating for smart growth by considering all the issues before approving developments like Crystal Spring. Per its draft plan, and applying County formulas, CS would result in 23 additional elementary age students. This Ordinance would have let the City's Planning Commission determine if that is nominal or significant. If you support this effort to ensure a good process for considering potential development, please consider speaking up, contacting other Council members and the Mayor, and spreading the word about this issue.
 
Below is the abbreviated version of the City Council meeting agenda, primarily the legislative actions before the Council on Monday. For issues up for a vote, I state how I intend to vote, subject to possible persuasion by you and Council members. This is your opportunity to let me know how you feel about these issues, if you think I should keep or change my position, and your reasons. You can find the entire agenda and the entire legislative packet from here. 

As always, I welcome your feedback and questions, and appreciate your help in reaching other Ward 5 residents by to them.

 

Sincerely,
 
Jared Littmann
Alderman, Ward 5, Annapolis
Legislative Actions 
City Council Session
 
Monday, June 10, 2013, 7 p.m
 
The Annapolis City Council will meet on Monday, June 10, at 7 p.m., in the Council Chambers. All Council meetings are broadcast on Comcast channel 99 and on Verizon channel 34.

Before the matters below are considered by the Council, you have an opportunity to speak to the Council for three minutes on any topic other than those scheduled for a public hearing (and you can speak to those topics at their respective points in the meeting).

PUBLIC HEARING

 

This is your opportunity to be heard on these topics. For more information, you can read the entire legislative packet here, or consider attending Council Committee meetings (council calendar is here).

O-22-13           Heritage Commission - For the purpose of changing the name of the City of Annapolis' Historical Markers Commission to the Heritage Commission in order to better reflect the Commission's duties and responsibilities  

 

Comment: This Ordinance is a name change only, changing "Historical Markers" to "Heritage" Commission. 

 

LEGISLATIVE ACTION

 

ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS - 2nd READER

  

O-25-11           The Definition of a Two-family Dwelling - For the purpose of including "two-family dwelling" in the definition of "single-family attached dwelling.   

 

Policy Report: The proposed ordinance revises the definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to include "two-family dwelling." When Title 21 of the City Code was re-codified in 2005, two-family dwellings were excluded from the definition of "single-family attached dwelling" in order to allow for certain dwelling arrangements that did not fall into the category of single-family attached. For example, there was no category for a dwelling unit with an accessory apartment or for two units with one unit on top of the other. The code change in 2005 was meant to provide a specific category for these types of dwelling.

 

However, this change inadvertently excluded two-family dwellings from several zoning districts where this had been a use deemed conforming. In these districts, two-family dwellings were no longer listed as a use deemed conforming, although single-family attached and detached dwellings were specifically enumerated.  In March 2010, there was a zoning text amendment adopted to correct this problem in the R2NC district. This currently proposed ordinance will restore two-family dwellings under the definition of single-family attached dwellings and correct this omission in the other zoning districts that were affected by the 2005 definition change.

 

Comment: Jon Arason, the Director of Planning & Zoning, spoke in favor of this Ordinance at a recent council session. I'm not aware of any reason to oppose it. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues, I intend to vote in favor of this Ordinance.

 

 

O-51-11  Amd.   Use and Redevelopment of Property in C2 Zoning Districts - For the purpose of adding certain provisions governing use and redevelopment of property located in a C2 Zoning District. Postponed until 6/10/13; proposed to be postponed.    

 

Policy Report: The proposed ordinance would add two provisions governing the use and redevelopment of property located in the C2 Zoning District. The first provision of O-51-11 would require public pedestrian access across the waterway frontage of property in the C2 Conservation Business District.

 

The second provision of the proposed ordinance would require restoration or preservation of scenic views recognized in the Comprehensive Plan (or amendments to it) upon the redevelopment of a site in the C2 Zoning District.

