County’s Homeless Shelter Expansion Proposal is a Case Study in Mismanagement

Existing shelter facility. Photo by M-NCPPC.

A coalition of single-family homeowners near the Addison Road–Seat Pleasant Metro Station is seething about a proposed $16.8 million reconstruction and expansion of an existing men’s homeless shelter facility on Addison Road South in Capitol Heights. The Prince George’s County Planning Board is scheduled to review the proposal in a virtual public meeting on December 10.

The current shelter, Prince George’s House, was constructed in 1987. It is essentially a bolted together set of prefabricated modular buildings, comprising 5,700 square feet, with a 36-bed capacity. The shelter is the only county facility that provides emergency and transitional housing for single male residents who are experiencing homelessness.

County officials are proposing to construct a one-story, 25,000 SF replacement facility—more than quadruple the size of the existing building—on the same site. The new facility would be fully ADA-accessible and would include additional space for existing services such as an onsite clinic, kitchen, and library. Once the new building is completed, the county proposes to demolish the existing modular building and replace it with surface parking lots and a basketball court. Despite the increase in building size, the proposed facility would add only 20 beds, for a total capacity of 56.

Architectural rendering for new shelter. Image by M-NCPPC. 

Site plan for new shelter. Image by M-NCPPC.

Homeowners Allege Foul Play by County

The homeowner coalition, “One Addison United,” is comprised mostly of residents of two relatively new subdivisions abutting Prince George’s House—The Park at Addison Metro and Brighton Place—and two older subdivisions across Addison Road South: Rolling Ridge and Wilburn Estates. (Full disclosure: the author resides less than 1,000 feet from Prince George’s House, in another nearby subdivision, and has met with OAU’s organizers; however OAU had no input into this article, which is the exclusive work, analysis, and opinion of the author.)

According to a flyer that OAU distributed in advance of a hastily scheduled county webinar presentation on December 1, the group is dismayed by the “stunning lack of transparency from the County regarding this project.” They claim county officials intentionally tried to dodge the required procedures for public outreach and public hearings by the Planning Board and instead pursued a fast-track, behind-the-scenes administrative review by planning staff in 2019.

Additionally, OAU makes an economic justice argument that it is fundamentally unfair of the county to place an expanded homeless shelter next to some of the area’s newest and most valuable real estate, on one of the main planned mixed-use corridors for the Addison Road Metro Station area. The community is already economically distressed—lacking basic amenities such as grocery stores, banks, and sit-down restaurants within walking distance of the Metro station—and OAU fears the shelter will bring down neighborhood property values and further hamper economic development prospects in the area.

The Development Review Process for County Projects

In its filing with the Planning Board, the county’s Office of Central Services—which is responsible for site selection, land acquisition, construction, design, and maintenance related to county buildings—stated starkly that the county had made “no outreach” to the community, because its proposed new and expanded homeless shelter was going to be located on the same site as the existing Prince George’s House.  

The county’s December 1 webinar evinced a similar unwillingness by county officials to engage meaningfully with the public concerning the proposed new men’s shelter. In the face of obvious community outrage at being kept in the dark about this project, County Executive Angela Alsobrooks’s Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Health, Human Services, and Education, Dr. George Askew, politely but firmly set the stage at the outset of the presentation by saying that this project “is moving forward” and “will happen.” Similarly, the county’s Director of Central Services, Jonathan Butler, declared that “We are beyond the design phase of this project” and that the county was ready to begin construction as soon as possible on the existing site.

Unfortunately for the county, that is not how the process is supposed to work.

State law mandates that all governmental entities (federal, state, and local) must submit plans for “locating, constructing, or authorizing” any public building or structure to the Planning Board for “mandatory referral review,” and that the Planning Board must hold public hearings and make advisory recommendations for approval or disapproval of any such activity. The Planning Board reviews proposed activities for consistency with applicable comprehensive plans and zoning requirements; neighborhood compatibility regarding size, shape, scale, height, arrangement, and design; safety and efficiency of pedestrian and vehicular access; and other environmental factors.

Following the Planning Board’s mandatory advisory review, Prince George’s County’s laws require that the County Council (sitting in its administrative capacity as the District Council for zoning and land use matters) specifically review and approve or disapprove any public building, structure, or use proposed by the county government. The Council must independently consider the relationship of the project to applicable comprehensive plans; the impact of the project on the area affected; the availability of other, more appropriate sites; and the relative need for the facility.

Importantly, the county’s laws also require that county and municipal government entities (as distinct from federal and state entities) must adhere to all applicable zoning and development review requirements and administrative procedures, just like any other private property owner. In this case, that means the county should follow the same detailed site plan procedures applicable to private property owners.

The detailed site plan procedures address all of the standards relevant to the Planning Board’s mandatory review, and also provide the public with specific notice, comments, and hearing rights. However, unlike in private development review cases, the Planning Board is not the ultimate decider. The District Council retains the authority to apply its own judgment and make its own findings based on the record, because state law provides that the ultimate decision whether to proceed with a county project must rest with the county government itself.

As discussed below, the county has flouted many of these legal requirements.

The County Skipped the First Step: Site Selection

The Planning Board’s procedures make clear that the mandatory referral process may be multi-staged, such as when a project is “initially reviewed by the Planning Board at site selection, and later for approval of the proposed design of buildings and site improvements.” Moreover, the procedures provide that “All site selections…must be submitted for Mandatory Referral before they are finalized.”

Here, the county did not bother to submit the issue of site selection to the Planning Board. Indeed, it did not engage in a site selection process at all. As the county’s Director of Social Services, Gloria Brown Burnett, explained at the December 1 webinar, there was never any consideration or discussion about placing the new homeless shelter anywhere other than the site of the existing Prince George’s House.

Certainly, the existing 2.63-acre site could accommodate a sprawling one-story suburban style 25,000 SF building, with significant surface parking, as the county is proposing. However, the site could also just as easily accommodate 500,000 SF of dense urban multistory mixed-use development—perhaps with a much-needed grocery store on the ground floor. Thus, one question worth considering is whether the county’s proposed low-density building, with a floor-area ratio (FAR) of only 0.22, is an appropriate and economically viable use for an essentially vacant large parcel of land within a half-mile of a Metro station.

There are many other, smaller, vacant or substantially vacant lots within a half-mile of Metro stations in the county that could accommodate a more compactly designed 25,000 SF building. Some of these parcels are doubtless already owned by the county, or could easily and cheaply be acquired. A proper site selection process requires that the county engage in the appropriate due diligence to investigate potential alternatives and bring forth several of them for consideration.

