Annapolis school construction update

Annapolis area schools made out well in the most recent (FY 2009) school construction budget. The County Council funded feasibility studies for seven schools, three of which are in Annapolis: Annapolis Elementary, Germantown Elementary, and the Phoenix Center, a unique school for students with special needs. (A feasibility study is the first step in the construction process and examines different options for revitalizing, modernizing or replacing a school.)

All three schools are long overdue for a makeover: Originally built in 1896, Annapolis Elementary is one of the county's oldest schools and needs a complete interior renovation. Germantown Elementary is significantly over capacity and holds the dubious distinction of having the most portable classrooms of any of the county's 119 schools. The Phoenix Center is fire damaged, leaky, and poorly configured for instructing its student population.

Superintendent's recommendations: keep each school separate

The three feasibility studies were recently completed, and yesterday Superintendent Kevin Maxwell released his recommendations for Annapolis Elementary, Germantown Elementary and the Phoenix Center.

The overriding goal shared by several parent groups and neighborhood associations, not to mention school administrators and teachers, was to keep each school separate and independent. In that respect, the Superintendent's recommendations hit a home run. Some county officials have expressed interest in merging two or more of the schools. However, Dr. Maxwell has been committed to preserving neighborhood, community-based schools where possible.

Summary of recommendations

[Note: the exhibits are large and make take a few minutes to download.]

• Germantown (exhibit): Dr. Maxwell is recommending the Replacement option for Germantown to construct a completely new, prototype school at the north end of the athletic field complex, fronting on Windell Avenue. The new school will provide for some additional capacity to accommodate future growth of the student population. This new capacity is strictly for the current school and is not for a merged school. The consultant considered two size options for the new school -- a larger option for a merged school and a smaller option just for Germantown. The Superintendent's recommendation is decidedly for the smaller school (even with the additional capacity) and not for the larger, merged school.
  
  During construction of the new facility, students will continue to be educated at the current school.
  
  
• Annapolis (exhibit): The Superintendent is recommending a complete revitalization of Annapolis Elementary. This will entail completely renovating the interior of the school while preserving its historic shell. The renovated school will connect to the administration building behind it (located behind Mills Wine and Spirits) via a breezeway. This project will be very cost-intensive but the Superintendent is committed to retaining Annapolis Elementary as a neighborhood school for the downtown community.
  
  During construction, students will have to be moved out of Annapolis Elementary and will likely be educated in unused classrooms at Annapolis Middle School. (Several years ago students at Mayo Elementary did the same thing while that school was being rebuilt.)
  
  
• Phoenix Center (exhibit): Dr. Maxwell's recommendation for the Phoenix Center is to modernize the current (soon-to-be-former) Germantown building and to move the Phoenix Center into it. (The current Phoenix Center will then be renovated for administrative offices displaced from the administration building downtown.) The new Phoenix Center will have a capacity of 240 students, double the current capacity of 120 students. From a fiscal standpoint this makes good sense because the county pays a much higher per-pupil cost to place special needs students in private placement or send them out of the county; expanding our capacity to educate them locally will reduce operating costs significantly.
  
  Students will remain at the current Phoenix Center until after the new Germantown school is built and the current (soon-to-be-former) Germantown facility is modernized.
  

Community concerns

Many details remain to be worked out with all three of these proposals. Some of the questions for Germantown include the potential loss of athletic field space as well as transportation and parking arrangements at the new location. Logistics are a big question if Annapolis Elementary students are to be moved to Annapolis Middle School for the duration of construction. Community fears about moving the Phoenix Center closer to Admiral Heights while also doubling the student population will need to be thoroughly reviewed and addressed.

I have emphasized to Dr. Maxwell and the schools' Chief Operating Officer Alex Szachnowicz the importance of doing a rigorous public outreach effort. Mr. Szachnowicz assures me that the school system routinely meets with parents and communities impacted by any new construction and works hard to respond to local questions and concerns. While I am confident that the school system will make every effort to do so, parents and community leaders will be well served to stay on top of the process and make their concerns heard.

County concerns

Certain county officials have concerns of their own about the proposals. As stated earlier, several county officials would prefer to maximize the county's cost-per-pupil by merging Annapolis Elementary with Germantown Elementary instead of embarking on a costly renovation of Annapolis Elementary.

The intangibles of keeping Annapolis Elementary on Green Street are worth the added cost. Over the years downtown has lost many of its institutions which are so important to the fabric of a community. The hospital moved to Jennifer Road, the library moved to West Street, and Rookie's Market, the last local grocer, closed its doors 20 years ago. Not only would the loss of Annapolis Elementary be a huge detriment to downtown, merging it with Germantown would create a mega-elementary school that few, if any, parents would want. Annapolis Elementary is a gem which needs to remain on Green Street.

