By Adam Pagnucco.
We have been printing testimony opposing Senator Ben Kramer’s bills concerning Park and Planning. It’s time now to print the other side of the issue. Appearing below are County Executive Marc Elrich’s statements supporting Bill MC/PG 104-23, which would establish a task force examining whether Park and Planning’s functions should be placed in the executive branch, and Bill MC/PG 105-23, which would give the executive power to appoint the planning board chair (among several other changes). Since Park and Planning is established in state law, the county’s delegation of state legislators will consider these bills and is holding a hearing on them (and others) tonight.
County Executive’s Statement Supporting Bill MC/PG 104-23 (Task Force)
The County Executive supports this bill as a reasonable and timely proposal. It is more than appropriate to gather key public and private stakeholders to participate in a comprehensive review of the unique governmental structure that was established 95 years ago in State law to: (1) manage the County’s physical growth and planning efforts; (2) protect our natural, cultural, and historic resources; and (3) provide leisure and recreational services. The General Assembly made an extraordinary policy decision in 1927 when it placed these core functions (which fall under the jurisdiction of county or municipal governments in all other local jurisdictions in Maryland) under the jurisdiction of a bicounty agency governed by State law. The decision was visionary at the time and has contributed in countless and priceless ways to the quality of life in Montgomery County. However, remarkable changes have occurred within the County and National Capital Region since the Montgomery County Planning Board, Planning Department, and Parks Department were established so long ago by the General Assembly as components of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). In particular, the breadth and complexity of State and local statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures that govern the development review process in a County with over one million residents have increased exponentially. Many complementary and overlapping functions of County government that have evolved over the years under State and local law have added to the complexity of the development review process (e.g., economic development, affordable housing, transportation infrastructure, public school capacity, permitting services, stormwater management, natural resource inventories, forest conservation plans, and water and sewer plans). As a result of these changes, the current development review process is unnecessarily complex, expensive, slow, and duplicative, thus discouraging economic development in the County.
The bill requires the Task Force to evaluate the “feasibility” of transferring duties of the Montgomery County Planning Board, Planning Department, and Parks Department to County Government. This kind of undertaking would necessarily and appropriately involve an evaluation of the advisability of transferring any duties (i.e., an evaluation of the pros and cons of various options). The bill does not require that any function be transferred to the Executive branch of County government. Additionally, the County Executive supports keeping the core Planning functions where they are now.
The County Executive requests that the Delegation support this bill and looks forward to working with the Delegation on any amendments that the Delegation believes are necessary to clarify the scope of the Task Force mission and ensure that the membership of the Task Force includes a balanced representation of public and private stakeholders with expertise and interest in the endeavor. It is imperative that key stakeholders work together to identify areas of duplication, inconsistency, and inefficiency that can be addressed to better serve our residents and businesses. Undoubtably, this type of review would also uncover new opportunities to work synergistically to enhance the quality of life in our County.
County Executive’s Statement Supporting Bill MC/PG 105-23 (Changes to Appointment Process)
The County Executive strongly supports this bill as vehicle to enhance transparency and public trust in the work of the Montgomery County Planning Board. In particular, the Executive believes that it serves the public interest to: (1) prohibit outside employment for a full-time Planning Board Chair with a salary of almost $230,000; (2) seek to avoid conflicts of interest that could undermine public trust by requiring a cooling off period before a former Board member represents parties before the Board; (3) mandate enhanced training regarding the requirements and spirit of the Open Meetings Act; (4) require Board members to participate in regular harassment, equity, and diversity training to ensure a safe and positive working environment for employees; and (5) ensure that Board members do not engage in political activities that could undermine their objectivity and independence.
Importantly, the County Executive believes that the bill creates a better balance regarding appointment of Planning Board members by allowing the Executive to appoint the Planning Board Chair. Given that the work of the Planning Board, Planning Department, and Parks Department is intricately intertwined with a broad array of Executive branch functions, the Executive should be granted a stronger role in the appointment of at least one member of the Board to facilitate better coordination among all stakeholders and accountability to voters. Unlike Prince George’s County, where the County Executive appoints all five members of the Planning Board, or all other local jurisdictions throughout the State, where planning functions exist within the umbrella of county or municipal government itself rather than a separate State agency, the current appointment process for the Montgomery County Planning Board facilitates a system where the Board can sometimes disregard or undervalue the importance of working collaboratively, efficiently, and effectively with the County Executive and County government departments. The Executive recognizes that the Chair is a powerful position. If the Delegation feels that the Chair should not be appointed by the Executive, he would support an amendment to designate a different member of the Planning Board as an Executive appointee.
Again, the County Executive strongly supports this legislation and looks forward to working with the Delegation as it considers all of the options outlined in the bill for enhancing transparency and public trust and balancing Executive and Council authority.