This approximately one-acre decommissioned surface lot, a similarly short
walking distance from the Addison Road Metro Station, is one of several sites that
could also be suitable for the new shelter. Image from GoogleEarth.

Another question the county would do well to ponder is whether a 56-bed men’s facility is adequate to meet the significant need for emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness in Prince George’s County. At the December 1 webinar, Assistant Director of Community Services Renee Ensor-Pope revealed the startling statistic that of the 618 total requests for emergency shelter that the county received from single men last year, the county turned away 494 of them (80%) because it lacked sufficient capacity. Given those figures, it seems unwise and irresponsible to spend $16.8 million to increase capacity by only 20 beds.

Regardless of whether the county ultimately decides to pursue the 56-bed option or a larger facility, the same site selection principles apply: one should not simply assume, without any data, due diligence, or public input, that the existing location of Prince George’s House is the appropriate location for a new facility to serve homeless populations.

The County Bungled the Second Step: Site Design

In addition to its many process-related deficiencies in connection with this proposed new homeless shelter, the county’s proposed building design is hopelessly flawed. The county’s comprehensive plans for the Addison Road Metro Station area call for new urbanist designed multistory, vertical mixed-use urban buildings along Addison Road South, within walking distance of Metro.

Building façades are supposed to be placed at and should open up to the sidewalk. Buildings should also occupy most of their lot frontages along the major street, so that they form a continuous building edge with a consistent setback, which helps define the public zone of the street. Automobile parking is generally to be provided on-street, underground, or above street level in a structured parking facility. However, if surface parking cannot be avoided, it must be placed behind the building façade, not visible from the street.

The county’s proposed building design for the new men’s shelter ignores all of those comprehensive plan regulations. Its proposed building is a one-story, suburban styled building that adheres to virtually none of the principles of new urbanism. The building is set back 25 feet from the Addison Road South street edge, has no doors or windows on that side of the building, and does not occupy most of the frontage on that street. Instead, the county has flanked the building with unsightly and large stormwater management ponds on either side of the building instead of applying more appropriate urban stormwater management design techniques.

On the Ernie Banks Street frontage, instead of being pulled up to the sidewalk, the entire building façade is set back far from the street and blocked either by strip mall-style surface parking lots or stormwater management ponds. The rear half of the parcel is almost exclusively consumed by an unsightly amalgamation of pavement (either for surface parking or a basketball court) and stormwater management ponds.

In short, the county’s proposed site design reflects a waste of valuable land in every direction, wholly incompatible with urban transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use principles.

Not surprisingly, the county’s uninspired building design also does not meet the minimum benchmark for LEED Silver qualification from the U.S. Green Building Council, even though a 2007 executive order mandates that new county buildings achieve that minimum qualification. And to be clear: it is entirely possible for the county to construct an economical, new urban designed, LEED Silver certified building for the homeless that complies with the county’s comprehensive plans for the Addison Road Metro Station area.

In 2004, for example, the City of Austin, Texas, constructed the similarly sized Austin Resource Center for the Homeless (ARCH) for $5 million (approximately $7 million in 2020 dollars):

Austin Resource Center for the Homeless (Austin, TX)

This three-story, 26,800 SF American Institute of Architects award-winning building accommodates 100 beds, as compared to the 56-bed facility that Prince George’s proposes. It also includes a large common-use room, showers and locker rooms, laundry facilities, a computer room, an art studio, and offices for various community-support agencies, in addition to a large commercial kitchen and dining room. All that at 42% of the cost of the $16.8 million facility that the county is proposing for the Addison Road South site. (For additional details on the ARCH development, this helpful case study is worth a look.)

Rather than modeling appropriate compliance with community plans and county procedures, the Office of Central Services is here demonstrating some of the worst characteristics of private developers, who all too often seek to build anything they want, anywhere they want, regardless of what the law says. This is precisely why public engagement and public notice are crucial components of the development review process. A proper public engagement process could have brought all these issues to light at a much earlier stage.

The County Should Own Its Errors and Do the Right Thing

Toward the conclusion of the December 1 webinar, as tempers began flaring increasingly in the chat box, DCAO Askew urged participants to remember that we are each other’s neighbors and family, and that we should approach this proposed homeless shelter with that spirit in mind.

It was a good sentiment to express, but County Executive Alsobrooks and Dr. Askew should first ensure that their subordinates take that advice. Tempers are flaring, after all, because the county mishandled this project. It did so by not engaging with the public, not exercising due diligence in the site selection and building design processes, and not following the law. In the spirit of family, and as responsible public officials, the county should therefore hit the pause button, withdraw the current mandatory review application, and begin this process anew—the right way.

There is no reason that Prince George’s County cannot improve vital services and facilities for individuals experiencing homelessness in a way that also adheres to the applicable law and comprehensive plans, and that respects and honors the public’s right to participate in good faith in the affairs of government.

Amazon Westphalia: A Case Study in Rogue Zoning

Proposed Amazon Warehouse Building in Westphalia. Image: M-NCPPC.

Rumor has it that Amazon is planning to build a massive four million square foot distribution warehouse in the heart of Westphalia Town Center in southern Prince George’s County, near Joint Base Andrews. This comes as a shock to residents of the developing community, who were promised a walkable, transit-oriented environment with a vibrant mix of offices, stores, and restaurants.

In recent weeks, the Prince George’s County Council has rammed through a series of significant changes to the zoning ordinance to authorize and justify placing a huge industrial building in the middle of a planned suburban town center. The Council enacted these zoning changes without submitting them to the County Executive for approval and without allowing the standard 45-day period for the public to decide whether to petition the ordinances for a referendum, in violation of the county charter.

In addition, because these zoning changes apply only to Westphalia and benefit only its owner, Walton International, and the intended purchaser, Duke Realty, they likely violate state laws prohibiting “spot” or “contract” zoning. Sadly, the potential illegality of these ordinances has not deterred the council members in the least. Rather, it is just the latest example of their rogue method of enacting zoning legislation.

The Developers' and County Council’s Bait-and-Switch

Amazon’s proposed distribution center is five stories and 85 feet high, with a footprint exceeding 820,000 square feet, for a total of approximately 4.1 million square feet of warehouse space. That equates to a land area of about 16 football fields arranged in a 4 x 4 configuration, or about 5 contiguous city blocks. By contrast, the length of each of side of the Pentagon is about 300 feet shorter and the height about 14 feet shorter than this proposed warehouse. Surrounding the building on the 78-acre site will be 1,786 automobile parking spaces, 200 truck loading spaces, and 65 loading docks.