Next steps

Dr. Maxwell's recommendations represent a victory for local parents wanting to strengthen each of these schools while keeping them separate and distinct. This is good news but the final outcome is by no means assured. The next step is for the Board of Education to vote on the recommendations, followed by the State Interagency Committee on School Construction, followed by the County Executive and then the County Council.

At any one of these stages the project could get derailed. Community support is going to be critical at every step of this process.

The next decision point comes in just a few days when the Board of Education meets to consider the recommendations. The Board meets this coming Wednesday, November 5th at 10 a.m. (bright and early after Election Night.) The Board will receive public comment on Dr. Maxwell's recommendations beginning at 11 a.m. The Board meets at the Carol S. Parham administration building, 2644 Riva Road in Annapolis. For more information contact the Board of Education office at (410) 222-5311 or click here.

County Charter Amendments

Several people have asked me about the two obscure county charter amendments at the end of Tuesday's ballot (labeled Question A and Question B.) The short answer is that both charter amendments will improve our county's governing document and I encourage voters to vote "Yes."

In contrast to the weighty statewide ballot questions, these two county questions deal with relatively minor, insider provisions of county law. The reason they need to be on the ballot is because they seek to change language in the County's charter. Unlike the County Code which is changed through legislation, the Charter can only be amended by the voters.

• Question A is a technical amendment that clarifies language about how a bill becomes law. The intent of the existing language is clear but the letter of the law is ambiguous. This amendment will simply clean up the language. It will not alter the balance of power in any way between the County Executive and County Council.
  
  
• Question B follows the state's model for appointing members of the Ethics Commission. The Commission is a volunteer body with tremendous authority to restrict all sorts of government employees' actions. This amendment will increase the Commission's independence by making its appointment process less reliant upon any one branch of government.
  
  Currently the County Executive appoints all seven members of the Ethics Commission. The charter amendment will change this by providing for the County Council to nominate several of the members. The Executive will be required to appoint three of the Commission's seven members from the list of people nominated by the County Council.
  
  In no way is this amendment directed towards any individual serving on the Commission. I and the other Council members have the utmost regard for the integrity of the Commissioners. This amendment should be viewed instead as simply improving the "good government" practices of our governmental structure.

Both charter amendments have broad, bipartisan support from both the County Council and County Executive Leopold.

[Update 10/31/08:

On the web

• Ballot language from Maryland State Board of Elections
• The Capital: Small changes to County Charter on ballot (October 30, 2008) ]
  

Community Conversation on Transportation

On Tuesday, October 28th, I will be hosting a public forum about transportation. Billed as a “Community Conversation on Transportation in Annapolis and Anne Arundel County,” the event will feature three Annapolis-area panelists who have broad experience working on transportation and land use issues from a citizen’s standpoint:

1. Shelley Row, Eastport resident, former president of the Eastport Civic Association and a national expert on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
2. Wilford W. Scott, Hunt Meadow resident, member of Annapolis' past two Comprehensive Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committees, and longtime member of the Annapolis Planning Commission.
3. Dinny White, Severn Grove resident, architect and planner, and member of Anne Arundel County’s Special Advisory Committee to the General Development Plan.
   

The forum will be held on Tuesday, October 28th from 7 to 8:30 p.m. in the Fellowship Hall of Calvary United Methodist Church, 301 Rowe Boulevard in Annapolis. The rear parking lot in back of the church is located at the Fellowship Hall entrance. This event is free and open to the public.

Impact Fees, Take Two

The County Council is reviewing a new proposal that will significantly increase impact fees for new development. If adopted, the bill will significantly boost the County's ability to keep pace with new roads, schools and public safety demands created by new development.

[What is an impact fee? As I wrote previously: "An impact fee is a one-time fee levied on new development. The idea behind impact fees is simple: new development should pay for the capital improvements it requires. Our county revenue structure is barely enough to maintain our existing infrastructure; it would be impossible to also fund the new schools and road improvements required by new development without additional funding."]

Currently our impact fees are among the lowest in the state. Developers acknowledge that our fees are set so low that they recoup only a fraction of the true cost. Why does this matter? It matters because for every new shopping center or subdivision that is built, we are digging a deeper and deeper fiscal hole. Instead of making progress and reducing our roads and schools maintenance backlog, we are just making it worse.

