Dear Neighbors:
I hope everyone was able to enjoy the July 4th weekend despite the restrictions imposed by COVID-19. I was honored to participate on Saturday in a public reading in North Takoma of Frederick Douglass’s famous speech entitled “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”, which was originally delivered in 1852. I appreciate having been invited to join in by the residents who planned this event, which offered an opportunity to reflect on the meaning and historical significance of Independence Day in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement and the broader efforts underway to address racial inequities in our society.
Due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, the City Council meeting on Wednesday, July 8 will be held remotely. The public can view the meeting on City TV (RCN -- 13, HD 1060; Comcast/xfinity -- 13, HD 997; Verizon Fios -- 28), on the City Council Video Page of the City website; on YouTube, or on Facebook. Sign-up for public comments will be open until 5:00 PM on Wednesday: Link to sign-up for Live Public Comments.
Here’s a link to the meeting agenda: https://takomaparkmd.gov/meeting_agendas/city-council-meeting-agenda-wednesday-july-8-2020-2/. Key discussion items include City Charter and City Code changes connected to switching to a vote by mail system for Takoma Park’s fall elections, exterior design options for the Library project, plus the urban forest policy resolution and amendments to the Tree Ordinance. We’ll also be voting on re-appointment of the Poet Laureate, and there will be a report from the Youth Council. For more details about these topic see below.
UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ward One Community Discussion -- Tuesday, July 7 at 7:00 PM: I’ll be hosting a virtual meeting for residents of Ward One. You can register here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMuf-CtqjsrHdTSceVsifpfA2f9nOPcsJg6. After registering, you’ll receive a confirmation email with details about joining the meeting. Any topics are welcome, but if there are specific issues you’d like to see included as part of the discussion, feel free to let me know in advance and I’ll try to make sure we cover them.
City Manager Comments: You can see a write-up of City Manager Suzanne Ludlow’s official comments in last week’s Council meeting through this link: https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-manager/city-manager-comments/2020/City%20Manager%20Comments%20_%2007.01.2020.pdf
Sign Posting Ordinance -- In last week’s meeting, the Council unanimously adopted a resolution to continue the suspension of our sign posting ordinance in public areas for up to another year. This will give us time to figure out how best to balance Constitutional rights to freedom of expression with a desire to avoid unnecessary clutter of our streetscape and other public areas. For now, this means that most signs -- except those that create safety hazards by for example blocking drivers’ views -- will be allowed, including election related signs this fall.
Takoma Junction Development: During the public comment period in last week’s Council meeting a number of speakers expressed their continuing concern about the proposed development at the Junction, and urged the Council to schedule a session to review the project before the annual August break. Plenty of residents have made similar comments on the PEN list and in other online forums recently. I offered my views on these topics in last week’s meeting, which you can see through the following link to the Council video page: https://takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/meetings-and-documents/city-council-video/ (you’ll need to click on the July 1 link and then scroll ahead to the 1:39:30 mark). In addition, just prior to last week’s meeting, I circulated a statement to the various Ward One email lists with my thoughts on the timing for consideration of the project, which, revised slightly, follows:
As someone who voted in the City Council against the Takoma Junction Development site plan, I share some of the concerns about the project that have been raised by residents in the past and more recently. At the moment I don’t believe there’s a pressing need for the Council to take action. While the developer, NDC, is expected to submit a revised plan to the County this month, the County schedule doesn’t show anything relevant in terms of immediate action. The Planning Board isn’t meeting in August and -- based on where things stand today -- I don’t think there’s a serious likelihood the Board will take any sort of final action in September, particularly if the City still needs to review updated designs or other details connected to the County review process or the work of the State Highway Administration. If we need more time for review in the City, we can ask the Planning Board to accommodate our schedule.
Taking into account the continued uncertainty about SHA’s position on the traffic study and also about a final version of the vision study they conducted in collaboration with local residents, along with the revisions NDC is going to be making to their proposal, it’s my sense that review of the development will extend well past September. So I think it’s preferable to hold off for now on scheduling a City Council session on the development. When we know more about the points mentioned above, most likely later in the fall, I think we’ll be able to conduct a more productive review of the project and where it stands. As a Councilmember who doesn’t support the current site plan, I’m committed to making sure the City has the full opportunity to which we’re entitled to conduct a thorough review of the project and express our formal views before there’s any final action by the County Planning Board. I’m confident we’ll be able to do that.
VOTING SESSION
Poet Laureate Re-appointment: https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/agendas/2020/council-20200708-1.pdf. We’ll vote on re-appointing Kathleen O’Toole to a second two-year term as the City’s Poet Laureate, a position which includes an annual $1,000 stipend. I’m planning to vote in favor of the re-appointment.
WORK SESSION
Charter Amendments for Election by Mail: https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/agendas/2020/council-20200708-1.pdf. Because of the ongoing concerns about COVID-19 and specifically the challenges connected to large numbers of people gathering together in crowded conditions, the City is planning for our local Takoma Park elections this fall for Mayor and City Council to be conducted by mail. Making this switch will necessitate some changes to our City Charter and City Code, and those changes have to be set in motion this summer in order to ensure there’s time to appropriately implement them.