 

The proposed ordinance defines redevelopment to mean new construction, alterations or renovations to the exterior of the structure(s) on the site in excess of 50% of the value of the improvements on the site as of the date of permit requests, excluding decks, windows, doors and fa�ade treatments, or other improvements within the existing footprint and building envelope.

 

Comment :The sponsors of this legislation are expected to ask that a vote be postponed; I will vote in favor of that motion once made.

 

O-52-11 Amd.   Rezoning Parcels [1244] 1247 and 1255, Grid 20, Tax Map 52A - For the purpose of rezoning parcels [1244] 1247 and 1255, Grid 20, Tax Map 52A to C2, "Conservation Business" Zoning District. Postponed until 6/10/13; proposed to be postponed.    

 

Policy Report: The proposed ordinance would rezone parcels 1244 and 1255, Grid 20, Tax Map 52A from WMC (Waterfront Maritime Conservation) to C2 (Conservation Business) Zoning District. Article 66B is the State enabling legislation that grants local governments the authority to regulate the use of land through zoning. Article 66B, Section 4.05 establishes the 'change or mistake' rule wherein a zoning map amendment can only be granted based on a finding that there was a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood where the property is located, or that there was a mistake in the original zoning.

 

Chapter 21.34 of the Annapolis City Code sets forth the six criteria and findings that must be made in order to make the finding for change or mistake in considering a rezoning. They are as follows:

A. Existing uses and zoning classification of properties within the general area of the property that is the subject of the application.

B. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification compared to the uses permitted under the proposed zoning classification.

C. The trend of development in the general area, including any changes in zoning classification of the subject property or other properties in the area and the compatibility with existing and proposed development for the area.

D. Whether there has been a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood where the property is located or that there was a mistake in the existing zoning classification.

E. The availability of public facilities, present and future transportation patterns.

F. The relationship of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan.

 

Comment: The sponsors of this legislation are expected to ask that a vote be postponed; I will vote in favor of that motion once made.

 

 

O-28-12         Amending the Procedures for the Sale and Rental of Moderately Priced Dwelling Units - For the purpose of amending the procedures for the sale and rental of moderately priced dwelling units. Alderwoman Hoyle requested to be added as a sponsor on 2nd Reader. Postponed until 6/10/13.

 

Policy Report: The proposed ordinance would amend the procedures for the sale and rental of moderately priced dwelling units (MPDU). Specifically, if the City opts not to purchase an MPDU for which no eligible person has entered into a contract of sale within the 90-day marketing period to eligible persons, the Department of Planning and Zoning shall provide written notice to the applicant containing an authorization to market the MPDU to the general public for sale at the approved purchase price.  

 

The Department of Planning and Zoning shall not issue an authorization to market to the general public unless all requirements of Chapter 20.30 of the City Code have been satisfied. The status of an MPDU for sale shall not change as a result of an offering to the general public and all MPDUs that are sold to the general public shall be subject to MPDU income requirements and shall be offered to residents of Anne Arundel County. Any MPDU owner who rents an MPDU to an ineligible person shall pay all such rent into the City's Homeownership Assistance Trust Fund 30 days after the Department of Planning and Zoning notifies the owner of the rental violation. The Department of Planning and Zoning may assess the owner a monthly fee that is equal to the HUD fair market rent for the MPDU for each month that rent was charged and received in violation of this chapter.

 

Comment: This Ordinance establishes procedures for selling or renting MPDUs if and when they are not sold or rented to qualified individuals in the City. The City would have the right of first refusal, and then the sale or rental would be opened up to the public (the status of MPDU would not change).   

 

At a recent Council session, there was a lot of discussion about the disposition of these MPDU units, and a priority for those associated with Annapolis. I'm open minded to considering these alternatives, but am in favor of resolving the issue with a vote at this session so that property owners get the additional guidance they've been waiting on to market and hopefully sell these properties.  

 

This legislation appears to serve a good purpose, does not have a fiscal impact, and it has been endorsed by the applicable committees. I am not aware of any reason to vote against this measure. Therefore, unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.