Proposed Site Plan for Amazon's Westphalia Warehouse. Image: M-NCPPC

Anyone reading the preceding paragraph can easily see that Amazon’s proposed building is neither walkable, mixed-use, nor transit-oriented. Yet, the developers and the County Council have colluded to shoehorn this project into this legacy “mixed-use transportation-oriented” (“MXT”) zone by theorizing that Westphalia needs a major employment use to catalyze development and that the county could benefit from the projected 1,500 jobs this facility would bring.

The Council’s zoning amendments create a fancy new term—“merchandise logistics center”—to describe this distribution warehouse, and then allow this industrial use in Westphalia’s MXT zone, despite the land use requirements for this area as set forth in the 2014 General Plan and the 2007 Westphalia Sector Plan.

Incidentally, this flurry of zoning activity is all taking place under the current, soon-to-be-expiring zoning ordinance. The Council passed a comprehensive zoning ordinance rewrite last year, but it has not taken effect yet. Under the new ordinance, which seeks to implement the county’s general plan, Westphalia is contemplated to be designated as a mixed-use “Town Activity Center” (“TAC”) zone. Warehouse uses and excessive surface parking of the kind in this planned Amazon facility are not permitted in the TAC zone. Additionally, the maximum permitted block length in the core of the TAC zone is 600 feet—less than a third of the length of the proposed Amazon Westphalia facility.

The original vision for Westphalia Town Center. Image: M-NCPPC

Thus, even before the new zoning ordinance can take effect, the County Council is already busy at work poking holes in it. The Council is continuing its practice of passing indiscriminate zoning ordinance text amendments to permit things the original ordinance prohibited—adding extraneous definitions and footnotes that create exceptions that allow particular developers to build something that would otherwise be prohibited, or that allow particular council members to bring pet projects to their districts. None of this bodes well for the new zoning ordinance, or for the overall land use and development policies of the county.

What Should Happen With Westphalia and Amazon’s Proposed Warehouse

The County Council and the Westphalia developers are correct to point out that the market prospects are bleak for dense mixed-use office and retail development in that area, which is outside of the Beltway and far away from transit. But that reality is not new. The development concept for Westphalia Town Center has always been a fanciful pipe dream, conceived originally out of developer and county official corruption, then later by developer greed, the parochial interests of multiple District 6 council members, and undisciplined land use policies that facilitate massive suburban greenfield development instead of focusing on developing around Metro stations and in the urbanized inner-Beltway areas of the county.

Rather than continuing to pursue an ill-advised development concept, the county should commence a comprehensive community planning process to revise and replace the 2007 Westphalia Sector Plan. The new sector plan should seek to preserve or restore the rural character and natural resources of the areas that are currently substantially undeveloped, such as the previously planned town center core where the Amazon warehouse is now being proposed.

At the same time, the new sector plan should seek to define a more realistic vision for success in the areas of Westphalia that are currently being developed. The focus should be on walkability and recreational facilities within the residential areas and also multi-modal connectivity between residential and designated neighborhood commercial areas. Smaller scale vertical mixed-use development should be encouraged in the neighborhood commercial areas.

In addiiton, the county should still vigorously pursue the development opportunity for the Amazon distribution center, but instead direct it to a more appropriate location. A prime location (no pun intended) for this facility would be the old Landover Mall site, which is adjacent to the Beltway and has ample transportation infrastructure already in place to support a 24-hour merchandise distribution center.

Aerial view of Landover Mall site, with proposed rail transit station. 

The eastern portion of the site, closest to the Beltway, could be rezoned into the Industrial Employment (IE) zone under the new zoning code. The western portion, closest to Brightseat Road, could be zoned into the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone, which would also permit multifamily residential mixed-use and live-work unit development. A bus or future rail transit facility could be placed in the center of the development. Structured parking for the Amazon warehouse could be provided either in the neighborhood commercial area or the industrial area. Of course, these modifications would require a revision to the Landover Gateway Sector Plan.

Weigh In At This Week’s Planning Board Hearing

The Planning Board will meet on Thursday, July 18, at 1:00 pm, in the First Floor Hearing Room at the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro to consider the Detailed Site Plan application for the Westphalia distribution warehouse. You can review or download the DSP materials here.

If you have concerns regarding the way the County Council enacted these zoning changes, or with the substance of the proposal, this is your time to speak up. You first must register to become a party of record in connection with DSP-19008 Snapper (Westphalia). Then you can appear and speak at the hearing or email your written comments prior to the hearing to Mr. Jeremy Hurlbutt, Master Planner, who is assigned to review this file. You may also mail or fax your comments to him prior to the hearing at: MNCPPC, Urban Design Section, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Dr, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772; fax: 301.952.3749.

Is Prince George’s going rogue with zoning bills?

Image by Shelly

For many decades, the Prince George’s County Council has deliberately not followed the same procedures when passing zoning legislation as it does when passing other legislation. Nothing in state or county law authorizes the Council to treat zoning bills differently than other bills. Nevertheless, because it has been doing so for so long, virtually no one seems to notice or complain. Perhaps that should change.

The Council’s short-circuited zoning procedures allow it to rush through often hugely consequential or controversial bills relating to land use and development in Maryland’s second-largest county without giving the public fair notice of bill amendments. Those procedures also deprive the County Executive of the right to review and approve or disapprove of zoning legislation. Additionally, by allowing most zoning laws to become effective immediately, rather than waiting 45 days as with other legislation, the Council thwarts the ability of citizens to petition zoning laws to referendum.

In this Trumpian era, where quaint notions like adherence to the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances are being tested almost daily in our federal government, we should also remember to examine how those principles can become frayed at the local level. After all, local laws often impact our daily lives much more than federal laws and policies.

Council's passage of the new zoning code was one recent example

Last year, for example, the Council enacted a comprehensive rewrite of the county’s 70-year-old zoning ordinance. To be sure, the rewrite effort was a massive and worthwhile undertaking, with an unprecedented level of public engagement over many years. Yet, between the formal introduction of the bill on September 25, 2018, and the public hearing when the Council enacted the bill on October 23, 2018 (the last session of the year), there were literally hundreds of pages of substantive amendments to the bill.

Several citizens urged the Council to hold off on final passage of the bill and to hold future hearings once the Council reconvened in 2019, so that the public could gain greater clarity regarding important changes in the bill. Even the bill’s sponsors acknowledged the breakneck speed with which the Council was moving to enact the zoning rewrite.

Following its decades-old custom, the Council did not send the enacted zoning bill to the County Executive for approval. Fortunately, the Council wisely included a delayed effective date provision, which will allow it an opportunity to cure any substantive or procedural defects before implementing the new zoning code.

The county charter governs how local bills become laws

Prince George’s County is a “charter county” under Maryland law, which means its governing authority derives from a specific organizing document adopted by the people of the county. According to Prince George’s Charter, the County Council must hold a public hearing not earlier than 14 days after a councilmember formally introduces a bill. However, if councilmembers substantively amend the bill during that hearing, they must re-notice the bill for another public hearing in the same manner as the originally introduced legislation.

Additionally, the Charter provides for a separately elected County Executive. When the Council passes legislation, it must send the enacted bill to the Executive, who has 10 days to decide whether to sign the bill into law or veto it. If the Executive vetoes the bill, the Council can override the veto by a two-thirds vote.

Ordinarily, a non-emergency bill becomes effective 45 days after the County Executive signs it into law or the Council overrides the Executive’s veto. However, if at least 10,000 voters sign a petition within 45 days of the law’s approval, the law’s effective date is suspended, and the people can vote directly on whether to approve or disapprove of a local law. The referendum election occurs at the next occurring general election, which are in November of every even-numbered year.

The Regional District Act grants Prince George’s authority to enact local zoning laws

The Maryland General Assembly grants counties (and most municipalities) the authority to enact local planning and zoning laws. In Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, a state law known as the Regional District Act (“RDA”) vests planning and zoning power in a bi-county agency known as the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The Commission is composed of five appointees from each county, and each group of five commissioners is known as the “Planning Board” for their respective county. Similarly, the RDA designates each county’s County Council as the “District Council” for their respective county.

The RDA provides that each District Council may “by local law adopt and amend the text of the zoning law for that county,” as well as any accompanying zoning map. It defines “local law” as “an enactment of the legislative body of a local jurisdiction, whether by ordinance, resolution, or otherwise,” and states that the District Council’s lawmaking authority “is not intended to alter in any way the form or legislative mechanism that the applicable enabling authority requires for the local jurisdiction to enact the local law….”

In Prince George's County, enacted bills do not "become law" until the County Executive approves them or the County Council overrides the Executive's veto.

Any zoning law enacted in violation of the charter can be invalidated

So it seems clear that any zoning law that Prince George’s enacts must follow the same procedures as any other local law—right? Well, apparently not.

The Council has previously claimed that a 1973 ruling from Maryland’s high court means that it does not have to follow the same procedures when passing zoning laws. That case held that no provision of a local charter could override the Regional District Act. However, that case does not apply here, because the Charter is not seeking to override the RDA. Rather, the Charter simply defines how to enact local laws in Prince George’s County.

Generally, if a legislative body does something that it is not authorized to do, the action is void from the outset and, therefore, of no legal effect. However, the timelines for challenging any particular legislative enactment may be short. Typically, an aggrieved party must file a judicial review action in the Circuit Court within 30 days of the Council’s final action. There may be ways to challenge the invalid law later, but the Council may try to assert that the legal challenge is too late.

Ultimately, though, the Prince George’s County Council should not wait for a legal challenge to modify its procedures. Instead, it should just follow the requirements of the County Charter when it passes zoning legislation.

Commuters Need More Public Transit Alternatives to Survive SafeTrack Surge #2

Image by WMATA

As WMATA begins its 16-day shutdown of all Metrorail service across the Anacostia River, it is hoping that 60-70 percent of its ordinary ridership east of the river will simply abandon the rail transit system in favor of alternative modes of transportation.

That’s not likely to happen, though, unless officials provide more realistic public transit alternatives, such as additional bus shuttles to the Green Line and designated HOV lanes.

This second safety surge of Metro’s yearlong SafeTrack program of major repairs will run through July 3. During that time, Potomac Avenue and Stadium Armory stations on the Orange, Blue, and Silver (OR/BL/SV) lines will be completely closed. That means the approximately 25,000 commuters in Prince George’s County and in DC’s Ward 7 who normally ride those lines will need to find some other way to get to and from downtown Washington and Northern Virginia.

Metro’s website has compiled a detailed list of the current mitigation plans that WMATA, District, and Prince George’s officials have developed. The plans include 40 shuttle buses from Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road to Eastern Market and expanded Metrobus service on several key routes into the District.

That's a great start. However, officials readily acknowledge that the current mitigation plans are not sufficient to meet existing demands. They have stressed that commuters should avoid the Metrorail system if they can, particularly during peak periods. They suggest telecommuting, carpooling, and bicycling as potential alternatives, in addition to Metrobus.

But not everyone can telecommute or change their work schedules, and it’s unreasonable for officials to expect that employers will allow their workers to stay home for two full work weeks. Similarly, biking and carpooling are often not realistic options for many commuters.

Local Government is Ultimately Responsible for Providing Effective Transit Solutions

Fundamentally, SafeTrack is a public transportation crisis, and it needs a public transportation solution. A mitigation plan that relies on 60-70 percent of the relevant population disappearing from the public transit system for more than two weeks is simply not an adequate or effective plan.

On Thursday, Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker rightly chastised the State of Maryland for not doing enough to help mitigate SafeTrack. Maryland Transportation Secretary Pete Rahn has been noncommittal on what, if any, services and funds the state will offer its DC metro-area counties in connection with these Metro repairs. To be sure, the state’s aloofness in the face of this crisis is troubling. Nevertheless, it can’t absolve the county from taking primary responsibility for providing workable transit solutions.

For its part, WMATA has consistently stressed that it needs the local jurisdictions to share in the pain of SafeTrack by providing additional resources and coordination—including bus support and traffic controls such as HOV lanes. WMATA is already significantly underfunded by the region; therefore, it is not surprising that it has only limited additional resources of its own to provide.

Bottom line: County Executive Baker, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, and their respective transportation departments are principally accountable for ensuring that SafeTrack will not cripple their residents. This is a quintessential local public safety and welfare issue that cannot be delegated to anyone else, including WMATA or the State of Maryland.

We Need Designated HOV/Bus Lanes

Photo by Oran Viriyincy on Flickr

Thus far, Mayor Bowser and District Department of Transportation (DDOT) Director Leif Dormsjo have rejected the idea of establishing temporary bus lanes to facilitate bus bridges across the Anacostia River. They claim that such lanes would require more study and might adversely limit lane capacity for other motorists.

Prince George’s Department of Public Works & Transportation (DPW&T) and the Maryland State Highway Administration are similarly leery of HOV lanes along the county's arterial roads, according to DPW&T spokesperson Paulette Jones.

This is a transportation emergency that calls for transportation officials to make quick and effective decisions, using the best information they have at the time. There is simply no time to do lengthy transportation studies.

Common sense dictates that the county and the District will need to rely heavily on buses to bridge people around closed Metrorail stations during this safety surge. Accordingly, transportation officials should establish quick ways to move those buses over the roads. The priority should go to buses and carpools, rather than single-occupancy vehicles. Saying that buses will have to wait in traffic is ignoring a problem, not creating a solution.

We Need Better Green Line Connections

Because Prince George’s County’s seven Green Line stations will remain open and running on a normal schedule during this OR/BL/SV line segment shutdown, it makes sense for the county to leverage those stations to the greatest extent possible.

Image by WMATA

Right now, DPW&T has no plans to provide bus shuttle service between the Blue and Green lines in the less affluent central part of the county (e.g., from Addison Road to Suitland).

Yet, on the wealthier northern end of the county, DPW&T has secured 10 charter buses to provide a free shuttle between New Carrollton and Greenbelt. This is a striking inequity that can and should be corrected immediately.

Similarly, the county should be prepared to establish additional satellite commuter parking and bus shuttles at available locations near Green Line stations if existing station lots fill up.

All of these measures will empower commuters to make alternative transportation decisions that they otherwise would not be able to.

County Executive Baker has repeatedly assured the public that the county will do everything it can to assist its commuters during SafeTrack. Now is the time for the county to make good on that promise.

* * * * *
UPDATE (06/19/2016, 3:55 pm): Good news! Prince George's County has now decided to add a new, free bus shuttle connecting the Blue and Green lines. The shuttle will run between Largo Town Center and Suitland stations. Ten buses will run during peak hours, and five buses will be used during non-peak hours. See the press release issued earlier this afternoon:

It's unclear why DPW&T chose to run the shuttle from Largo station instead of the much-closer Addison Road station; however, one possible advantage to Largo is that the adjacent and nearly-empty shopping center, the Boulevard at the Capital Centre, provides the possibility for overflow commuter parking in the event the Largo parking deck fills up.

Take Two: Prince George’s Develops a SafeTrack Plan After All

County Executive Rushern Baker. Photo by Author.

In a welcome reversal of course last week, Prince George’s County officials announced that they had developed a comprehensive action plan to help the county’s public transit riders navigate around the upcoming shutdowns and disruptions of Metrorail service during SafeTrack, WMATA’s yearlong plan of major infrastructure repairs.

Two of Metro’s fifteen planned “safety surges” will most directly impact Prince George’s County commuters. The first will occur on June 18-July 3, when all Metrorail service across the Anacostia River on the Orange, Blue, and Silver lines will be shut down due to the closure of Stadium-Armory and Potomac Avenue stations. The second will occur on November 12-December 6, when there will be continuous single-tracking on the Green and Yellow lines between Greenbelt and College Park stations.

Earlier, the county’s Department of Public Works & Transportation (DPW&T) stated that it was not able to provide any additional services during SafeTrack and that county commuters would need to take it upon themselves to make alternative transportation arrangements. After Prince George’s Urbanist and others decried the county’s initial response and local media outlets began asking hard questions about the county’s plans, officials began to rethink their approach to this looming transportation crisis.

“We’re taking this very seriously,” County Executive Rushern Baker declared at last week’s press conference. “We’re going to do everything we can” to help commuters survive SafeTrack safely. Here are some of the particular elements of the county’s mitigation plan, as laid out by DPW&T Director Darrell Mobley:

• Prince George’s will increase local rush hour express bus service on TheBus route 15X, which connects New Carrollton and Greenbelt stations.
• WMATA will have 40 shuttle buses that will operate every 5-10 minutes during peak periods from Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road stations to Eastern Market, with interim stops at Stadium-Armory and Potomac Avenue.
• WMATA will double its rush hour bus service on Metrobus routes 97 (Capitol Heights to Union Station, U Street, Woodley Park, and Tenlytown) and T18 (New Carrollton to Rhode Island Avenue).
• WMATA will run the Metro Extra express bus route X9 (Capitol Heights to Metro Center via Gallery Place) all day, instead of just during rush hour.
• The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has agreed to provide additional railcars on MARC’s Camden Line.

In addition to those mitigation efforts, the county is planning a robust public outreach program, including the deployment of “street teams” of DPW&T employees at affected Metro Stations. These teams will directly engage with transit riders and provide them with information on alternative transportation options.

The county stressed that its mitigation efforts “will not remove inconvenience” related to SafeTrack and are being provided primarily for those who have no choice but to take public transit. DPW&T is urging everyone who can telework, bike, or carpool to work to do so.

More Mitigation May Be Necessary

County Executive Baker stressed that this initial action plan may need to be adjusted in response to evolving traffic conditions: “We’re going to look at how the situation is unfolding, and we’re going to make the best decision for the residents of Prince George’s County to get back and forth…We’re going to make the adjustments we need to make to make people’s commutes as easy as possible.”

In the event the county’s mitigation efforts need to be enhanced, officials would do well to consider these specific proposals:

• The county should run a free shuttle bus between Addison Road and either Suitland or Naylor Road, to provide a safe and reliable connection between the impacted Blue and Silver Line stations and the Green Line.
• The county should establish HOV/bus lanes along selected arterial streets, to facilitate the quick movement of bus shuttles and carpools.
• The county may need to arrange for additional satellite commuter parking lots and bus shuttles near southern Green Line stations, in case the parking lots at those stations fill up. Usually, there is excess parking capacity at several of the stations, but that may not be the case during the upcoming safety surge, when Orange, Blue, and Silver line riders may flock to the Green Line as an alternate.

Without question, the upcoming SafeTrack repairs will be a hassle for all concerned. However, the pain should be a little easier to bear now that Prince George’s County officials are thinking seriously about mitigation efforts.

UPDATE (06/14/2016 @ 6:20 pm): DPW&T issued an alert earlier this evening stating that WMATA is calling for a 60-70% reduction in Metrorail transit riders on the OR/BL/SV lines during SafeTrack Surge #2. If that is true, it seems even more likely that Prince George's will need to employ additional mitigation efforts to avoid perpetual gridlock.

BREAKING: Prince George’s Council Wants Its “Call-Up” Authority Back

The Prince George’s County Council is asking the local county delegation of the Maryland House of Delegates to pass a bill that would allow the council to resume its destructive practice of interfering with the county Planning Board’s decisions on individual development projects. A subcommittee is holding a another hearing on the bill tomorrow, February 12, at 4:00 pm on February 18 at 9:00 am in Annapolis, to consider the bill and possibly move it forward for the full delegation’s consideration.

This bill seeks to overturn a recent unanimous decision by Maryland’s highest court, which held that the County Council is only permitted to overturn Planning Board decisions if they lack evidentiary support or are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise illegal.

The court held that the Planning Board—part of a bi-county planning and zoning agency formally known as the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC)—has the legal authority and responsibility to render final decisions on individual development projects. The County Council, on the other hand, is responsible for appointing the Planning Board members and setting the general zoning and land use regulations that the Planning Board must interpret and apply.

Prior to last summer’s decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, county council members would routinely use a discretionary “call-up” procedure to force a review of the Planning Board’s rulings on individual development projects, even when no one else complained about them, or even if there was nothing legally wrong with how the Planning Board decided the case. During these reviews, council members would often impose additional conditions on developers, even if those decisions were not required by the Zoning Ordinance, and even if those conditions contradicted the Planning Board’s analysis.

Sometimes council members used the “call-up” procedure in response to complaints from constituents or citizen groups who were dissatisfied with the Planning Board’s decisions. Other times, council members would unilaterally call projects up if they didn’t like them, for whatever reason. And all too often, corrupt council members have historically used this power to exact campaign contributions, political favors, and even under-the-table cash payments from developers, as part of an insidious “pay-to-play” scheme.

Council “Call-Up” is Bad for County's Development Prospects

Whatever the reasons for its use, the “call-up” procedure renders the county’s development review process arbitrary, uncertain, and usually more expensive—which is the exact opposite of what should be happening if the county wants to attract quality development, particularly around its Metro stations. Many respected developers have refused to consider development opportunities in Prince George’s County because they don't want to be subjected to the political whims of individual council members. And why would they, when they can just go to the adjoining county and have a much more certain understanding of how a development application will be processed?

Prince George's County Council

The only people who win under the old “call-up” regime are the greedy and power-hungry County Council members, who unfortunately cannot seem to look beyond themselves and make decisions that are in the best interests of moving Prince George’s County forward. Even if the council were motivated solely by a desire to respond to constituents’ concerns about particular developments (which is totally not the case), it’s still a bad idea to reinstate the “call-up” procedure, because of the politicization and arbitrariness it brings to the development process.

If council members really want to help out constituents and developers alike, they should focus on making the zoning rules clearer, simpler, and easier for the Planning Board and the county permitting office to administer. (This, by the way, is the goal of the Zoning Rewrite Project that M-NCPPC is currently engaged in.)

Hopefully Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker will speak out on this and urge the county delegation and/or the legislature to kill this awful bill. Bringing back “call-up” review certainly won’t help his efforts to bring more transit-oriented development to the county’s largest Metro stations, or anywhere else for that matter.

The county delegation needs to hear from you if you oppose this bill—and you should definitely oppose it! Please reach out to the subcommittee members and the full county delegation and tell them to reject Local Bill No. PG/MC 111-16 (HB 1025).

Baker’s “Compromise” Tax Hike for Schools Plan Still Misses

County Executive Baker. Image by MDGovpics on flickr.

In a hastily arranged press conference earlier today, Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker finally threw in the towel on his ill-conceived and politically doomed plan to dramatically raise property and other local taxes to fund a $133 million increase in the public schools budget.

But in a final “Hail Mary” effort less than 24 hours before the scheduled County Council vote, he’s now proposing a “compromise” plan for a $65 million increase.

The problem for the county executive is that simply cutting a bad plan in half does not transform it into a good plan.

Claiming that he had heard the public’s voices in opposition to his original request over the last several weeks, Baker essentially adopted the purported compromise proposal that the county Chamber of Commerce had floated last week—the same one he flatly panned at the time. In addition, Baker said he’d support a sunset of any tax increases in 2020, after the projected education revenues from the new MGM Casino at National Harbor had a chance to come in.

Baker’s latest proposal came with no financial specifics as to how he envisions the $65 million infusion being allocated—and Baker’s spokesperson did not provide a response when asked for specific figures. However, the county executive did indicate that teacher pay increases, pre-kindergarten expansion, and school-based budgeting should remain priorities. He also claims that anything less than $65 million would not “move the needle.”

Without providing specific numbers at this late stage, Baker’s proposal simply cannot be taken as a serious effort to urge new ideas to the council. Instead, the county executive’s proposal seems designed to salvage a partial victory out of a proposal that was headed for certain defeat tomorrow.

The CEO of Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS), Dr. Kevin Maxwell, did not appear with Baker at his press conference today and offered no comment in response to his eleventh-hour revised proposal.

Earlier this week, I suggested that the council should adopt a modified version of Dr. Maxwell’s original $1.84 billion budget request. I still urge the council to take that course tomorrow, for all the reasons previously stated. At the very least, Dr. Maxwell’s budget was well thought out and contains specific numbers—which is way more than can be said of the county executive’s plan.

Prince George’s Should Adopt the School System CEO’s Original Budget

CEO Dr. Kevin Maxwell. Image from PGCPS.

This past December—before Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker hatched his hare-brained idea to raise the county’s already-too-high local taxes through the roof—the public schools CEO, Dr. Kevin Maxwell, requested a $1.84 billion budget for FY2016.

Everyone agreed that Dr. Maxwell’s budget would allow the schools to continue making progress, as they had been doing over the previous year under his leadership. This is the budget that, with some modifications, the County Council should adopt this week.

Much of the debate and discussion over the past two months has centered on the revised $1.93 billion budget that Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) and the county executive proposed in March. This revised proposal would increase the county’s tax-funded contribution to the school system by $133 million and would require a 15.6% increase in real property tax rates and a 50% increase in cell phone tax rates, among other tax increases. Baker would use a state law loophole to get around the county charter-imposed property tax cap known as TRIM, which has been in place since 1978.

Even after weeks of town halls and community forums, the public and the county council remain skeptical about Baker’s tax-hike plan to fund the revised PGCPS budget proposal. A 2014 state audit of PGCPS’s financial practices noted serious concerns with the system’s financial controls, accountability practices, and cost efficiency strategies. Several council members have called for a full and independent performance audit of PGCPS’s practices, but that won’t happen until at least a year from now.

No one on the council has voiced support for Baker’s schools plan, although some appear willing to consider a modest property tax increase of about 3%. The county Chamber of Commerce floated a proposed compromise to cut Baker’s tax increase in half, to about 8%, but the county executive shot down that plan.

The council is scheduled to adopt the FY2016 budget on Thursday, May 28, and council members are reportedly still trying to craft a final draft. But there’s no need to reinvent the wheel as far as PGCPS is concerned, because the budget that Dr. Maxwell originally proposed in December gets it largely right.

Dr. Maxwell’s Budget Will Allow PGCPS to Continue Making Progress

Since Dr. Maxwell took over as CEO of PGCPS in the 2013-14 school year, enrollment has grown, graduation rates have increased, and promotion rates have improved. When he released his proposed FY2016 budget in December, Dr. Maxwell stated that it “continues the progress we have made, while recognizing that fiscal uncertainties do exist.”

The CEO’s budget proposed a 2.5% increase over the FY2015 budget of $1.8 billion and included a $53.5 million increase in the county tax contribution. $14.3 million of that amount was required by increased enrollment coupled with state law-imposed “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) requirements, which dictate that school systems cannot backtrack on per-pupil expenditure levels from year to year.

Image from Global Partnership for Education on Flickr

The remaining $39.2 million of Dr. Maxwell’s proposed budget increase was designed to fund certain priorities in his strategic plan, including expanded pre-kindergarten programs, additional reading specialists, and expansion of high-demand programs like language immersion, International Baccalaureate, and Montessori.

In the December 12, 2014, news release announcing Dr. Maxwell’s requested budget, Board of Education chair Dr. Segun Eubanks said, “Dr. Maxwell has proposed an ambitious budget to move our system forward.” Similarly, county executive Baker lauded Dr. Maxwell’s proposal as “prudent and pragmatic,” noting that it “appears to fund priorities and invests in programs that will attract families to PGCPS.”

In other words, everyone agreed more than five months ago that Dr. Maxwell’s originally proposed FY2016 budget was sound and that it would move PGCPS forward.

Dr. Maxwell’s Budget Comports With the County Charter and TRIM

Being a longtime Prince George’s resident and having worked in the PGCPS system previously, Dr. Maxwell was fully cognizant of the property tax caps imposed by TRIM. He was also aware that the county charter required any increase in property taxes to be approved by the voters in a referendum. Thus, Dr. Maxwell crafted a budget with those principles in mind.

In 2012, the Maryland legislature passed a state law (SB 848) that allows counties to exceed charter-imposed property tax caps to fund education programs. However, this law was designed to ensure that counties could meet their MOE requirements (as discussed above) in the unusual circumstance where their property tax caps would not otherwise allow them to do so.

Prince George’s MOE requirement for FY2016 would only necessitate an increase of $14.3 million in the PGCPS budget, which the county could easily do without raising tax rates. County executive Baker’s proposal, by contrast, seeks to use SB 848 to effect a discretionary budget increase of more than nine times that required by MOE. This smacks of political gamesmanship and abuse, and only exacerbates the well-earned trust deficit that county officials have sown with their citizens through years of corrupt practices.

If the county executive wants to overturn TRIM and the charter requirement for referendum approval of taxing increases, he should make his case with the citizens and propose the appropriate charter amendments to be voted on in an election. What he shouldn’t do is misuse a well-intentioned piece of emergency state legislation to do an end-run around the people who put him in office.

The Council Should Fund Some Additional Student-Supportive Items

Dr. Maxwell’s initial budget request included a $39 million reserve for “negotiated compensation improvements,” presumably for teachers. However, it did not include approximately $9 million in additional funding for several later-proposed items relating to the “Safe and Supportive Environments” and “Family and Community Engagement” prongs of his strategic plan. Dr. Maxwell’s budget also did not include the approximately $2 million in additional funding that would be needed to fully fund the pre-kindergarten expansion. Instead of fully funding the $39 million teacher compensation reserve, the County Council should modify Dr. Maxwell’s budget request to include the $11 million for those missing items.

Image by naught_facility on Flickr.

Dr. Maxwell has made a compelling case over the past couple of months for the need to establish a second shift for maintenance workers and purchase additional supplies, to allow the school system to address several deferred maintenance issues more quickly. He’s also made impassioned and convincing arguments for including additional funding for a universal free breakfast program, parent advocates, and translation services, among other items. And the importance of pre-kindergarten programs can hardly be doubted.

In contrast, Dr. Maxwell’s arguments for enhanced teacher compensation fall quite flat and, in some respects, are plainly disingenuous. The average teacher compensation in PGCPS is already the fourth- or fifth-highest in Maryland, behind Montgomery, Calvert, and Howard counties, and sometimes Baltimore City. PGCPS also far exceeds the average compensation rates in Virginia and nationally.

Contrary to Dr. Maxwell’s stump-speech arguments during the recent town hall forums, PGCPS is not losing a high number of teachers to higher-paying school districts like Montgomery County. In fact, of the 2,871 teachers who left PGCPS between 2010-2013 (the most recent three years for which attrition statistics are available), only 75 (or 2.6%) left for higher-paying school districts in Maryland, and only 48 of those (or 1.7%) went to Montgomery County. (PGCPS officials refused repeated requests to provide data on the number of teachers, if any, who left for higher-paying jobs in DC or Virginia.)

The remaining $28 million that Dr. Maxwell proposed for reserve teacher compensation improvements should be used to offset the $20 million reduction in state funding to PGCPS resulting from Governor Larry Hogan’s refusal to fully fund the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) formula and/or to reduce or eliminate the need for furloughs in other part of county government.

Bottom line: there is no need to raise local taxes to ensure adequate funding for the Prince George’s County Public Schools. The county council should instead fund the FY2016 budget that Dr. Maxwell originally requested this past December, with slight modifications to ensure adequate funding for safe and supportive schools and family and community engagement.

UPDATE (05/26/2014 11:00 pm): Several people have contacted me offline and asked for a clearer breakdown of the modifications to Dr. Maxwell's budget that I'm suggesting in this blog. I've posted a marked-up document HERE that provides those figures.

A Skeptical Council Debates Proposed Prince George’s Tax Increases

Prince George's County Council. All images by County.

A funny thing happened last week at a town hall meeting in Capitol Heights: the Prince George’s County Council actually engaged in a meaningful and full-throated debate with citizens and the executive branch of county government over the proposed FY2016 public schools budget.

The council is weighing county executive Rushern Baker’s proposal to raise a variety of local taxes, including a 16% increase in real property taxes, to pay for the additional $133 million that the school district is seeking in next year’s budget. The council must approve a final budget no later than May 31 for the fiscal year beginning June 1.

Public hearings before the county council are often like choreographed stage plays, where council members listen in polite silence to their constituents for up to three minutes each and then either immediately adjourn or, with little to no debate or discussion, proceed to do what they had already made up their minds to do. (Tuesday's budget hearing in Upper Marlboro generally followed that mold.)

But council members went somewhat “off-script” at last week’s town hall, which was held at Central High School on April 21. Instead of dispassionately receiving public comments, council members became integrally and vocally involved in the debate. They listened intently and actively, often amplifying the concerns expressed by the citizens. And sometimes, they openly challenged the county executive and the CEO of the Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS), Dr. Kevin Maxwell.

Baker and Maxwell have been holding their own series of meetings with the public, but those have been much more stilted affairs by design. Typically, the county executive and his staff, the schools CEO, and the school board chair, Dr. Segun Eubanks, give a presentation about why they are proposing the tax increases and the expanded schools budget. Then, they proceed to answer selected written questions that the audience members have put on index cards. However, the county executive’s staff handpicks the questions that are actually presented to the panel for a response.

Dr. Eubanks, Dr. Maxwell, and County Executive Baker

Baker, Maxwell, and Eubanks were also present last week at the council’s town hall, and they gave essentially the same presentation as they typically do at their own forums. This time, though, the citizens’ questions were coming from the floor, uncensored, and the council members were present to hear and react to them in real time.

If you have time and want to get the best overview of all sides of this debate, you should really watch the whole three-hour town hall. For those that can’t or don’t wish to do that, here are a few of the highlights:

Rushern Baker falsely believes the only thing holding down Prince George’s home values is the county’s low-performing schools. The county executive seems to have convinced himself that he has solved all of the county’s myriad of problems and that the only thing left for him to do is transform the school system: “The reason the value of the homes in Prince George’s County aren’t the same as surrounding jurisdictions is not because of crime, because crime is down; it’s not because of economic development, because we have economic development coming; it’s not because of healthcare. It’s because of our schools,” Baker exclaimed. The quality of the schools “determines the value of the homes. That’s the difference between us and the other areas…That’s the only thing we haven’t done.”

Baker’s claim, of course, is more political spin than substance or truth. School quality certainly has an impact on home values, but it is not the sole factor. Nor is the relatively low quality of Prince George’s schools the sole factor that distinguishes Prince George’s County from its neighbors.

As the Washington Post reported earlier this year, the county’s racial demographics significantly reduce home values irrespective of any other factor. More importantly, it is well known that the county’s long history of corruption and its overly politicized development review process significantly hinder major employers and high-quality developers from doing business in the county. And let’s not forget the devastating economic consequences of the county’s more than 30 years of neglect of its transit-rich inner-Beltway gateway communities. These are all real issues that the county executive must face honestly—and none of them have anything to do with schools.

Lehman chastises Baker for rushing this proposal through and not seeking to build public support for it. In one of the more heated exchanges of the evening, councilwoman Mary Lehman (District 1) pointedly criticized the county executive for his take-it-or-leave-it approach in seeking to push these hefty tax increases through: “This cannot be presented as an all-or-nothing. We should’ve had this conversation a year ago, and Mr. Baker could’ve built public support for [this budget]. And he chose not to.”

Baker & Lehman square off in a tense exchange.

Toles and Lehman push back on Baker’s comparison of Prince George’s to its wealthier neighbors. One of the county executive’s central talking points for why the county needs higher taxes to fund schools is that counties like Montgomery pay more for their school systems, including paying higher salaries for teachers. But council members Karen Toles (District 7) and Mary Lehman (District 1) countered that argument with the reality that Prince George’s is simply not as wealthy as its neighbors.

“In other counties…they have a higher commercial tax base, so they have more money coming into their coffers, so they are able to invest more money,” Toles said. In spite of that wealth disparity, Toles rightly noted that Prince George’s already pays a similar percentage of its local taxes into education, and that Prince George’s gets more state aid than Montgomery does to make up for the wealth disparity.

Lehman made the point more plainly to Baker: “When you compare us to Anne Arundel and Howard, you do us a huge disservice…I think it is disingenuous to compare…this county to our much wealthier neighbors…We don’t have a money tree in this county.”

Councilman Turner

Turner urges caution, noting that the proposed increase to the school system budget will be virtually irreversible in future years. Councilman Todd Turner (District 4) urged his colleagues to consider the future ramifications of making such a huge increase in the school system’s operating budget. Under a Maryland state law known as “maintenance of effort,” counties are generally prohibited from reducing the amount of their local portion of school funding. Therefore, if the county accepts the county executive’s tax increase proposal this year, it will have to continue funding schools at that level in subsequent years—even if CEO Maxwell’s strategic plan doesn’t end up bringing the school system from near the bottom into the top 10, as he predicts.

Councilwoman Taveras

Taveras suggests postponing any increases in the school budget until an independent performance audit is completed. Councilwoman Deni Taveras (District 2) pointed out that the county spends 64% of its local revenues on the public school system and that it is important to ensure that PGCPS is spending that money in the wisest and most effective way possible. She further declared that “this budget is not going to move” until the county council reaches an agreement with the school system as to how and when a performance audit will be completed.

Toles expresses disbelief that a funding increase will result in better schools. Councilwoman Karen Toles (District 7) asked CEO Maxwell point blank whether he could guarantee that the $133 million increase that he is proposing as part of his strategic plan will in fact raise PGCPS’s ranking “from the bottom to the top.” CEO Maxwell said he could, and noted that he had already started turning the school system around by increasing graduation rates, improving promotion rates, and growing enrollment.

Councilwoman Toles

Unpersuaded, Toles shot back, “I don’t believe you.” She noted that Baltimore City pays the second-highest amount per pupil in school expenditures, but nevertheless remains at the bottom of the heap in terms of performance. Additionally, Toles cited Maxwell’s successes during the previous academic year as evidence that the school system can make improvements without huge tax increases.

Toles’s and Tavares’s points actually get to the crux of the issue, which is that there is no necessary correlation between more money and better schools. As I outlined in an earlier article, there are other large school systems with economies comparable to Prince George’s, such as Virginia Beach, that are funded at much lower levels, but that nevertheless outperform Prince George’s, even controlling for race. The real question is whether PGCPS is wisely using the money it has.

* * *

The council members’ insightful commentary and thoughtful public engagement and debate on the issues surrounding the proposed FY2016 public schools budget came as a welcome surprise to many Prince Georgians. The county could use a great deal more of these kinds of debates.