Our Board of Elections has indicated that it anticipates the counting and certifying of mail-in ballots will take longer than in a regular year when the vast majority of votes are cast in person (whether on Election Day or via early voting). We’ll be discussing several proposals to allow more time for determining the election results, as well as when the transition to the new Council takes place. There are also some proposed changes relating to write-in candidates.
I agree with the plan for voting by mail, and I understand that it may take longer to count the ballots. That said, I’d like to hear more about extending the time to count and certify the ballots all the way to the second Wednesday after the election, which is what’s proposed in the Charter amendments. I worry that taking that long may create unhealthy doubts about the results. I look forward to exploring these timing questions as part of our discussion.
City Code Revisions for Election by Mail: The background information on this agenda item was not available at the time I prepared this blog.
Library Exterior Design: https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/agendas/2020/council-20200708-4.pdf. The Council decided a couple of months ago on a 7 - 0 vote to ask the architect to complete the next phase of the project’s design work, in order to get us to a place later in the year where we’ll be able to more fully assess the potential construction costs and related expenses and then make a decision on going forward with the project. As part of that process, the City recently posted a survey to solicit resident opinion on exterior materials and appearance. We’ll be looking at the survey results and considering aspects of the exterior design during this week’s meeting. Later this year, when we have more precise cost details and a better idea for how the pandemic and its effects on the economy are continuing to evolve, we’ll be better positioned to vote on whether to go forward on construction.
So this week’s meeting isn’t one where we’ll face the go/no go decision. But, especially in light of the many comments about the overall project which residents have posted in response to the survey, it seems like an appropriate time for me to offer a more detailed explanation of my thoughts and views on the project. What follows is based in part on a detailed response I sent recently to a Ward One resident, who posted it on the PEN list with my approval.
When I joined the Council after the 2015 election, the Library project was slated to cost in the $3 - 4 million range. In my mind that design fell short of what we needed in the community, since we would have ended up with fewer books and little increase in public space. In reaching that conclusion I was motivated in particular by a desire to avoid what I saw as some of the drawbacks of the new Silver Spring Library. When I first visited that facility, it seemed more complicated than necessary to get to where the books and check-out were located, and there didn’t appear to be that many books. There was lots of public space for non-Library activities and businesses, but I didn’t really get a strong Library vibe from it. For our own Library, I didn’t like the idea of spending $4 million for very little additional public space and fewer books. That seemed like a project we’d live to regret down the road.
A key challenge with that earlier design was that in order to make the new space ADA compliant, it was necessary to lower the stacks and spread them out. That was the main reason there would be fewer books with the relatively modest proposed expansion of the footprint. Some residents have commented favorably on the homier image presented by the close together stacks we currently have. Unfortunately, they aren’t up to code under the ADA (which calls for room for a wheelchair to turn around, as well as a lower stack height). And while a non-compliant arrangement like what we currently have can be grandfathered and kept in place, once we initiate major renovations, it’s necessary to bring the design up to code.
After pondering those challenges, I was one of the new Councilmembers who pushed in 2016 for a design with more overall space. That led to a further review of the project -- with significant public input -- after which we ended up at $7 million in construction and related costs for the larger design we’re currently working on. That’s how much we borrowed in the State bonding process, and it’s the main source of funds for the project. The two other sources -- State grants and some of our cable TV money -- are technically from outside the City budget. Of course there’s interest, so the total cost over the 30 year life of the bond is around $11 million. Because it’s spread out over 30 years, the annual payment is about $390,000, between 1 and 1.5 percent of our annual budget, depending on how you calculate it. That’s in contrast to what would have been around $220,000 annually for a $4 million project, a difference of around $170,000 a year.
But what about the additional increases in estimated project costs -- up to a level of $9.8 million -- that have come about since 2016? Some of that is due to the type of inflation increase that’s relatively common for any construction project after 4 more years of planning, and it includes in particular some higher estimates for crucial components like steel that have seen some price hikes tied to the recent trade and tariff disputes. Another factor is the updated flood plain findings and related County requirements, which have also added to the construction cost.
My goal has been to hold the construction costs that would come directly out of the City budget if at all possible at that same $7 million figure. So far that’s still the case, since as mentioned the additional funds over $7 million would come from either State grants or unused portions of our cable TV fund (neither of which is connected to the City or County property tax or the share of the State income raised in the City, which we receive as part of our budget). There’s no such thing as free money, but those two sources are in effect outside our regular budget process. The State grants can only be used for the Library, and while we use the cable funds for upgrades to our technology infrastructure most years, there’s additional cable money available for use as part of the Library even with those upgrades. So right now -- and again these estimates are subject to change -- the construction and related costs for the project that would be borne directly by the City budget are still estimated to be $7 million.