 

 

O-36-12           Permitted Hours of Sidewalk Cafes - For the purpose of authorizing permitted sidewalk cafes to remain open during the normal business hours governing such establishments. Postponed until 6/10/13.

 

Comment: The Ordinance would change the closing time of sidewalk cafes from 11 p.m. to the closing time of the restaurant (up to 2 a.m.). I support a proposed amendment to change it to 30 minutes before closing, which was suggested by Police Chief Pristoop. For more information, see a story about this story in The Capital.  

I am aware of only benefits to Ward 5 residents with this resolution. I believe that the primary benefit -- longer outdoor seating -- would be welcomed by Ward 5 residents, and the primary concern -- late hour disturbances -- would not affect those same residents. Therefore, unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.


O-41-12           Public Ethics and Financial Disclosure - For the purpose of establishing minimum standards for the conduct of Annapolis government business and to assure the citizens of the City of that they may have the highest trust in public officials and employees and that the impartiality and independent judgment of public officials and employees will be maintained without improper or even the appearance of improper influence. To guard against improper influence, it is required that all City officials and employees maintain the highest ethical standards in conducting City business and that select City officials and employees disclose their financial affairs as provided in Section 2.08.60  

 

Comment: The state revised its Public Ethics and Financial Disclosure laws and required local cities to follow suit, resulting in this legislation. The introduction and public hearing on this Ordinance predated my term, so I welcome input from you and my colleagues before voting on this Ordinance.

 

O-3-13             Bulk Regulations for Governmental Uses in the C1-A Zoning District - For the purpose of specifying that lot size and width requirements for existing buildings with a governmental use in the C1-A zoning district shall be determined through the special exception process, pursuant to Chapter 21.26 of the City of Annapolis Code.

Comment: This ordinance allows a change in the zoning uses of the Maynard-Burgess House across the street from City Hall, which will allow office space use in that building. I am not aware of any reason to vote against this measure. Therefore, unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.



O-10-13          Compensation of Mayor, Aldermen/Alderwomen, and City Manager - For the purpose of specifying compensation and allowances to be paid to the Mayor and Aldermen/Alderwomen for the term of office commencing on the first Monday in December, 2013; and for specifying compensation and allowances to be paid to the City Manager. 

 

Comment: The City Council appointed the Council Compensation Commission in October, 2012. The Commission provided a report containing recommendations on compensation for the Mayor, Aldermen / Alderwomen, and the City Manager. The recommendations include:  

 

(1) Keep the Mayor's salary at $98,000 per year.

(2) Increase the Aldermen's compensation by $900 to $13,500 per year.

(3) Set the City Manager's Executive Pay Plan to include:

            (a) Base Salary ranging from $120,000 to $180,000 per year
                 (currently $145,000);

            (b) Benefits: health care and retirement plan, and a City vehicle
                 ($6,000; same as current);

            (c) Severance pay of 3 months' salary (currently 6 months).

 

I am concerned about the fiscal impact of this legislation. The mayor's salary would not change, so there is no fiscal impact from that portion of the legislation. If the Council members' salary increased as proposed, the fiscal impact of that change would be approximately $8,500. With regard to the City Manager, the fiscal impact depends on a few assumptions in the future because the proposals will not take effect until the current City Manager's contract expires.  

 

The legislation includes a broad salary range for city manager; if applied, it could represent a decrease or increase as compared to the existing salary structure. It also includes a reduction in severance, which is a two-edged sword. It would represent a savings of three months of salary, but provide less inducement to retain a qualified city manager.

 

As always, I like to keep an open mind on voting until the end, so that I can listen to and consider the opinions of my colleagues and other residents. I am inclined to vote against legislation increasing my own salary although members of the Council work a significant number of hours each week and the increase in salary is probably merited. Further, from my research, I learned that similarly sized cities in Maryland pay their council members closer to $16-20,000 per year, or 0.02% of the annual revenue (at $12,600, Annapolis pays 0.013%). Regardless, I do not perform these duties for the pay, but rather the honor of representing my fellow citizens, a sense of civic responsibility, and the opportunity to contribute to the improvement of the City.

