What a difference a month makes. At its November meeting last night, the Town Council didn’t debate a zoning ordinance. There were no arguments or accusations about the lawsuit against the town and who’s right or wrong. In fact, the meeting was relatively brief and, frankly, not particularly exciting. It was wonderful.
First up was a presentation about the Garrett Park Elementary School’s stage. As all GPES alumni know well, this school has a long tradition of support for the arts. Yes, it’s elementary school, and performances of pre-teens often fall into the category that Randy Jackson on American Idol would call “a little pitchy, dog.” But that misses the point. These are little kids, who just might, if they are very, very lucky, move through life with a lasting appreciation for music and the stage. The problem right now is the stage itself. GPES is slated, beginning in late 2010, to be transformed into a modern, three-story building. Unfortunately, the County’s plans for a small, trapezoidal stage with no wings or back curtain would put quite a crimp on performance possibilities. So, the Garrett Park Elementary School Education Foundation is raising money to fund a stage at least the size of the existing one and maybe, if the bucks are right, bigger. The foundation wants the town to contribute $5,000 to the effort this fiscal year and $10,000 next year. (The whole stage project will cost $150,000 to $200,000.)
The obvious question is whether the town should play. Well, there is a history. Sixty years ago, the town kicked in to help build the stage GPES has now. In the current case, Mayor Keller suggested that, in return for the town’s possible financial backing (budget planning starts in a couple months), the town might be able to negotiate first dibs on rentals of the new space for events too large for town hall.
During this discussion, I couldn’t escape a feeling of foreboding--that if America’s fiscal nightmare is protracted, the town, in years to come, will have fewer and fewer opportunities to devote precious funds to more than basic services.
It may be lucky, then, that there is a possible resolution about the future of the Garrett Park Nursery School that likely wouldn’t consume buckets of cash. Mayor Keller and Councilmember Hans Wegner reported on a recent meeting with Montgomery County park and planning officials, who seem amenable to transferring to the town ownership of the nursery school building and the lot it sits on. But the County wants something in return: the half of the basketball court near Penn Place that the County park system doesn’t currently own. There would need to be clear conditions on this land swap, said the mayor, including a perpetual easement to the town, ensuring that a basketball court remains a basketball court and that access to Porcupine Woods remains unchanged. One potential enticement: the County folks have suggested that they might be able to build us a gazebo. Next steps: a written proposal from park and planning, followed by careful consideration.
In the more immediate fiscal situation, the town budget is taking a big hit in one area: the lawsuit Martin v. Garrett Park. “We are burning through cash in legal fees at the rate of $50,000 a month,” said Town Administrator Ted Pratt. At the moment, there’s a budget shortfall of about $54,000 in the “professional fees” category, so the council voted to transfer $20,000 from the operating contingency fund and $35,000 from the capital contingency fund, to cover the gap. There will almost certainly be more transfers needed, down the line. [Insert the comment of your choosing here about who’s to blame.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I all for the blog and for everyone's comments and opinions - about anything having to do with our town and surrounding communities. Thanks for starting this. Marcia Tollefson
In October you said: "When proposed in August, the new setback ordinance included a “laundry list” of items that were to be included in calculations of lot coverage, such as chimneys, decks, stoops and similar items. These have traditionally been considered—but not mandated for consideration—in applications for building permits. The amendment removed that list from the new ordinance. In other words, what “extras” are calculated in lot coverage remain a judgment call."
The lawsuit, which is driving our Town's enormous legal expense, addresses the legal gap created when unwritten law is applied, when restrictions are "considered -- but not mandated for consideration", when getting a legal permit is a judgment call.
I have been told that informal variance requests were informally turned down twice, again based on unwritten law. Hence the lawsuit was filed because there was nowhere else to turn but to the Court to ask that written law be followed.
And what does the new Ordinance establish with the "laundry list" deleted? A continuance of the legal gap, a continuance of Town exposure to lawsuits from anyone frustrated by restrictions "considered -- but not mandated for consideration," confused by law-by-judgment-call, no matter how well-intentioned.
What is wrong with writing down a law in all it's accurate detail for all to follow? Only with that as a foundation can the community meaningfully debate the content of that written law.
The Council nearly had it right -- and then blew it. That's why I signed the petition for the referendum. We MUST close this legal gap and end the Town's self-inflicted exposure to more and more legal expense.
Post a Comment