What about using the bond funds we borrowed for some other purpose? We’ve paid approximately $390,000 annually for principal and interest on the bonds for the last few years, and we’re legally obligated to pay it each year whether we move ahead with the project now or later or never. We’d potentially be able to use the money for some other large capital project with a lifespan of at least 30 years, and in another 5 years we could possibly have more flexibility in use of the funds. But for now we don’t have any other big projects that are ready. While we are planning to rebuild the New Hampshire Avenue Recreation Center, we’re hoping that can be a public-private partnership with a substantial number of housing units included to help keep costs to the City minimal. In any case, we’re not yet close to the design stage, with the next phase of neighborhood outreach having been disrupted by the pandemic. And, again, in the short-term any shifts in use of the bond funds would have to be for a capital project with at least a 30-year life span. Under the bond terms we can’t use the money we’ve borrowed for, say, COVID-19 relief or short-term satellite library services.
If we go forward with construction, we should consider it in the context of our climate change policies. That should also be part of our review of the design work, and it could lead to changes in, among other areas, some of the exterior components covered in the survey. Concerning the City’s past work on larger projects, I don’t know all the details on the Community Center renovation, but my understanding is that there was no construction manager, whereas in this case there will be. Second, with that project the information about the flood plain was brought in so late that we ended up having to make significant last minute changes, with key elements like the gym dropped. In this case, the flood plain issues have been identified in advance of the final design work and accounted for. Furthermore, the current estimate includes contingency/escalation funds within the overall estimate equal to 15 percent of the hard construction costs.
There’s naturally been a lot of comparison of the current design proposal to the Silver Spring Library, but I don’t see the current design as having much in common with Silver Spring. For the Takoma Park design there’s only one floor, with space for at least the same amount of books we currently have, plus some additional space for teens, and no longer a need to double up on usage of the children’s room for adult events. We could even drop the teen room to save some construction money. But the space is largely focused on Library purposes, plus some modest improvements to the staff offices and ADA compliant restrooms, without all the other features that make the Silver Spring facility kind of overwhelming in size and complexity. I would note that the current design also includes some improvements to the Recreation Department space in the Community Center, and we can considering dropping some of those changes in order to save costs.
In my view the Library is one of the resources that makes our community a great place to live. It serves a wide range of residents, including lower income people who don’t have adequate Internet access. Its programs benefit people of all ages and backgrounds, and large numbers of people, including students from the three nearby schools, use the facility throughout the day. But the current building is nearing the end of its useful life, and it’s unlikely to be able to stay in operation much longer. So I think upgrading and expanding the Library makes sense, provided we can do so in a fiscally responsible way.
I understand some residents may disagree with the larger design or borrowing the amount of money we have, or for that matter may believe we should eliminate our Library and just go with the County system. I differ on that last point because I don’t think it’s that easy for many of our residents to get to one of the County facilities. For me, ending up with a building that doesn’t have the drawbacks of the Silver Spring Library, and spreading the costs out over 30 years so that current and future residents contribute to the rebuilding costs, is a prudent move. And at the moment it appears doable for us to complete the project without increasing the impact on the City budget beyond what we agreed to when we took on the bond in 2016.
That doesn’t mean we should automatically go forward with construction of the current concept or that it shouldn’t be scaled back in some ways. As mentioned, once this design phase is complete later this year, we’ll be able to make decisions on final design and construction. As part of that process, there will be plenty of opportunities, as there have been over the last four and half years, for community input. But for now, I’d like to see us complete this design phase so we can more fully assess the costs and then decide how to proceed at that point, taking into account where things stand with the pandemic, including our broader financial condition and whether there are other COVID related factors to consider in terms of the Library’s operation going forward.
Tree Resolution and Tree Ordinance Amendments: Last week’s agenda information contains the relevant information on both the resolution and the ordinance: https://takomaparkmd.gov/meeting_agendas/city-council-meeting-agenda-wednesday-july-1-2020/ (scroll down to the last agenda item). The Council has had a lengthy series of discussions on changes to the Tree Ordinance and to our tree policies since late 2018, along with public forums, a resident survey and numerous other smaller meetings and exchanges. We’re now approaching the point when we’ll be ready to finalize a comprehensive re-write of the ordinance and also to approve a resolution to establish goals for the tree canopy and declare our overall urban forest policies. With Councilmembers Dyballa and Kostiuk, I’ve been part of a Council working group which has focused on moving toward a final version of both documents, on which votes are planned for later this month. Among the most important outstanding issues are:
Whether to allow not only dead or hazardous trees, but also those in imminent decline, to be cut down without a requiring replacement trees. In order to compensate for any trees “lost” as a result, we’d have to undertake a significant expansion of our public tree planting efforts.
With or without the change for trees in imminent decline, in order to meet the target of “no net loss” of our tree canopy we’ll need to develop a longer term urban forest plan and expand our tree planting efforts, both of which will have major budgetary impacts.
With our tree canopy not spread evenly around the City, and with some neighborhoods with higher concentrations of Black and brown residents having significant less canopy, we need to expand efforts to promote racial equity in the context of tree coverage.
Peter Kovar, Takoma Park City Council, Ward One
240-319-6281; www.councilmemberkovar.com
(He, Him, His)
Important Privacy Notice: All correspondence, including emails, to or from City of Takoma Park agencies, officials, and employees is subject to the Maryland Public Information Act and may be disclosed to the public.