 

Lastly, as I'll address in the budget discussion below, I am concerned about the balance in this year's budget between the proposed tax increase, extent of expense reductions, and generation of sufficient savings. If this Ordinance is passed, those savings would be further reduced. As always, I welcome your feedback and that of my colleagues.  

   


O-20-13           Highly Compensated Employees in the Police and Fire Retirement Plan - For the purpose of establishing the definition of "highly compensated employee" within the Police and Fire Retirement Plan and authorizing such highly compensated employee participation in the Police and Fire Retirement Plan.     

 

Comment: The proposed ordinance would establish that the Chiefs of Police and Fire could purchase service time, retroactively, for pension plan benefits. This added benefit is intended to provide additional inducement to keeping or attracting the most qualified and desirable candidates for those positions. There is no negative fiscal impact to the City; the employee would be responsible for paying the necessary contributions to the Plan and for any actuarial fee associated with the calculation. I am not aware of any reason to vote against this measure. Therefore, unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.

 

R-10-13           A Protocol for Ensuring the Implementation of the Forest Conservation Act - For the purpose of enacting a protocol to ensure the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act. Proposed to be withdrawn. 

 

Comment: The City has been following the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), which is a State law that balances the protection of forests with the interests of development. Based on the recommendations of a work group formed last year, the Council now has pending an Ordinance (O-21-13) to consider changes to the City's implementation of the FCA.   

 

With the belief that those changes will include valuable improvements to the City's implementation of the FCA, co-sponsors and I introduced this Resolution to apply those changes as of April 1, 2013.  Unfortunately, that effort was perceived by some as having the potential to stymie new business in Annapolis.  

 

In an effort to both achieve the goals mentioned above, and eliminate the perceived unintended consequences, the sponsors and supporters of this Resolution agreed to withdraw this Resolution and simultaneously propose an amendment, with five co-sponsors, to O-21-13, which would achieve the same goal -- applying an effective date of April 1, 2013, to the expected changes to the implementation of the FCA.:    

  

 

R-27-13           Timothy House Rehabilitation of Timothy House and Redevelopment of Timothy Gardens - For the purpose of approving the rehabilitation of Timothy House and redevelopment of Timothy Gardens Project-based Section 8 properties in Annapolis, Maryland to be financed either directly by the Department of Housing and Community Development (the "Department") of the State of Maryland or through the Department's Community Development Administration (the "Administration"). 

 

Comment: The legislation represents the City's approval of this Project to be pursued by the State and the National Foundation for Affordable Housing Solutions, Inc. (NFAHS). NFAHS plans to acquire, rehabilitate, and redevelop Timothy House and Timothy Gardens. The legislation is not an endorsement of the lender or of the loan itself, and has no direct significant fiscal impact; if successful, however, it could raise the value of adjacent real estate. The Project itself would provide much needed repair work to these Section 8 properties in Annapolis.

  

 
R-28-13           Regionalizing Transit Service - For the purpose of expressing the sense of the Annapolis City Council for the Administration to move forward with negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Central Maryland Transportation & Mobility Consortium and to participate in a non-binding way with respect to the Request for Proposals. Aldermen Littmann and Arnett request to be added as co-sponsors on 2nd Reader. 

Comment: This legislation is limited to expressing the interest of the City to exploring with other governments in the region a regional transit system. Ideally, such a system will provide the same or similar services, but at a lower cost.

Because I am a proponent of providing government services at the most cost effective method, I think this opportunity is worth exploring and will vote for it. Note that this is not a commitment to the regional transit system itself, but rather just the exploration of what the parameters of such a system would include. The Council will have the opportunity to make a commitment to the system itself after the details can be identified and further considered.