Anne Arundel County already faces a $1.5 billion school maintenance backlog; our road maintenance backlog is similar. We literally cannot afford to continue in this way.

Impact fees vs. new taxes

If someone builds a house next door to me and connects it to public water, my new neighbor is required to pay for the connection costs, not me. That's the way it should be. Similarly, if a large new subdivision requires additional road capacity, more classroom space and an additional paramedic unit, should the developer pay for those enhancements or should existing taxpayers? In my view that's a rhetorical question, because clearly the new development should pay for the increased infrastructure it requires. In reality, though, this very question is being debated because many in the development community are strenuously opposing the proposed fee increases.

Developers argue that now is not the time to be raising fees. Many development firms are small, locally owned and operated businesses. Our economy's recessionary-like symptoms are affecting us all, and developers are no exception. But the reality is, if development fails to pay its own way, either the rest of us taxpayers make up the difference or we all experience diminished government services. Given our county's property tax revenue cap, the latter is more likely. As a result, without a large increase in impact fees we will experience more congestion on our roads, more overcrowded classrooms, and a more severely strained public safety system.

Legislative history

Earlier this year County Executive John R. Leopold introduced the first bill to increase impact fees. The Council appointed a blue-ribbon committee of citizens to review the numbers, and the Executive withdrew the bill pending the review.

Now that the committee has completed its review, the County Executive along with Councilmembers Cathy Vitale, Ed Reilly and I have introduced a new bill based largely on the committee's findings. Bill No. 71-08 will set impact fees at 80% of the actual projected cost. While I would prefer a higher percentage, 80% is still a significant increase and reflects the fact that certain parts of the county do have school and road capacity. The 80% figure also seems to be the highest rate that has a chance at getting a majority on the Council to support it.

The committee proposed a five-year phase-in of the new fees. Our bill sets forth a more aggressive timeline, fully phasing in the new fee increases on July 1, 2010. After that time, fees will increase annually to keep pace with the Construction Cost Index (CCI).

Amendments

This past Tuesday the Council passed several amendments to the bill. One of the amendments deferred the bulk (60%) of the phase-in until 2010. Another waived the fee increase for any projects that had received site development or sketch plan approval by September 2nd. The third substantive amendment eliminated an ill-conceived provision that would have charged impact fees on additions to or rebuilds of existing houses.

This last amendment should do more than help out existing homeowners who want to build an addition. My hope is that it will also encourage smart growth and revitalization of older, blighted neighborhoods. By exempting rebuilds of existing houses, it may provide a financial incentive for a developer to redevelop a block of vacant houses in an existing neighborhood rather than buying up a farm and building new houses in the suburbs.

Next steps

The amended bill is scheduled for another public hearing on Monday, September 15th. If no further amendments are added, the bill can be voted on that night.

Renaissance Festival traffic and parking update

August in Anne Arundel County means the arrival of an Annapolis-area tradition: the annual Maryland Renaissance Festival. The Renn Fest, as it is known locally, runs from August through October. The venue is a faux medieval village built on 125 acres of rolling woodland along Crownsville Road between Route 178 (Generals Highway) to the north and Route 450 (Defense Highway) to the south (map).

Maryland's Renn Fest is one of the more popular renaissance fairs in America. It has grown tremendously from its humble beginnings in 1977 and now averages 280,000 visitors in a season. As a result, this 16th-century festival generates some serious 21st-century traffic. Locals know to avoid area roads when they can, but residents who live close to the festival often cannot avoid major traffic headaches.

The festival organizers are sensitive to local traffic concerns. Over the years they have sought to address these concerns by expanding their parking and hiring more police officers to direct traffic and keep cars moving. Unfortunately, as the festival has grown, traffic congestion has continued to grow with it.

Trying a new approach

Earlier this year, I met with the festival's General Manager Jules Smith and Site Manager Adam Smith, along with Councilmen Jamie Benoit and Ed Reilly, Delegate James King, and Police Captain Bill Krampf. The goal of the meeting was to find a way to improve traffic flow on roads around the festival. After discussing the issue we reached a consensus that the main issue was not so much traffic management as it was parking management.

The traffic choke point occurs when cars turn off of Crownsville Road to enter the festival grounds. There are two festival entrances off Crownsville Road, each of which allows only one vehicle at a time to enter the property on a gravel road. This arrangement slows down traffic on Crownsville Road which in turn backs up cars for miles in both directions.

After the meeting, festival management consulted with a traffic engineering firm, reviewed the county's traffic data, and examined different options for improving traffic. I am pleased to share the following information from a recent letter from Jules Smith:

"After meeting with the traffic engineers and our own staff as well as the police most familiar with the festival and traffic we will be addressing the issue identified as the primary cause of delay, the left hand turn into the event. By shifting additional police traffic management to the northern entrance and intersection and hiring additional parking staff to increase the movement and speed of cars entering the driveway and parking them in multiple rows at the same time the traffic will be taken from Crownsville Road more quickly resulting in greater continued road movement."

The new arrangement will take effect with the start of the festival in just a few weeks. Jules and his team will monitor its operation and modify it if necessary to make sure it is working well.

I appreciate the Renn Fest's responsiveness to its neighbors' concerns and am hopeful that this new parking arrangement, while not eliminating the traffic problem, will be a significant improvement.

Crownsville Hospital property update

Within the next few months, the State of Maryland will make a decision about who will redevelop the former Crownsville Hospital Center property and how. This decision will have wide-ranging impacts on our region's overall quality of life, traffic congestion, environmental health, tax base and social services safety net.

The 559-acre property (map) is located in the heart of Anne Arundel County. Its rolling hills and woodlands contribute to the area's pastoral character and also form the headwaters of the South River several miles away. Its massive size means that any redevelopment of it will significantly impact the surrounding area for generations to come. It is imperative that this decision be carefully considered.

Background

Crownsville Hospital Center was established in 1910 as the Hospital for the Negro Insane of Maryland. It was desegregated in 1949. For the next 55 years it was one of the State's regional inpatient facilities, serving mentally ill patients primarily from Anne Arundel County and Southern Maryland. The Hospital was built with on-site utilities such as a wastewater treatment plant, water plant and electrical substation. Some of these outdated, asbestos-ridden systems have since become a costly obstacle to the property's redevelopment.

The Hospital has been closed since June of 2004. Since that time the campus has been largely a ghost town (see pictures at forgottenphotography.com.) A handful of non-profit organizations such as the Maryland Food Bank, Hope House, Second Genesis and the Ridge School have been occupying some of its buildings, but many of the 66 buildings have remained vacant. During the administration of former County Executive Janet S. Owens, the County had expressed interest in acquiring the site but was put off by the estimated $15 to $25 million environmental clean-up cost.

Over the past several months a group of State agencies reviewed the property and deemed it to be in the State's interest to dispose of it. In May the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) to sell or lease the property for redevelopment. According to a letter from MDP's Deputy Secretary Matthew Power, the State adopted a set of guiding principles for the property which included:

"... restricting uses to those permitted under current zoning, retention of open space, and adaptive reuse of buildings."

These guiding principles were adopted in addition to three others previously established by the State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH):

"(1) to maintain existing tenant-based behavioral health capacity, and preferably increase, privately operated outpatient and inpatient behavioral health service capacity on site; (2) to maximize return on the value of the property and deposit proceeds from disposition of the property in the Community Trust Fund to benefit individuals with mental illness; and (3) to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the annual costs paid by DHMH for the operation of the on-site water and sewer systems and other costs."

Local priorities

My preference would have been for Anne Arundel County to acquire the property and control its own destiny. Because that is not going to happen, Councilman Jamie Benoit and I sent a letter last week to Deputy Secretary Power to request the State's support for the following five local priorities:

• Compliance with local zoning;
• Minimal impact on vehicle traffic;
• Preservation of undeveloped land;
• Maintenance on non-profits on site; and
• Community participation.

Our hope is that by going on record with our priorities for the property, we can guide the redevelopment in a positive way despite the fact that the decision will be largely outside of the County's control.

Next steps

Right now any discussion about the future of the property is just speculation. The range of options will become clearer next week after the June 30 deadline to respond to the REOI. Once the responses come in, we will begin to be able to weigh the pros and cons of the different development proposals.

Thus far I have been encouraged by the State's proactive communication with local officials, and am cautiously optimistic that this collaborative spirit will continue. However, the State is facing a significant budget crunch. It remains to be seen whether the State will be able to resist the temptation to view the property first and foremost as a cash cow.

As the process moves forward it is important for citizens to get involved and advise their State representatives of their concerns and priorities. I will continue to closely monitor the process and work with State and community stakeholders to achieve a positive outcome not only for the State, but for our County and its communities as well.

Related articles

• The Sun: Hospital site up for development (June 22, 2008)
• The Capital: Crownsville Hospital property in limbo (June 24, 2008)
  
• The Capital: Editorial: Nonprofits shouldn't be ousted from old hospital site (June 25, 2008)