 


Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and Related Legislation

 

BudgetGeneral Budget Comments:

Much of my time on the Council so far has been spent getting up to speed on the budgetary issues facing the City. I'm hoping that my background in running a bricks and mortar business with 30 employees and yearly budgets makes this an area where I can make a real contribution. Coming into this term so late, among the first things that I wanted to explore are trends for revenue and expenditures, cash flow, debt and liabilities.


These are few of my observations: 

  • The City makes available for anyone to see its comprehensive annual financial report (or CAFR). You can read the CAFR from FY2012, FY2011, or FY2010 here.
  • The City's financial situation was extremely bad and getting worse in the years leading up to the last City election, and has improved each year since (FY2011 was this term's first budget). Below is a chart I put together from various sources (note that some numbers vary slightly from one report to the next which, though frustrating, is not uncommon, so take each number with a small grain of salt). There is substantial improvement overall, and I attribute the improvement to the collective efforts and work of the Mayor, City Council, and City Staff, and therefore congratulate their efforts.

  

  

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

  

7/07-6/08

7/08-6/09

7/09-6/10

7/10-6/11

7/11-6/12

7/12-6/13

7/13-6/14

 

Actual $

Actual $

Actual $

Actual $

Actual $

Approved $

Proposed $

Rev-

enue  

(All Funds)

77,785,385

84,133,887

86,492,990

77,267,320

98,366,310

98,500,462

 

99,288,334

Expend-itures

(All Funds)

81,521,893

89,024,457

97,060,845

85,527,393

90,057,973

93,334,378

95,627,648

Net Surplus (Deficit)

(3,736,508)

(4,890,570)

(10,567,855)

  

(8,260,073)

8,308,337

5,166,084

3,660,686

Fund Balance on June 30

9,601,578

5,118,862

3,792,986

12,041,508

13,965,644 after short term debt

19,131,728 (projected = 18M)

22,000,000  projected

Short Term Debt

  
0  

10,000,000

18,000,000

10,000,000

0

2,000,000 paid in same year

Long Term Debt

71,637,175

65,358,273

85,231,540

86,590,528

83,594,000

124,000,000  122,000,000  

  

A few notable observations from this chart include:  

  • The growth in revenue is good or bad, depending on perspective and issue.
  • The change from structural deficit to surplus is very good.
  • The improvement in fund balance is very good.
  • The decrease in short term debt is good.
  • The increase in long term debt is concerning to me.
  • The drop-off in the net surplus in the proposed FY2014 budget, which is before the Council on June 10, 2013, is concerning to me.

More Good News 

  

Over the past few years, the City has reinvested in infrastructure. Though not exciting to brag about, few would argue the importance of ensuring that the City can supply clean water with an updated water treatment plant and replacement of water pipes throughout the City, and other improvements like cleaner sidewalks and streets that are repaired and repaved or replaced when necessary.  The City has also reduced expenses in certain situations, like with solid waste collection by going from public to private collection. 

  

The Bad News


My concern is that while the City's collective efforts have resulted in an improved financial situation over the past few years, the work is not done. Yet, the proposed budget does not continue the improvements. In my view, improvements are still necessary in these areas:

  • Cash flow. The current budget provides little safety net to keep from having to borrow cash short term.
  • Long Term Debt. The past two administrations have funded huge capital improvement projects with long term bonds, which have greatly increased the amount of long term debt the city is paying. Fortunately, this has occurred during a period of low interest rates. I'm not arguing with the merits of those projects, but rather the size of the debt, which now exceeds total annual revenue, and absence of a plan to significantly reduce it.
  • Addressing the City's pension and health insurance obligations. These particular issues are currently being negotiated between the City's and union's representatives, but there is no doubt that these funds are underfunded or not funded. During Council sessions, you may hear these issues generally referred to as the Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) issues. The specifics of the IBB negotiations are confidential, so in elaborating below I rely on information found in public documents.

The Police and Fire employees' pension remains underfunded. As reported in the FY2012 CAFR, p. 47, the Police and Fire pension plan is a defined benefit plan, whereby participants contribute 3-5% of their annual salary, and the City is required to fund the remaining cost of the plan. Note that for:


"the year ended June 30, 2012 the City had an annual required contribution of $6,488,344" but, only "made a contribution of $200,000." This shortfall increased the "City net pension obligation to $14,111,576 as of June 30, 2012." 


Similarly, as reported in the FY2012 CAFR, p. 49, the "City provides a post-

employment health insurance program through the General Fund in addition to the pension benefits." However, this program is unfunded. Again, as reported in that CAFR

  

The "City has not yet established a formal policy nor has it restricted any funds for the plan. The City is currently paying the retirees' healthcare costs on a 'pay-as-you-go' basis. The report goes on to report that the unfunded balance, as of July 1, 2012, is well over $44,000,000. 

  

 

Actuarial Value of Assets 
(a)

Actuarial
Accrued
Liability
(AAL)
Entry Age
(b)

Unfunded
AAL
(b - a)

Funded
Ratio
(a / b)

Covered
Payroll
(c)

Unfunded ALL as a Percentage of Covered Payroll
(b-a)/c)

2010

 

48,371,000

48,371,000

0%

30,230,000

160%

2011

 

46,146,000

46,146,000

0%

31,350,000

147%

2012

 

44,644,000

44,644,000

0%

31,842,000

140%

 
These obligations are growing in the current fiscal year, and will continue to grow, under the proposed budget, in the next fiscal year (starting July 1, 2013). Like many of the budget issues, the issues are complex. However, I believe that the proposed budget should provide a minimum of an additional $2 million towards this liability.

By the way, lest these concerns appear to be those of an uninformed newbie on the Council, the City's own Financial Advisory Commission largely addressed these same concerns to the Mayor and City Council in a letter dated May 10, 2013, which you can read here (scroll down to page 449).  

  

The Solution  

  

The proposed budget already contains a tax rate increase that is designed to raise a similar amount of tax revenue as last year, which is called a constant levy. It is employed to compensate for reduced home values and other changes from year to year. That means that if your home went down in value, your tax bill may stay the same. If your house value remained the same or went up, then your tax bill will go up. A small additional tax increase was considered, but may not even get proposed (this is a fluid situation), let alone passed. All in all, the City should not just tax its way out of this problem.


The first step in solving this shortfall is for the City Council to agree on the amount of additional funds needed, either through revenue increases or expense reductions. By establishing the goal, then we can have a serious discussion about how to achieve it by a combination of the two methods, revenue increases and expense reductions.  Additionally, when the Council considers additional expenses, such as the Council's compensation plan addressed above, it should do so with the goal of not further reducing the fund balance or savings portion of the budget.


Without an agreement on what the goal should be, proposed expense cuts will look like an attack on a program or service, and tax increases will be viewed as the simple but unsatisfactory answer. Further, proposing cuts without careful examination is potentially destructive and irresponsible, because they could have the effect of cutting worthwhile investments or cause unintended consequences. Accordingly, I will continue to try to persuade my colleagues and staff to focus first on establishing the goal -- how much in savings is needed? For the reasons stated above, I do not plan to suggest particular cuts or increases during the Council session on Monday. Instead, I will give the budget an up or down vote and, regardless of the outcome, continue to work toward addressing these concerns during in the upcoming fiscal year.

  

Because this is a fluid issue -- the Finance Committee is meeting again before the Council session on Monday -- I do not know what my vote will be. I want to vote for the budget because I believe that the Mayor, City Council, and staff have done so many good things these past few years to improve the City's financial situation, and this budget represents the continuation of progress in many areas. However, I'm torn because of the shortfalls outlined above, and my belief that they should have been addressed in this budget. Knowing that there is not time left in this year's budget cycle to adequately address my concerns, I'm leaning toward voting for the budget with the intent of addressing my concerns with next year's budget, earlier in the process, so long as I'm on the Council. I welcome your thoughts on this vote, as with others.    

  

 

O-11-13           Parking Permits for Contractors and Transporters of Merchandise and Materials - For the purpose of removing the distinction between contractor or merchandise/material transporter use of metered or un-metered parking spaces in determining the calculation of fees.  

 

Comment: The positive fiscal impact of this legislation is estimated at $3,000 calculated on 650 un-metered spaces and 350 metered spaces rented in a year. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.

     

 

O-12-13           Authorizing an Application Fee and Permit Fee for a Tree Removal Permit - For the purpose of authorizing the Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Programs to collect an application fee and permit fee for a tree removal permit.  

  

Comment: This is part of series of ordinances that are intended to recoup expenses associated with the staff's time to process applications, permits, and hearings. I'm in favor of this approach, rather than increasing everyone's taxes to pay for these expenses. A concurrent Resolution (R-13-13, FY 2014 Effective July 1, 2013) proposes an application fee of $30 and a permit fee of $60, conditional on the adoption of O-12-13. The fiscal impact to the City depends on the number of applications filed and permits issued. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.
:
  


O-13-13           Authorizing a Fee for a Hearing Before the Board of Port Wardens
- For the purpose of authorizing a fee for a hearing before the Board of Port Wardens.

 

Comment: This is also part of series of ordinances that are intended to recoup expenses and I'm in favor of this approach. The concurrent resolution, R-13-13, proposes an application fee of $100 for a Port Wardens hearing. Assuming the proposed fee is adopted and there are 20 applications in a year, the positive fiscal impact would be $2,000. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.

   

 
O-14-13           Clarification of the Utility Contractor Inspection Fee - For the purpose of clarifying the utility contractor inspection fee by deleting Section 16.04.030 of the Annapolis City Code and revising Section 16.04.060 in order to ensure objective and detailed inspection of any improvements and facilities, including water and sewer pipes and appurtenances, storm drainage systems, curbs, gutters and pavement within easements or rights-of-way; and authorizing an inspection fee that varies by the value of the construction to be performed.

Comment: As inspection fees are designed to cover the City's direct and administrative costs for the service, this legislation has no significant fiscal impact. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.

 

O-15-13           Clarifying the Fee-in-Lieu for Trees in Development Areas - For the purpose of clarifying the fee-in-lieu for trees in development areas by addressing the contradiction between Section 17.09.070 (C) of the Annapolis City Code and the fee schedule.  

 

Comment: The current fee in the fee schedule is $1,000 while the Code specifies in-ground cost plus 20 percent; proposed ordinance O-15-13 would remove the latter from the Code. Staff from DNEP said the $1,000 is an accurate estimate of their costs, and I'm relying on their information. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.    

  

R-12-13           Capital Improvement Program: FY 2014 to FY 2019 - For the purposes of adopting a capital improvement program for the six-year period from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2019.

 

Comment: New Projects Include:

  

City Dock Infrastructure                $  7,484,405

Wayfinding Signage                     $     220,000

Annual Transportation Plan           $     751,539

Legislative Management System   $       47,000

  

In addition, there is a proposed reduction on budgeting for General Sidewalks from $600,000 to $250,000 because the first year repair program is underway with prior year funds. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.

 

 

R-13-13           FY 2014 Fees Schedule Effective July 1, 2013 - For the purpose of specifying fees that will be charged for the use of City services for FY 2014.

 

Comment: The fees are largely unchanged from last year. I note that, in a letter to the Mayor and City Council dated May 10, 2013. The City's Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) remains concerned about how the City establishes its fee schedule:

 

"Last year we noted that there is no uniform process or system in effect across City operations to review and assess the appropriateness of existing or proposed fees, and depending upon the nature of a particular fee, whether the fee is reasonably calculated to cover the cost of regulation, is reasonably estimated to cover the cost of a service, or is comparable to other fees in the relevant marketplace. We further noted that there also appears to be no uniform system to report the rationale and justification for proposed fees to allow appropriate scrutiny during budget review, and this lack of uniform processes and systems can lead to a lack of transparency, accountability and oversight.

 

The Commission again recommends that such processes and systems be developed and implemented before the start of preparation of the FY 2015 budget."

 

The increase in fees will create a positive fiscal impact of $50,000. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure and thereafter work with staff to determine the validity of FAC's concerns and, if substantiated, address them.

 

 

R-14-13           FY 2014 Fines Schedule Effective July 1, 2013 - For the purpose of specifying fines that will be charged for FY 2014.

 

Comment The increase in fines may create a positive fiscal impact of $13,000, indicating that the fine schedule is not significantly changed. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intent to vote for this measure.

   

 

R-15-13           Position Classifications and Pay Plan -

For the purpose of approving the FY 2014 position classification and pay plan effective July 1, 2013.   

 

Comment: The pay plan is unchanged from that of FY 2013. Based on information available at this time, this legislation will produce no fiscal impact. Any reclassifications approved by the Civil Service Board will be reflected in departmental budgets. Unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure.     

 

O-8-13             Annual Operating Budget: FY 2014 - For the purposes of   

 

adopting an operating budget for the City of Annapolis for the Fiscal Year 2014; appropriating funds for expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2014; defraying all expenses and liabilities of the City of Annapolis and levying same for the purposes specified; specifying certain duties of the Director of Finance; and, specifying a rate of interest to be charged upon overdue property taxes.   

 

Comment: Please see my comments above for my position.   

 

O-9-13             Capital Improvement Budget: FY 2014 - For the purpose of adopting a capital improvement budget for the Fiscal Year 2014.

 

Comment: Please see my comments above about my concern about the growing long-term debt associated with these capital projects. Despite those concerns, unless otherwise convinced by you or my colleagues on the Council, I intend to vote for this measure and work with the Mayor and staff on the underlying concerns for next year's budget (so long as I'm on the Council).

   

ORDINANCE - 1ST READER

 

My commentary: On 1st reader, the Council votes to introduce these ordinances and resolutions to the City Council. If introduced, they will be sent to the appropriate committee(s) for review, and will be subject to public hearings before a vote on whether to adopt or approve them at a later date, unless those rules are waived by unanimous vote.  

  

O-25-13           Office or Studio of a Professional Person in the C1 (Conservation Residence) Zoning District - For the purpose of eliminating the office or studio of a professional person as a special exception subject to standards in the C1 - Conservation Residence zoning district.

 

O-26-13           Pet Grooming Facilities - For the purpose of separately defining a "pet grooming facility" from a "personal care establishment," and making a "pet grooming facility" a use subject to standards in all zoning districts that currently allow personal care establishments.

 

 

BUSINESS AND MISCELLANEOUS

  1. Approval of Revised Community Development Block Grant Allocations

Comment: This is good news. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development gave the City its final amounts for this grant program, and the amount was notably higher than expected. The recommendations for the Council are to allocate the funds in the same proportions as previously approved, using the higher amounts as the multiplier.

  1. Approval of Towing Licenses
  2. Appointment
  3. Budget transfers

 

Special Meeting: Monday, June 17, 2013
7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers

 

Work Session: Thursday, June 20, 2013
1:30 - 4:30 p.m., City Council Chambers


 City Council Meeting: Monday, July 8, 2013
7 p.m., City Council Chambers


 City Council Meeting: Monday, July 22, 2013
7 p.m., City Council Chambers

 

August - *No Meetings*
(Pursuant to Charter, Article IV, Sec.4.(a))

 

Want to stay in touch? 
.
Want to help me reach more people?

 
Stay Connected:
Like us on Facebook   Follow us on Twitter   View our profile on LinkedIn  
912 Forest Dr., Annapolis, MD

Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved.