May 14, 2018 Worksession MEMORANDUM May 10, 2018

MEMORANDUM

TO: County Council

FROM: Gene Smith, Legislative Analyst ~

SUBJECT: FYI 9 Operating Budget: Urban Districts

PURPOSE: Initial adoption of subject budget

Those expected for this worksession: Ken Hartman, Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Director Luisa Montero-Diaz, Mid-County Regional Services Director Reemberto Rodriquez, Silver Spring Regional Services Director Corey Orlosky, Office of Management and Budget (0MB)

Budget Summary

AGENDA ITEM #7 May 14, 2018 Worksession

May 10, 2018

The Executive recommends $8,836,905 for the Urban Districts, an increase of $146,856 or 1.7% from FY18.

Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee Recommendation 1) Approve the Executive's FY19 recommended operating budget of $8,836,905 for the Urban Districts; 2) Add $19,500 for general operating expenditures in the Bethesda Urban District using funds transferred from its respective parking lot district (PLO); and 3) Add $300,000 for sidewalk/streetscape maintenance and landscaping in the Silver Spring Urban District using funds transferred from its respective PLD and include a note in the FYI 9 budget resolution that any unspent funds transferred for this purpose carry over for the same purpose in FY20.

I. Budget Overview

See the Executive's recommendation for the Urban Districts budget on ©1-7. Urban districts are special taxing districts that provide an administrative and financial framework to maintain and enhance the County's downtowns as prosperous, livable urban centers. 1 These districts levy an additional tax on property within the district so that the County may provide services in addition to those that it generally provides all residents. These additional services include: I) increasing the maintenance of the streetscape and its amenities; 2) providing additional public amenities such as plantings, seating, shelters, and works of art; 3) promoting the commercial and residential interest of the district; and 4) programming cultural and community activities. The County has established three Urban Districts: Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Wheaton. The Bethesda Urban District is managed by the Bethesda Urban Partnership (BUP). Silver Spring and Wheaton Urban Districts are each managed by its respective Regional Service Center.

The tables below compare FY18-FY19 expenditures and FTEs for the urban districts. The first table compares the difference by program area for all three urban districts, and the second table compares the difference within each urban district.

C Janson o om1 - ,y rogram fFY18 FY19 b P rea or ran 1stncts A f: AllU b o· Program Area

FY18 FY19 FY18-19 FY18 FY19 FY18-19 Expenditures Expenditures Chanee FTEs FTEs Chanee

Promotion of $3,366,161 $3,582,418 + $216,257 31.95 30.95 - 1.00 Activities

Sidewalk Repair $143,969 $143,969 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 S treetscape

$1,861,114 $1,841,614 -$19,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maintenance Tree Maintenance $123,885 $123,885 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enhanced Security $1,211,366 $1,228,088 + $16,722 I 7.35 18.35 + 1.00 Administration $1,983,554 $1,916,931 - $66,623 9.30 9.30 0.00

Total $8,690,049 $8,836,905 + $146,856 58.60 58.60 0.00

C ompanson o fFY18 FY19 E - xpen 1 ures JV ran 1s nc d"t b U b o· t. t

Program Area FY18 FY19 FY18-19 FY18 FY19 FY18-19 Expenditures Expenditures Change FTEs FTEs Chanee

Bethesda $3,174,943 $3,294,405 + $119,462 1.00 1.00 0.00 Silver Spring $3,498,672 $3,553,430 + $54,758 34.90 34.90 0.00 Wheaton $2,016,434 $1,989,070 - $27,364 22.70 22.70 0.00

Total $8,690,049 $8,836,905 + $146,856 58.60 58.60 0.00

A. Expenditure Overview by District

Bethesda. The Executive recommends an increase of $119,462 for this urban district. The table below summarizes the recommended changes. Two items are expected to have service impacts. Operating expenses account for 96.1 % of the Bethesda Urban District's expenditures because BUP manages this district through a contract with the County.

1 Sections 68A-2 through 3 of the County Code describes the intent and purpose of urban districts.

2

s ummary o t e Bethes a r an 1stnct f h d U b D" FY19 Recommen d dCh e anges Descrintion Expenditures FTEs

Chan~es with service imvacts White Flint Downtown Advisorv Committee Proiects + $150,000 0.00

Streetscaoe Maintenaoce - $19,500 0.00 Chanf!es with no service imvacts Adiustments (e.g., comoensation aod benefit chaoges) -$11,038 0.00

Total + $119,462 0.00

Silver Spring. The Executive recommends an increase of $54,758 to this urbao district. The table below summarizes the recommended changes. The increase is due to adjustments to personnel costs, such as negotiated compensation changes. None of the recommended changes are expected to have a service impact. Personnel costs account for 70.7% of the Silver Spring Urban District's expenditures.

Summarv of the Silver Sorin!!. Urban District FY19 Recommended Chane.es Descrintion Exnenditures FTEs

Chanf!es with no service imvacts Adjustments ( e.g., comoensation aod benefit chaoges) + $54,758 0.00

Total + $54,758 0.00

Wheaton. The Executive's FY19 recommendation decreases this urbao district by $27,364. The table below summarizes the recommended chaoges. The decrease in costs is mostly due to increase in lapse and the County-wide motor pool adjustment. None of the recommended changes are expected to have a service impact. Personnel costs account for 73.9% of the Wheaton Urban District's expenditures.

s f h Wh ummarv o t e eaton r an 1stnct U b D" FYI9R ecommen d dCh e anges Descrintion Expenditures FTEs

Chan~es with no service imvacts Adjustments ( e.g., comoensation and benefit changes) - $27,364 0.00

Total - $27,364 0.00

B. Funding Sources Overview

See ©8-10 for the FY19-24 fiscal plan of each urban district and ©11-13 for the FY19-24 fiscal plan of each urban district's respective parking lot district. Urban districts are funded through a variety of sources. The major funding sources include taxes, general fund transfers and transfers from each district's respective parking lot district. The Executive did not recommend any changes to the tax rates for each urban district in FY19. In addition, all urban districts receive a baseline transfer from the general fund to support a level of service that the County would have otherwise provided to the area without the urban district. See an example of baseline services from the Office of Legislative Oversight's 97-1 Report on ©14.

The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T &E) Committee will meet on April 25 to review the FY19 recommended budget for the Parking Lot Districts (PLD). The T&E Committee will make a recommendation for the FYI 9 parking rates and for the fund transfers from each

3

PLD to its respective urban district. Any recommendations by the T &E Committee that differ from the

Executive may require adjustments to the Urban Districts budget.

Below are three tables that detail the funding sources for each urban district.

B h et esda u rban District F d" S un mg ources FY18 19 -FY18 Estimate FY19 Recommended

Bef!.inninf!. Fund Balance $168,219 $180,356

Revenues

Taxes $686,972 $717,614

Charges for services $189,877 $189,877

Interfund Transfers

Indirect Costs ($24,123) ($23,670)

Baseline Services $650,318 $800,318

Parking Lot District $1,671,030 $1,513,030

Total Resources $3,342,293 $3,377,525

Ooerating Budget Exoenditures ($3,161,937) ($3,294,405)

Projected Year-End Fund Balance $180,356 $83,120

Year-End Fund Balance as% of Resources 5.4% 2.5%

i ver ,pring SI S ran 1strict U b D' F d S un ing ources FY 8 19 1 -

FY18 Estimate FY19 Recommended

Bef!.inninf!. Fund Balance $292,450 $167

Revenues ' Taxes $891,456 $931.139

Charges for services $150,000 $150,000

Interfund Transfers

Indirect Costs ($423,230) ($458,066)


Parking Lot District $1,989,710 $2,480,710

Total Resources $3,440,046 $3,643,610

Operating Budget Expenditures ($3,439,879) ($3,553,430)

Proiected Year-End Fund Balance $167 $90,180


4

ea on ran 1stnc un me: ources Wh t U b o· . tF d" S FY18 19 -FY18 Estimate FY19 Recommended

Berrinnin£ Fund Balance $455,885 $5,198

Revenues

Taxes $227,053 $237,229

Miscellaneous $5,120 $7,250

Interfund Transfers

Indirect Costs ($256,309) ($267,976)


Non-Baseline Services $1,388,150 $1,946,150

Parking Lot District $24,358 $36,537

Total Resources $1,920,347 $2,040,478

Operating Budget Expenditures ($1,915,149) ($1,989,070)

Proiected Year-End Fund Balance $5,198 $51,408


C. Performance Measures

The Executive's FY19 recommended budget includes several performance measures for the

urban districts. These measures focus on the community's satisfaction with services provided by each

urban district, such as "value added" by the hospitality team, marketing and promotion, and cleanliness

maintained. The satisfaction level estimated for FY18 is comparable to the FY! 7 level for these

measures.

II. Public Hearings

The Council heard comments from the Greater Silver Spring Chamber of Commerce during one

of the public hearings for the FY19 Operating Budget (see ©15-16).

ID. Budget Issues

See Council staff questions and responses from Executive staff related to the urban districts on

©17-18.

A. Bethesda

This urban district has one vacant position, a Program Specialists IL Candidates are currently

being interviewed for this position. In addition, the turnover of this position will provide savings in

FYI 9. Most of the funding for this urban district supports the County's contract with BUP. Council staff

notes the following about the Executive's recommendations for this district:

5

Streetscape maintenance. The Executive recommends reducing the FY! 9 budget for streetscape maintenance by $19,500. Executive staff state that this reduction is due to the increase in the number of Optional Method Developments in Bethesda.2 These properties are billed directly for maintenance of installed streetscape; therefore, the general fund baseline transfer is decreased commensurately. This reduction will, however, impact the amount offunding for BUP. BUP will determine where to absorb this reduction in its budget. 3 Operating expenses for this district have decreased since FYl 4, mostly due to the FYl 6 Savings Plan. The increase in operating expenses for FY19 is for White Flint (noted below) and will not be part of BUP's funding. In addition, the County does not automatically provide adjustments to negotiated compensation because BUP personnel are not County employees.

White Flint Downtown Advisory Committee Projects. The Executive recommends this funding through the Bethesda Urban District until White Flint is established as an urban district or a business improvement district. Currently, neither option is before the Council for consideration. Executive staff notes that $50,000 is a one-time expenditure for visual branding, while the remainder is expected to be ongoing for special events, placemaking activities, marketing, and cleaning and landscaping in the White Flint area. The funding source for this item is included in the General Fund baseline transfer to the Bethesda Urban District. The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Service Center will implement these funds.

There are no funding source issues in FYI 9 for this district. The district is estimated to have a healthy fund balance at the end of FY 18, and taxes are estimated to increase by 13.5% in FY19 compared to the approved FY 18 budget.

B. Silver Spring

The Executive made no recommendations to this district that would have service impacts. This urban district has two vacant positions, an Equipment Operator and a Workforce Leader I. 0MB estimates that an additional $35,000 in FY20 for annualized cost increases in personnel. Operating expenditures have remained mostly flat compared to FY! 4, while personnel costs have increased since FY! 4 due to the negotiated compensation.

There is one funding source issue for this district. The fund balance is projected to be extremely low at the close of FY! 8. The Council would need to transfer another $85,834 to achieve the 2.5% policy-level fund balance in FY18. Per the Executive's fiscal plan, this district is projected to have a 2.5% fund balance from FY19-24.

C. Wheaton

The Executive made no recommendations to this district that would have service impacts. This urban district has two Urban District Public Service Aides vacant, both positions have candidates being interviewed currently. In addition, the district has 1. 7 Public Service Worker II positions vacant, with one position currently being advertised. Despite the vacant positions, the district's actual personnel

2 Executive staff note that these types of development have increased from 25 to 36 properties in the last four years. 3 BUP, like other County economic development contracts, receives funding from the County, but the Council does not approve BUP's budget because it is a non-profit entity governed by a board.

6

expenditures are closer to the budgeted amount than in previous fiscal years. 0MB estimates that an

additional $25,000 in FY20 for annualized cost increases in personnel. Wheaton is the only urban district

to receive a non-baseline transfer from the General Fund to support the district's higher level of service.

There is one funding source issue for this d1strict. The fund balance is projected to be extremely

low at the close of FYl8. The Council would need to transfer another $42,811 to achieve the 2.5%

policy-level fund balance in FY18. Per the Executive's fiscal plan, this district is projected to have a

2.5% fund balance from FY19-24.

The PHED Committee recommends approval of$8,836,905 for the Urban Districts budget.

This packet contains: Executive's recommended FY19 budget

FYl 9-24 Fiscal Plan for the urban districts

FYI 9-24 Fiscal Plan for the parking lot districts

OLO Report 97-1 Excerpt Public comment Executive staff responses

F:\Smith\Budget\FYI 9\Council\May 14\#7 UD _FY19.docx

7

Circle# 1 8 11 14 15 17

Urban Districts

RECOMMENDED FY19 BUDGET

$8,836,905 FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS

58.60

~ FARIBA KASSIRI, ASSISTANT CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

MISSION STATEMENT Urban Districts maintain and enhance the County's downtowns (Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Wheaton) as prosperous, livable urban centers by increasing maintenance of the streetscape and its amenities; providing additional public amenities such as plantings, seating, shelters, and works of art; promoting the commercial and residential interests of these areas; and progranuning cultural and community activities.

BUDGET OVERVIEW The total recommended FY! 9 Operating Budget for the Urban Districts is $8,836,905, an increase of $146,856 or 1.69 percent from the FY!8 Approved Budget of $8,690,049. Personnel Costs comprise 46.54 percent of the budget for 60 full-time position(s) and one part-time position(s), and a total of 58.60 F1Es. Total FTEs may include seasonal or temporary positions and may also reflect workforce charged to or from other departments or funds. Operating Expenses account for the remaining 53.46 percent of the FYI 9 budget.

LINKAGE TO COUNTY RESULT AREAS While this program area supports all eight of the County Result Areas, 1he following are emphasized:

•!• Healthy and Sustainable Neighborhoods

•!• A Responsive, Accountable County Government

•!• Safe Streets and Secure Neighborhoods

•!• strong and Vibrant Economy

•!• V-11:al Living for All of Our Residents

DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES Performance measures for this department are included below (where applicable), with multi-program measures displayed at the front of this section and program-specific measures shown with the relevant program The FY18 estimates reflect funding based on the FY!8 approved budget. The FY! 9 and FY20 figures are performance targets based on the FY19 recommended budget and funding for comparable service levels in FY20.

M Actual Actual Estimated Target Target easure FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 i-Y20

l)!lultl-Prog~IJ!. Meas~~ BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT - overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with the 'value

added" of _the UD H_~,;pitality team (scale_1-5) 4.B 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.5

SILVER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with the 42

"value added" of the UD Hospitality team (scale 1-5) ... __ ---·-·· .. ·- -·-· .. __ ·---- ~~---- ~- __ -~~-- __ 4_2 ________________________ _____,[)

Urban Districts General Government 39-1

M Actual Actual Estimated Target Target

easure FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

WHEATON URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with the "value added~ of the UD Hospitality team (scale 1-5)

3.9 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3

ACCOMPLISHMENTS -- ·------- --- --- -·--·---·--·-. --•----·--· ·----------- . - - ----·---- -----------·--·-· - ---GZJ Launched, along with the Department of Parks, a new "Y appy Hour" dog park/happy hour social event to activate the Elm Street

Park, through the Bethesda Urban Partnership.

GZJ Supported over 70 events on Veterans Plaza in the Silver Spring Urban District (SSUD) by coordinating set-up before the event and

clearing the venue afterwards.

GZJ Established a "Cigarette Butt Litter Campaign" in the SSUD, providing cigarette smoking poles to businesses on Georgia Ave. and

Fen ton St. This campaign allows businesses to encourage patrons to use the smoking poles instead of cluttering the tree pits and

sidewalks; saving considerable time and effort for SSUD staff.

GZJ Recycled over 3 tons of material (plastic, glass, and aluminum bottles and cans) in the SSUD and delivered it to the Shady Grove

Material Recovery Facility. '

GZJ The Maryland State Arts Council recognized ihe Wheaton Arts and Entertainment District in the Wheaton Urban District (WUD)

with the 2017 Award for Outstanding Achievement The award recognized Wheaton's efforts in highlighting its unique mix of artistic and cultural traditions, the establishment of new initiatives and partnerships, and its thoughtful approach to developing a strategic

plan to guide Wheaton through a period of redevelopment in the coming years.

GZJ Established a Wheaton Public Safety Task Force in the WUD, co-chaired by the Mid-County Regional Services Center Director and

the Westfield Mall General Manager, and composed of public safety, business, and civic association representatives.

PROGRAM CONTACTS ---------·- ----------- -- -- ------- -----Contact Ken Hartman of the Urban Districts at 240.777.8206 or Corey Orlosky of the Office of Management and Budget at 240.777.2762

for more information regarding ibis department's operating budget.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS -------- ------------ .. -··-· - -----·- ··-------- -- ------ . ---

* Promotion of Community and Business Activities This program enhances the quality oflife in the Urban Districts and surrounding communities; fosters a strong, vibrant business climate within each Urban District; and creates a positive image and a sense of identity for the Districts. These goals are accomplished through sponsorship of community events that may include festivals, concerts, and parades; the installation of seasonal banners, unique signs, holiday decorations, and other amenities to give each District a sense of place; and the development and distribution of newsletters, brochures, and other promotional material highlighting the Districts. Each Utbao District develops its programs with the active participation of its advisory

committee or Urban District Corporation.

Actual Actual Estimated Target Target Program Performance Measures FY16 FYH FY18 FY19 FY20

BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT· Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Boarn with urban

-~istrict's -~ai:tce~.~9_ a_~~-p~~?ti_~n_ ~~le 1 ~~t BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT -Average number of website sessions per month

BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT - Number of social media followers ------"·--··----- ····---.--------.

SILVER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with urban districts mari<eting and promotion (scale 1-5)

--- -- -- - ·- . - -SILY_ER~P~ING URBAN DISTRIC!:A_v<>"'!!e nurn_t,,,r__ofweJ,silE>_sessions perrnolllh_ SIL VER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT - Number of social media followers

WHEATON URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction DI' Urban Districts Advisory Board with urban district's mari<_eting a_nd promotion (scale 1-5) _

WHEATON URBAN DISTRICT - Average number of website sessions per month

5.0 4.8

32,000 33,500

9,900 11,500

3.6 3.8

100,000 112,000 - ------------·-··

5,000 6,800

2.8 4.1

23,000 35,000

4.8 4.8 4.8

38,000 40,000 42,000

12,500 14,000 15,500

3.7 3.7 3.7

120,000 130,000 140,000 --~------···-·

7,000 7,500 8,000

3.9 3.9 3.9

37,000 39,000 41,000

39-2 · General Government FY19 Operating Budget and Public SeNices Program FY19-24

,...._,

2'

Actual Actual Estimated Target Target Program Performance Measures Fv16 FYH Fv18 FY19 FY20

WHEATON URBAN DJ STRICT - Number of social media followers 2,072 2,883 3,150 3,400 3,650

FY19 Recommended Changes Expenditures FTEs

FY18 Approved

Add: White Flint Downtown Advisory Committee Projects

Multi-program adjustments, including negotiated compensation changes, employee benefit changes, changes due to staff turnover, reorganizations, and other budget changes affecting multiple programs.

FY19 Recommended

it Sidewalk Repair

3,366,161

150,000

66,257

3,582,418

This program provides for the removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete and brick walks and curbs in the Urban Districts.

31.95

0.00

(1.00)

30.95


FY1 B Approved

FY19 Recommended

it Streetscape Maintenance

143,969

143,969

This program provides maintenance of, and improvement to, the streetscape amenities within each Urban District. Various service levels

include litter collection, sidewalk. maintenance, trash receptacle service at least three times a week, mowing and snow removal as needed,

lighting maintenance, maintenance of planted/landscaped areas, and street sweeping.

0.00

0.00

Actual Actual Estimated Target Target Program Performance Measures FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with cleanliness levels of Urban District maintained (scale 1-5)

SILVER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board wfth

cleanliness levels of Urban District maintained (scale 1-5)

WHEATON URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with deanliness

levels of Urban District maintained (scale 1-5) . ··--··· -·- - - .... - , ~--· ··-- - --· ·- --- ·-

5.0 5.0

3.8 3.3

4.0 4.7

5.0 5.0 5.0

3.5 3.5 3.5

4.5 4.5 4.5


FY18 Approved

Reduce: Streetscape Maintenance - Bethesda

FY19 Recommended

it Tree Maintenance

1,861,114

(19,500)

1,841,614

0.00

0.00

0.00

This program provides pruning, planting, fertilization, necessary spraying, replacement, watering, mulching, and tree base cleaning in the • Urban Districts.

P P f M Actual Actual Estimated Target Target

rogram er ormance easures FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

BETHESDA URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with urban 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8

district's landscape maintenance (scale 1-5)

SILVER SPRING URBAN DISTRICT - Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with urban 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5

district's landscape maintenance (scale 1-5)

WHEATON URBAN DISTRICT- Overall satisfaction of Urban Districts Advisory Board with urban 3.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 disbict's landscape maintenance (scale 1-5) ___________________ - '" - - ·-· ·-· ---- --·. --·--


FY18 Approved 123,885 0.00

FY19 Recommended 123,885 0.00

Urban Districts General Government 39-3@

!Is Enhanced Security This program provides safeguards against property theft, vandalism, and personal security in the Silver Spring and Wheaton Urban Districts.

The goal of the program is to provide an enhanced level of protection and reduce the perception of crime through the use of the Sa_fe T earn

as the eyes and ears of County Police and as a uniformed visual presence to create a safe and secure environment. Safe Team members also

act as "ambassadors" providing information, directions, first aid and CPR, and roadside assistance to residents, visitors, and the business

community.


FY18 Approved

Multi-program adjustments, including negotiated compensation changes, employee benefit changes, changes due to

staff turnover, reorganizations, and other budget changes affecting multiple programs.

FY19 Recommended --- ------------· ---------------

!Is Administration

1,211,366

16,722

1,228,088

17.35

1.00

18.35

1bis program provides staff support for contract administration, the Urban District Advisory Committees, and for the administration of

Urban District corporations. This program also provides for budget preparation and monitoring, payment authorization, records

maintenance, and the Bethesda Circulator contract.


FY1 B Approved

Decrease Cost: Carpentry - Wheaton

Decrease Cost: Turnover Savings - Program Specialist II

Multi-program adjustments, induding negotiated compensation changes, employee benefit changes, changes due to

staff turnover, reorganizations, and other budget changes affecting multiple programs.

FY19 Recommended

BUDGET SUMMARY

1,983,554 9.30

(1,898) 0.00

(6,500) 0.00

(58,225) 0.00

1,916,931 9.30

Actual Budget Estimate Recommended %Chg

FY17 FY18 FY18 FY19 Bud/Rec

URBAN DISTRJCT -BETHESDA EXPENDITURES

_ Salaries and_Wages -----•-.. -- -··-. _______ -·--- _________ _ .I~:~32 ______ 88,706 75,700 ____ ~.~~-----· -6.7 %

__ Employee_Benefits . _____ ---·· ______________________ ~5,01~---~~~ ______ 50,01~-- __ ---~!:_1~-- -5.8 %

Urban District - Bethesda Personnel Costs 11!!,45_2 _ . _ 1~8,716 .. _ 125,710 ______ 129,842 .. :6-~o/,

Operating Expenses - 3,053,993 3,036,227 3,036,227 3,164,563 4.2 %

-UrbanDistlict-BethesdaExpenditures _______________ 3,173,445 _ 3,174,943 _ 3,161,937 ___ ::-3,294,405 ____ 3:a% PERSONNEL Full-lime.

Part-lime

FTEs

REVENUES

-------------- ·------- --------------- -0

1.00

Optional Method Development 1TT,684

0

1.00

189,877

1 ·-------·

0 0

1.00 1.00

189,877 189,877

_PropertyTax ________________ ·-----··--------~•7_31 ___ 63_2,520 ___ 686,972 __ _ 717,614

907,491 Urban District• Bethesda Revenues 823,415 822,397 876,849

URBAN DISlRICT -SILVER SPRING

EXPENDITTJRES

13.5% _,., __ _ 10.3%

__ SalariesandWages ____________________________ 1,688,164 ____ 1,689,047 __ 1,64:..cc1·c:.04cc9c.___ 1,739,256 ___ _}.0%

Employee Benefits 723,653 744,707 744,705 m,446 3.9%

__ llrban D.!_stri<:! •_Silver_!~e_ring Pers_?nnel Costs_ _ ___ 2.,411,817 2,433,754 2,385,754 2,512=,7~0~2~_"'3.=2-"'%

_o~pe,__ra__,ti~ng"-Expenses----'-------------~---- ______ 1,042,344 1,064,918 _ ___!E54,125 __ 1,040,728= __ -2.3 %

Gapital Outlay 32,253 0 • 0 0

Urban District - Silver Spring Expenditures 3,486,414 3,498,672 3,439,879 3,553,430 1.6 %

PERSONNEL . Ll 39-4 General Government FY19 Operating Budget and Public Services Program FY19-24l;{J

BUDGET SUMMARY Actual Budget Estimate Recommended %Chg

FY17 FY18 FY18 FY19 Bud/Rec Full-Time 37 37 37 Part-17me 0 0 0 FTEs 34.90 34.90 34.90

REVENUES

Miscellaneous Revenues 2,98()_ 0 0 - -- ,._ .

. Optio.na.1 ~e~~ (?evelor.m~!1~ 104,9~<1 1s_o,ooo 150,000

Prc,~~rtyTax 793,2_94 897,511 891,456 Urban District - Silver Spring Revenues 901,198 1,047,511 1,041,456

URBAN DISTRICT -WHEATON EXPENDITURES

~-ala~.~. ~nd. W~g~~. 926,_091 1,051,593 974,715 .Employee Benefits 357,445 422,2_96 3_97,889

Urt>an Qi~tfjct -:-~.h~~ton f:>~r:_,sonn_el Co~~ 1,2n5_36 1,47~,f\8__9 1,372,~04 . Ope.:rating Expenses 658,821 542,545 542,545

U~b~n Qistr.ig- \'Yh~~ton !=,cp_~Qditur~s 1,942,35_7 2,Q16,434 1,915, 1_49 PERSONNEL

Futl-17me 22 22 22 Part-Time

FTEs 22.70 22.70 22.70

REVENUES

Investment Income 3,118 550 5,120 __ PmpertyTax _ - . -- ... -·--- ... ----- ---·- - ·- __ 195,640 .. .... 217,506 . 227,053

Urban District - Wheaton Revenues 198,758 218,056 232,173

DEPARTMENT TOTALS Total Expeyditures _ . __ 8,liQ2,21§ 8,69!!,0<19 8,51_6,965 Total Full-Time Positions _ 60. . - _§0 - 69_ .JC?ta~~.rt-Tirri~ P9.5!!fons_ 1 1 1 TotalFTEs 58.60 58.60 58,60 TQ~I_ ~~Y~.1')1.:1~~ 1,923,371_ 2,0~7,9114 _ 2, 150,478_

FY19 RECOMMENDED CHANGES

URBAN DISlRICT - BETHESDA

FY18 ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION

Changes (with service impacts) Add: White Flint Downtown Advisory Committee Projects [Promotion of Community and Business Activities] Reduce: Streetscape Maintenance - Bethesda [Streetscape Maintenance]

Other Adjustments (with no service impacts) Increase Cost: FY19 Compensation Adjustment

Increase Cost Printing and Mail

Increase Cost Annualization of FY18 Personnel Costs

Increase Cost Risk Manageme~t Adjusbnent

Decrease Cost: Motor Pool Adjustment

Decrease Cost Retirement Adjustment

Decrease Cost Turnover Savings - Program Specialist II [Administration]

FY19 RECOMMENDED

URBAN DISTRICT -SILVER SPRING


'31

0

34.90

0

150,000

931,1_39 3.7% 1,081,139 3.2%·

1,044,785 -0.7% _<12_5, 190 0.7%

1,<!_6;!,~IS ~.~_% 519,095 --4.3 %

1,989,07Q -:1.4_%

22

22.70

7,250 1218.2 % _ •- 237,229 _ 9.1 %

244,479 12.1 %

8,836,9_Q_5_ 1} j'o . 60 _ _

1 58,60

2,233,109 . ?-0%

Expenditures FTEs

3,174,943 1.00

150,000 0.00 (19,500) 0.00

1,791 0.00

424 0.00 144 0.00

133 0.00

(2,721) 0.00

(4,309) 0.00

(6,500) 0.00

3,294,405 · 1.00

3,498,672 34.90

Other Adjustments (with no service impacts) Increase Cost FY19 Compensation Adjustment 71,107 0.00 5', ------------------------------\'.:, Urban Districts General Government 39-5

FY19 RECOMMENDED CHANGES

Increase Cost: Annualization of FY18 Personnel Costs

Increase Cost Risk Management Adjustment

Decrease Cost Retirement Adjustment

Decrease Cost Motor Pool Adjustment

FY19 RECOMMENDED

URBAN DISTRICT -WHEATON


other Adjustments (with no service impacts)

Increase Cost: FY19 Compensation Adjustment

Increase Cost Annualization of FY1 B Personnel Costs

Decrease Cost: Risk Management Adjustment

Decrease Cost Carpentry - Wheaton [Administration]

Decrease Cost: Retirement Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Turnover Savings - Urbao District Public Service Aide

Decrease Cost: Motor Pool Adjustment

Decrease Cost: Increased Lapse - Wheaton

FY19 RECOMMENDED

PROGRAM SUMMARY

x enditures FTEs 20,807 0.00

1,123 0.00

(12,966) 0.00

(25,313} 0.00

3,553,430' 34.90

2,016,434 22.70

44,193 0.00

13,525 0.00

(1,308} 0.00

(1,898) 0.00

(4,961) 0.00

(12,744} 0.00

(20,244) 0.00

(43,927) 0.00

1,989,070 22.70

p N FY18APPR FY18APPR FY19 REC FY19 REC

rogram ame Expenditures FTEs Expenditures FTEs

Promotion of Community and Business Activities 3,366,161 31.95 3,582,418 30.95

Sidewalk Repair 143,969 0.00 143,969 0.00

Streetscape Maintenance 1,861,114 0.00 1,841,614 0.00

Tree Maintenance 123,885 0.00 123,885 0.00

Enhanced Security 1,211,366 17.35 1,228,088 18.35

Administration 1,983,554 9.30 1,916,931 9.30

Total 8,690,049 58.60 8,836,905 58.60

CHARGES TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS FY18 FY18 FY19 FY19

Charged Department Charged Fund Total$ FTES Total$ FTES

URBAN DISTRICT-SILVER SPRING

Parking District Services Silver Spring Parking

FUTURE FISCAL IMPACTS CE RECOMMENDED ($000S)

165,230 3.00 0 0.00

Title FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

URBAN Dl51RJCT -BETHESDA

EXPENDITURES

FY19 Recommended

_!-Jo i~ation or compensation chan~~ is incl~~ in outyear projections.

Elimination of One-TI me Items Recommended in FY19

3,294

0

_l~~'!l!_~mmended for one-time fundillg in FY19, including Gateway and Wayfinding Signs.

Labor Contracts 0

3,294

(50)

1

3,294 3,294 3,294

(50)

1

(50)

1

(50)

1

3,294

(50)

1

_There.figures rep~_ the _estim~~ annualized cost of general wag~ adjustments, service increme~, and other negotiated items. ____ _ · __ _

Subtotal Expenditures 3,2g4 3,245 3,245 3,245 3,245 3,245

URBAN DISTRICT -SILVERSPRNG

---------------------------1..G 39-6 General Government FY19 Operallng Budget and Public Services Program FY19-24

FUTURE FISCAL IMPACTS CE RECOMMENDED (!_O@l!l

Title FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

EXPENDITURES

FY19 Recommended 3,553 3,553 3,553 3,553 _f:-Jo i_n~a!ion 9~. com_~~:>_?1-~on ~ange is included in outy~a_~ p;~jecti~ns.

Labor Contracts O 35 35 35 :fhE.:_se fig_l,!res repre~nt the esti~a_ted an~ualized cost of g_eneral wage adjustments, service incremen~_, and C?_t~~r ~~otiated items.

Subtotal Expenditures 3,553 3,588 3,588 3,588

URBAN DISTRICT-WHEATON

EXPENDITURES

FY19 Recommended 1,989 1,989 1,989 1,989 __ ~o il"!fla~C?n _o~ ~_r:npe~ti~n_9.h~ng1:is_ i~clud~_ !I"! out¥~?.r pf9j~on~.

Labor Contracts 0 25 25 25 __ I~~se fi_g~~E:S rep.!:_e_~nt the ~timated annu~lized_ cost of_general ~age a_djustments, service i~s:remen~. an9 ~ther n~g_o~ia~~ ite1:1s.

Subtotal Expenditures 1,989 2,014 2,014 2,014

3,553

35

3,588

1,989

25

2,014

3,553

35

3,588

1,989

25

2,014

_U_rb_a_n_D-is_t_ri_c_ts ______________________________ G_e_n_e_ra_l_G_o_~_e_m_m_e_n..;1 __ 3_9_•7®

Montgomery County Government

FY19-24 PUBLIC SERVICES PROGRAM, FISCAL PLAN 8ethe::d0 Urban District

FISCAL PROJECTIONS ES11MATE RfC PJJOSECTION PROJECOON PROJ!CrtON- PflOJfCTIQN. P:ROJl:CTION_

ASWMFnONS

PropenyTaiRl:ile:_:ReGlJ>roperty O.Ol2( ~-0120 0.0-120 0.0120- 0.-0120 ll.0120 0.012{

>.ssess~ BoJe.;.Reol i>toperty 1000} 5,208,200 5;436~800 5,670,000 5,920,200 6,176,600 6,428,800 6,700,100

'Property lox Collection Faooi-: ll;eot ~ 99.7' .. ,.,.., 99]')1. ... ,.. 99.7%- ... ,,. 99.7'<

Properly Tcrx Rate: PeROno1 Prnperty ito:wc 0.0300 0.03.00 0.0300 0.0300 0.-0300 0.0,00

Ai~k: Ba~e: Personal Propeny 1000) 219,400 225,-500 231,600 2:W,900 247,200 254,000 ;,16_1,6{)()

Propt,#y Tax Collection Fooor. Penonol Property 97.5% ff.8% 99.8% 99.ll% 99..B'!i ... .,. ..... ln~·Cortlote "·""' 18:23% 18.23% l 8.23% 18,23% 18~ l8.23%

a, 'lfisc:ol Yeorj l.6' ..... 2.1% 2.2% '"" 2.4';i. 2.4'¾

tn,,edment lricome"Yield 1.2"' 1.70'!' 2.20% '·""' 320% "'"' 3.2D%

BrolNNING- RJNO·eAUNCE \65,211 1-S0,.356 83,120 83,068 aJ,684 84,200 84,731

REVEN.UfS

T= b86/172 717,614 747,325 779,728 A12,S73 844,166 _879,482

Omrgei; For Servic,;,s 189_,877 1atp7 193,807 }98,071 202.627 207,449 212,.,490

Svbtcrtal Revenves &76,849 907~491 9-41,132 977,799, 1,015,100 1,0S2,2i5 1,091,972

INTER.FUND TRANSFERS {Net NOl'-OP) 2,197,125 2,289,67& 2,304,030 2,26!1,.030 2,230,530 Z,193,530 2,153,030

Trunsferi To The G-ener<d Fund (24,1231 !23,670} (23,818-) (23,818) (23,a.1~ (23,818} (13,818-)

Jnditi!d Cos:!s J24,l23} Q.3,t,70) (23,:S.18) (23,818] (23_,BU) (23,1nsr {23,818)

Tran~ fr-om"Tbec.Genensl Fond 650,311! 800,318 750,318 750,316 750,318 1sor3_1a 7so,:na

Boseline Sel·•ices 650,318 800,318 750,318 750,318 750,318 750,31& 750,318

Transfe,'r; From S}'e<lcri Fk No~-Tax_ + !Sf 1,671,030 1,513,030 1,577,530 1,541,.530 1,504z'030 1,467,030 l,-4:26,530

From Belhesda PLD .l,671,030 1.,513,030 1_,sn,530 1,541,530 1,504,030 1,4;~7.030 1,426,530

TOTAt "RESOURCES 3,.341.,293 3,377,525 3,"328,282 3,328,B'ia 3,3:z'i,414 3,329,945 3,3:29,733

PSP OPER. BUOGfl APPROP/ EXP'S.

Openrting Bodgel (3,161,937} (3,294,405) {J,294,4051 (3,29.t,4051 {3,29-4,405} {3,294,405} (3,294,405)

labor Agreement n/o 0 !809! (809j !809) 1809! (809)

Eimino1ion of One-time llems Recommeocled in f'Yl 9 n/o n/• 5-0,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

$ubtotQi PSP oper B<1dgfl' Ap),Top / &p.'s (3, l6l,937) (3;294,405) (3,245,214) (3,2_.5,2l4) (3,14S,2T4) (3,:245~214) (3,245,214)

TOTAL USE Of RESOURCES {3,-161,9.37} {3,29,4,405} (3,245,214) (3,245-,214} (3;245,21"4} (3,245,2\4} (:3.,:245,214)

YEAR END FllND BAEANCE 180,356 63,faO 83;068 33,684 £4,200 84,731 ,84,519

ENP•Of-ftAR RESERVES AS A

PEll:aHT OF RESOUJ:C!S 5,4'1 ,... . .... ·- 2.5% 2.5% .... ~umptions:

l. T rarn.fers frnin the &ethesda Forking Distrid or& -o<q.us-ted annually to fund the opproYed service program and to maintain an ending fund

balarn:.e· of opproJOmotely· 2 .5 percent of reSOUKes,

2. Propei:fy tll:11 revenue is assumed to increase over the six ~rs based on'On lmprovec:!] dssessoble base,

3, Large assessable base increases ore due lo eConomic grov..-th ond new proje-c1s coming onli~.

-4-. These projedions·ore bos-ed on ihe Executive's Rsc.ommended Budget and indvde the revenue ond resource assumptions of that budget.

fY20•24 expenditures ore based on the -"major; kno-,.,n commitments•of elecle-d officials ond.iOdude negoiiated kibor _ag,r_eements, -estimates: of

compens.ation and inflation cost iocreoses, the operating costs of capital facilities, the fis.cal impact of approved legiSkfflO.n or regulations, ond

other progrommotk commitments. They do not include unapproved service Improvements, The proieded Mure expenditures. revenues, and fund

balance may vary bosed on changes to fee or tro: rates, usage inflation, Mure labor agreements, -ond other fadors not assumed here ..

5. Section 66A-4 of the County Code requires: oi that the proceeds from either 1he Urban Dis1rict tax or parking foe transfer must not be greater

fhan 90 percent of thei-r combined total; and b) thatthelronsfer from the Parting District not exceed the number Of spoC2$ in the Urban District

ii mes the number of enforcement hours .per year times 20 cents,

Montgomery County Government 3-3

FY19~24 PUBLIC SERVICES PR.OGRAM; FISCAL PLAN Silver Spring Urban District

m• Fn9 FY20 FY21 nn FY23 FY24

FlSCAL PROJECTIONS ESTIMATE .. c f'ROJE<:nON PROJECTION .PllOJECTION PROJECTION P~OJEcno·t.t

ASSUMPTIONS

P.-operty Tax Rote-; R-1 Properiy 0 .. 02.A.O 0 .. 0-240 0.0240 o..ot.ro o .. ou.o 0.0240 o.ouo

~bk- ~Real PToperiylOOO) s;..t21,200 a~n;s~ 3,724,.500 3,888,900 .l,05-7;300 4,223,000 -4~.Wl,200

.f>rop<,,rly ~ Collection Fedor:: ~ Pi-<>~ 99 .. n.- .. _,.., 9-0.7% 91?,7% 99.7% 09_7, W .. 7¾

Property Ta>:: Rat-a-:· f'enO<>CII Properly -0.0600 0-.0600 0.0600 0.0600 0.0.500 0 .. -0000 0.0000

A=esoobiot_-Ra:..., Penon;nl Pro-pa,riy fOOO) 115,200 128,700 132,200 13c,900 141,,000 145,000 149,300

P""P'"'1Y Tax C-0,l~)ion factor. P-.onol l't-operly 07..5"% "94.&% 99.8% IXl.8% 09.8% "'·"" 99.-&-..:

lndirnd ~ Rate 17..3.9% , .. ,,,. 18 .. 23% 1823'1, 1s.2:m 18.23% 1823%

CPI (FiKUI Yeo.-) .1 .. 0,. 2.0% 2 .. 1%- 2.2% 2.3% 2;..4% 2.d."f.

lnve<itm,,n!- lno:nne Y-aeld 12"" 1.7-· 2 .. 20% 2 .. 1D~ 320% 3 .. 20"/4 3.=

9EGJNN1"'6 FUND BALANCE 292,45C ,., 90,tao QD,T7B 90,.175 _,n,5Dl 91,65-E

REVENUES-

T= 9.Ql,456 931,1~9" 969.,&7~ 1,01:1,004 1~54,7~ l.096,750 1,141iV'47

-Ow~Fo.-Ser,,,irec, 150,000 l~.,000 153~105 156,J.73 fo0,072 16l,882 167,SOJ

5ubrofal ~.ues 1,041,456 1,081,1,39 t,122,.978 1;.1f18,,477 1,,214,305 1;:Ui0,638 1,309,81 t

INTERR.JND TRANSFERS (Net Non-OF) 2,106,-140 2~,304 2,46-5,005' 2;419~05 2,374,SOS. 2,327,505 2,,279,00$

TronsfoM1> To The General fund (4:z3,:Z30) (.imt,066) (464,365) 1464,365} {464,365) {464,366) (464,365)

,,,......,eo.i. !423,230) {45-8,!166) H64..30SJ j-46-4,305} (464,365) (46,t,305) i.464,365)

TrQ"5,fers; P'rom The General Fund ~'9,660 539,660 539,660 S-39,~6D 539,660 539;-660 539,06-0

Bt,.,.l,n.., s....-n::es. 530,660 53'Q,660 539,MO 539,000 530,600 539,660 530,660

TraMfers.from S,p,ftial fds.: No11-~ + lSF l,989,710 -2.,4f._D,710 2,389,710 '.'1~,210 2,299,210 2.,75..2.,210 2,203,710

rnml S;h,ar·Sprmg PI.D 1,"989,710 2,-480,710 2,389,710 2,3,U,210 2,29Q,210 2,252.210 2,203,710

TOTAL RESQU'RCES 3~,046 3,643,'610 ;;i.,67'8,163 3,(:,78,160 3,679,486 3,679,643 3,680,475

PSP 0-PER. QUOG-ET APPROP/ EW$.

Ope,ming_ Budget (3.A-39,87~ (3,n:S~l {3,553,.-£301 {3,5_53,430) (3:S,53,-430] p,553 • .430) (3'.553,..a:30)

lgl>t:,r Ag~~ n/o • (34,555) {S-4,555) (3.4,555) P,~55) (3-4,555]

Subn,IC:!I_ P,--...Jt Oper Sudge-t Approp / £:,:p's P,~•.an, .(3,553,.-30) {3,S.S7,9SS) {3,$,8-7,995} (3,58_7,985) (l,587,985) {3,587,98&)

TOTAL USE OF RESOURCES (~,43q_;,a79) (3~553,430) (3,587,985) {3.,sa-7,-985} 1a.sa1 ,vas) (:S-,sav;1a&} (3,587,ft!S)

YEAR END FUND. BALANCE 167 '9-0,180 90,178 9-0,175 9-J,SOl 91,658 ,:2:,490

END-OF-'YEAR. RlSERVES A$ A

Pf:RCENT OF RESOURCES 0.0",,, 2.6% ::Z.5'- ::Z.S<\ 2.5" :2:.5%, '2.£~

Assumption~ l . T ronsfe-rs from the ~Iver Spring Porltin·g District me odiusled Onnuolfy to fund the opproVed ~-en-ice progrom and to maintain an endinQ fund ba]• nce of approximately 2 .. 5 peicenfof res,ourc.es.. - · -2. Property tax revenue is assumed to increase over the six years based on a·n .iniprovE:-d a:s.s.essable tx?se. 3, Large as5essable base- increases ore due to economic growih and rlew projects coming online. 4_ Thes-e pro{edions ore based on the· Executive's Recommended Budget and Include the revenve·and resource ossumplions of that budg<?t. FY20-24 expenditures a-r--e based on the "major, known commitmentsw of efede-d c,ffic.iols and include negotioted labor ogre-ements, eshnwtes of compensation ond inflation cost increoses._ the operating costs of c.opital fodlitie-s, the fisrnl Impact of approved 1egis1ation or regulations, and olher programmatic commi-Jmenfa, The}' do not indude 1Jnapproved service improvemenls. The projected future expendifures, !"evenues, •Jnd fund botonce may vary based on ,·honge.s to f.?e or1ax mtes, usage inflation, future labor agreements., and other faders nol·asrnmed here. 5. Section 68A-4 of the County Code requires: a} that the proceeds from either the Urban District fax or porkfng fee- tr• nsfer must not be greater than 90 pen:enl of their combined total; and b) that !he tronsfel·from the Pork.Ing OisJrid not exceed ihe number of spaces in the Urban Dldrict timBS the number of enforcement hours per yeor times 20 cents.

@ -------------------------------= 3-4 Montgomery County Government County Executive's FY19-24 Fiscal Plan

FY19•24 PUBLIC SERVICES PROGRAM: FISCAL. PLAN Wheaton Urban 01st11.n

FY18 l'Y19 F\'20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24

FIS-CAL PROJECTIONS E.sTIMATE '™' PltOJECOON PR.OJECT10N Pll.OJECTION PROJECTION PltOJl:C110N

ASS:U.MJl'TIONZ

Property 1 a;,. R<:rte.: rteol Properly 0.03.00 o,o::;OCJ 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 o:0300 0.030C

~~"' Ba4c: Real Pnoperty (000) cn;:200 700,700 730,700 763,000: 7116,000 8_28,500 863.500

Prop.,.-tyTax.Call~ion .Fodor. Real Pr-:::,p,e,riy !Xl-7"'- 99.71:M 'Xl,,7% 99.7% 99.r:.. 99.~ .. 91>-.n..

frop...,.,,Tax Rm-,;.: Penon..! Prop~ 0.0750 O.Q75'l 0.0750 0.0750 0.0750 0.0750 0~15(

A..-=ab!.. Booe: Penonal P7opedy ¥JOot 30,100 -37,100 38.,200 :39,'$00 40,700 '1,llOO 43,100

P~ To><. Ca1J~on fudor; ~ Propeny '97.5% 99.0'111 99.So/~ 9<>.8% ...... ..,..,. 99.~

Jndired C<:m l!ate 17.JO'li. llLZlS 1Q.23% Hl,23% lli.23% 18.23%. ,..,,.,. CPI _tfi~col 'l'egr} 1.6¾ ,. ... 2.1% i.2,i -2:.3% 2.4% 2.4~

1 ....... mnem mooff>e• Yield 1.2m 1.7Mi, 2.20% 2.7oot 3.2~ 3.20% 32=

BEGIHNfN6 J=IJNP BALA»cE 4S6,88S 5,1VI 51,408 50,70-l S2,2S7 S1,704- 51,?91

REVENUE!.

T- 227,053 237_,l29 247,02"1 .l57,6SO 268,,-4t 3 27&,-952 290;z87

Mi=eflone<>V8 5,120 7,250 9,380 11.5!0 13,640 lJ.640 13.,6,AO

-Subtotat Revenues 2~173- 2-44,47~ ...... , 269,lt.O 282,05:1 292,S9.2 304,0%7

INTIR.fUND TRANSFERS (Ne1 No~IPJ t.232,289 1,790,,801 1_,7&6,777 1,746,277 1_,7J1,,277 1,720,777 1,709,277

Tr,:,nsfers Tei The General-FI.Fnd (:256,.309) (2b7,(176) f272,500} (272,500) (271,SOOJ (272.SOO) (27~SOQ)

lndi.--t Ca:n- (256,309) {267,976) pn,soo) {2TI,SOO) (272,500) rm,500j (272,500)

7mns-krs- Fr-o.m-The.Genen:1t 1=vnd 1,464,.2 4() '2,022,240 1,992,740 1.,882,240 1,867,240 1,756,740 1,745,240

Ekn.efi,.., Sff"Yicet 76;090 76,090 70,090 76,090 76,.090 76-,090 76,090

Non-~in• 5er,0c-- 1,3U,1SO 1,946,150 1,916/150 1 ;.806.1 SO l,701,150 1,680,050 1,66'9,150

Tt'Dnsfe~ From Spec-itll F1:H,: Hon-Tax+ lSF 24,3$8 36,&37 36-,SJ7 lU,S:37 136..,i:J7 236,537 2:,6,537

homWhed«t?tD U,358 36.1>37 l<Sj,37 1-36.5.37 136,537 2·36;537 236,537

TOTAl RESOURCES 1,9Z0,347 2,040,47-8 2.,064,SIS-6- 2,ot,b,,140 2,065,i8.7 2,-065,073 2",064,494

PSP OPE"R. 9UD-G£T APPROP/ EXP'$.

Oper-oring &ud9"I (1,915.149) (1,qa9_...070) {l,929,070J (l ,9_8Q ,il70} (l_QB9,0J1l1 {1,9~,070) {1,~8Q,070J

t,,,bc,r A-9,....,nwnt o/o 0 {24,913) lU,S-13} (2A.,S-_l'3) {2.t,813) (24,813)

5-ubtotDl PS? Ope,r 8udget Apprc:op' / £%p's (1,..910.,1-49} (1,989,070) (Z,013,883) (2,013,aa.J) (:2:,013.,88-3) (2,01~) (Z£113,U3}

TOTAL USE OF RESOURCES {J,9Ui,149) {1,9,89,070) (21J13.,UJ) f.2~013.,DJ) (2.,013,:&a3) (2,01"3,.883) (2,013,,U.3}

YEAR END FUND BALANCE 5~198 01,-408 S0,703 52/267 S:1,704 51,1-9(1 ~,611

ENl>-OF-YE4R RESERVI:$ AS A

PERC!:NT OF RESOURCES -0.3% :i.5~ 2.5'1ii 2:.5~ 2.S~ :z.Sl!i, 2.5,i

Assumptiop11:: 1.Tronsfersfrofl) the Wheat611 Parking Distric1 ore adfusted onnuolly lo fund fhe-opprOved service program and io inolntain on ending fund

bolo nee of appf"Oximalety 2.5 percent of resoUJ"ces.

2. Prop:rty tox revenue is Ossumed to inueose over the six ye-ors based on an imp_rov~d a-S:ses~ble base.

3, large oss-essoble base increases are due to e(onomic grow-th and new prOjects coming onfllle..

4. The Baseline Services transfer provid% basic right-of-way mainfe-nonce comparable to services provided countywida

5, The.Non-Baseline Servic_es tronsfe-r is nec.essory to maintain fund balance policy.

6. These projections ore based on the Executi"e's Recommended Budget and in dude the- rE-venue and r~rce assumptions of1hot budget,

FY20-24 -expenditures o·re based on the ~major, known commitments_. of elected officials ond include negot\dfed foboragreements, estimates of

comp~nsotion and inflation c:ost increases, the operating costs of capital fadlitie.s, the fis.c.ol impact of approved legislation or regula1ion~, and

other progromm0-tic commitment'S. They do not indu<:re unopproved ser.rice improvemenis. The proieded future e:io:penditures. revenues, and fun(

bolo nee may vary based on changes to fee or tax rates, usage inflation, future labor agreements, and other factors not assumed here.

7. Section bBA-4 of the County Code requires; OJ tnat the proceeds from either the Urban Distrid 1ox or parlcing fee transfer mu st not be greater

than 90 pen:ent of their combine-0 total; and b) that the transfer from the Parking Oishict not exceed the number of spaces in the Urban District_

times the number of enforcement hours per year times 20 (ants.

/1) Montgomery County Govemment 3.5

F\:1.9-24 Public Seli.i~s Prog.r.un: Fkc.al Plan

Bethesda Parking lilt District Estim:ued &KommeDded Projected Projtc.ted Projert.-d

2918 2019 2020 2021 .?till

_.>\,ss:11rrmrinm:

Indirect Cost Rate 1739"/4 1823% 18.23% 1113% 18.23%

CPI rFisc21 Y e.c\ 1.60% U)5% 2.0'r/4 2.N'. 230%

Investment I:ncomr: Yield 120% 1.70% 2.2!)% 2.70"i~ 3.20%

B Fun• ' 15,-'78,181 s 15,.622.Y!S s 12.,.-';.t9,422 s l3.S25 $ 13,28t

i,,,,,....,

n~.....-.c fuJ Services s 15.555 011.l s 15,555,081 s 15.555.()81 s 15,555,081 s 15 'iSS,081

Fines & Forfi:':ils $ J,250 000 s 3.250000 s 3,250.000 s 3,,~50.000 s 3,250,.000 - ' 1.466,.580 s 532.610 s 6,20S,640 s 634.,670 ' 685 700

Subrotal R,,vmues $ 20,2n,661 s 19-,337,691 s 15,013,721 s 19,439,751 s IJ,490,781

T,""""" $ f2,6 5 s " 159 $ {5,100,43 s (1,873,748 s (1,.646-.181

Tr.ntsfen to GeW!J.t! Fund s 1407.325 s (427 l'1x· $ (4l' \H1t1 s (--132.2111 s C.U2,,l5ll

lndi<ectCom $ (]94,S"Jn s (414,0V! s (421 ... ,in ' (432,210 s {442,151)

TcJetorott)lrnicahans NDA $ (12,799) s (l~.199) $ s . s .

Tnmsfen to :-.ru,na1 Funds: Lu STmDMted s nm,0311 s (l,513,0Ju, $ n .:.:·u,:530 s (l,5-il,.530) s n,504,n.~•

Bcfhesda Urt,;m District s (1,671,03 s r15B.0 s fl,.577,530 s (1,541,530) $ il.504.030

TraasfE"rs tu Other Funds $ . s (000,000) s (3,100,000) s 100,0UO s (700,000)

Transfc" to 'illheaton PlD ·s s (400, s (100 s 100,000 ' 400.000

Tr;ms;rer to SiM-r SpingPI.D $ s . s (3,000,000) s . ' (1,100,000)

Total •= $ 33,671,.487 $ 32.620..,150 > 32,462,707 s 31,0§l,395 I 30,128,896

CIP Current Ren-nlll'. rbtion • s (3,092,000) s c5,.L~) s (3.790.000) s (2..f.35.000 $ (2,690.000

Orber CIP &-,-enue Annnmriation upe!lditun.- s . s . s . ' $ .

_-\ppropriatio~ ,~m•Budgel s (10.3(16,658) S (10,.262.S34) $ (l0,475,'l75) ~ (10.705.731) I (10,951.,965)

~Debt Sc-vice $ (4,649,910) $ (4,653,194) $ (4.640.400) S (4.634 JI.. 5 (3.104,192)

Rdiree He;OOt Insur.mer.: s . $ . s (1,580 s (2.0 s (2.770

Labar~t $ . $ . s (30,068 s (l0,06& $ (30.068.

S-ubtotalPSPOpen . Budget. $ (1-l,956,569) > (14,916,018) s (15,147.323) , (15~72, ) s (U,088,991)

1. SE: OI K-eseQr«s , ( - ) > (" , .. > ' > .,, > ( ..... ,, ; )

Year End FIIDd &bnce s 15,622,91-S $ 12,549,-Ul s 13,525,.384 s 13,284,2 , 13 .... lttl!!.d RestrictfflR~-e- s (7,953,94-t) s (8,542,531 s (8.59J,35l) s (8.341,.256) s (8,898, 71i,::;'

Year End Available :fund Bahmce 5 1.668,9i3 s 4.006,891 s -t.931,,032 $ -1,-:143,039 $ .t,451,199

IAl"ll na- f\S = .. ercenf ., ....... ri 1.ear s.

PSPE- 51% 26% 32~~ 32% 31%

T,1n!M :S.1Jance $ 3,729,00i s 3,786,831 s 3~3,025 s 3,522,2--18 s 3,58-Ul7 _, I. The c.tsh b21:mce includes funds. required lo be llrld by the District lo rovtt Bond Covenaots.

Bood~(:mnualnrlrcvemJCS ll\'t:I: dcbtscrvicen:quimnmts) is maiot:ainedataboul: l95perceotinFY19, Thcminimum~is 125 ~-

2. R= for 1k. air rights lease fucGarage 49 is assumoi in FYI6 tbrongh FY24.

3-. &vmoe grov.111 in FY2• pr~ as a RSUlt of increased OCCTip2DCY of cxisticg facilities: associated v.'i.tb tbe 1-·!amon development.

Projected Proj,<te 2023 202

18.23% 18.23''

23&"/4 2.4~1. 3 ,O"!o 3.20!

s 13,349 .... s 12,329,512

s 15555J)Sl s 14,755,081

' 3,250.000 I 3.250000

s 685.700 ' 2,685,700 s 19,490.781 s W,690,i81

' (_3,0lJ-,7 ' " '04) s (451,67-0 s (463,674 s (452,674 I (463,674 s . I s n,4'7,036 I (l,426,.5"\II

$ (l.'167,030 $ (1,426.530 s (1_.HMJ,000) ' .

s . $ .

$ (1,100,000) $

s 29.,820,91(1: $ 3l,l3G,088

s (3.155,000) ' (3,155,000)

s s

) {11,212,619 $ (11,485.IIXll

$ (3,091,011) $ (3,078,709) $ (2.T/(f) s (2.77,

' (3().008 I 130,

s ll-4,336,-469 I (14,596,633)

s (.i.1 ) ' (n.

, 12,329,512 s 13,378,455 s (8,956,603 I (9,015,5"1) s 3,.:371,.908 I 4,362,893

23%. 301}<

s 3,649,L"8 I 3,649,158

4. ~P"~ are based ao. ttie &ec:um,e~ lZ«oromeodcd Budget and include the r~ and resource assumptians of that bodgd. FY20-24o::pcnditmes are based on &"major,

kno,wn commiUl'ltl1ts" of elected officials .and include ncgotiad labor :igreements, e!>l':ilmfcs. of compensa1ion and inflation ooi,t increases, ihe operDg costs of capittl btilities,

the fiscal.impact ofappnn.d kgwation or ~ti<ms • .md. ~ programmatic c:ommib:nmtJ;. Thcydo not indudeuo:tpprO\:cd SCJVice~. The prnjected

furo:::e ap~es. rC\i'C!lllCS, :md fund ba1:mcc mayvacybased on cmnges to fee ortaxDks, usage. inflatia:t, future !Jbar agreements, and od:ir:r f.tctocs not·as.urntt1 here.

II 47-8 Transportation FY19 Operating Budget and Public Services Program FY19-24

n:19-24 Public Se1-rices Program: Fiscal Plan Silve,i· Spring Parking~ District Ertiw.stl'd: Recommended Projected Projt-cted Projected Projected

1018 2019 2020 2021 202! 2tr-3

USum1JtiOUS

lndi:rm Cost Rate 17.3~, .. 18.23<:-. 18.23% }8?3% 18.23% 18.23%

CPI (Fiscal Y~) 1.~/o 1.95% 2.07% 2.20% 2.30%, 'US%

InvewDCllt Income Yidd l.20o/o 1.70"/4, 2.20'!-~ '.!.70%, 3.20% 3.20%

Fund Bala.net' $ 18,172,.361 s 13,132.931 s S.3ZP,I72 s 3.899,600 s 3,589,318 s 4.219.341 s

Re•e-1111es f""h.,..,..... fol· Sen--.i-ces s 10.706.253 $ 10,663,333 ' 10 663,333 s 14,9?3.333 ' 14,923,333 ' 14.923 '133 $

Fines&Forfuts $ 1,897,689 s 1,897,689 s 1,897,689 s 1,S97,689 $ 1,897.689 s 1,897,689 $

Mi=ll,n,o~ $ 199,750 $ 281.980 s 366.210 s 449.440 $ 532,670 $ 532.,670 • Subtot.al Renn= $ 12,803,692 s ll,844,002 s 12,92i,232 s 17,270,462 s 17,353,@2 ' 17,353,691 s

ranrlt>J--S $ (2,466,970) s {3,040,BO) $ 123.286 s (2,841.818) $ n,708,.148) s (1,673,141} s Tramfet'S lo General Fuud $ {536,116 $ (559,42m s {48-7,00 s f49i.608 ' 1508.!)3~ s {520.931 s

Indiact C-Osts. ' (448,924) s (472-228) s (482..004-) s (492,608) $ -,503,938) S (515,931 $

ToRSC ' (S.000) ' (5.000) ' (5.000) $ (5.000) $ (),000} S (5,000) S

TckcommunicatiowN""DA s (82.192) s (82.192) $ - s s $ - $

Ininsfu-s to Snerial Funds; Ta:.: Sup"""Ni $ {1,930,.8$4) S {2.480,710} ' 61(1,190 s (l.,344,110) ' (1,199.210) S {1,152,110) $

Sil,,,, C:rb..-w District ' fJ,989.710" s '' 480,710' ' 12389,710 s (2.344,210} ' 12.299.210 ' f!,251.210 $

Tnnsftr fromBctl~ PI.D ' $ $ 3.000,000 $ - s 1,100,000 ' 1,100,000 ' T!lll!Sfer from Montgomc:ry Hills PlD $ 58,856 s ' s - ' ' s

Total Re.\OUIT-l'S $ 28.509,084 s 22.5136,803 s 18,379,;90 $ 18,328.244 s 19.1.34,M3 s 19.899,892 s

C1P Cunent Ren-nut> A roniiation ;:;-......,adttu.re $ '3,940.000 $ (6,100,000 $ f!,i00,000 $ '2,700.000 s '2,700,000 s '2.700.000 s

Appropriatious/Espeodihlrt's s (11.436,153) $ (11,507,531) s (11,745,737) $ {11.,00•U43) $ (12..280,238) S {12572.508) S

uboc s $ - ' {33,373 s (33,373 ' (33.373 $ 133,373 s Rerircc Health Benefits Prc--Pundmg $ - $ ' (1,080) $ (L410) ' (1,910) $ (1,910) $

Subiob.l PSP Opt>n,ting Bnd,.ef Appropri.ilion ' {ll,436,.153) s (11,507,531) ' {ll, 730..190) s (12,038',91"6) ' (12,315,521) ' (12,607,791} s

Total Tht> ofltl:'Solll·ees s (15,376,153) s {17,607.531) s t14,4Sfi,190) s {14,738.926) s (15,015,.521) s (15.307,791) S

Yu.r End .-\yailabie Fund BidanN? s 13,132,931 s 5,3J:9,2i2 s 3,899.600 s 3589,318 ' 4,119,.341 s 4,592.101 s .--1..,,1;uao1e rllllu ............ i:e .~ A Perc.ent of 1'"en Years

PSP E:Ipl:'llse-s 114% 45% 32% ::!9~-'o 33% 36%

Targ-et B;danct> s 2,876,88.."' s 2Jt45_.047 s 3,009,732 s J,078.880 s 3.151.948 s 3.218.316 s

-~Wll¢ons: 1. These projecnons aie based o'.l the E.~co1tive's R.econmenc!o:l Budg~ and include 1k re\'CI.Ue ;md resource ;issumptioos of that budget. FY20-24 expenditures are b:iso:i on the

"major. kncrwn commitrnmts" of drcto:l offirnls and ioclude negori;rted labor~ e.stimates of compc=ition :md inflatio:n cost incre.lses. the opcr,iting costs of capital facilit:i~. ~ fisc;tl impact of ~.;ed ll:gislation or regufatiom, .and otbc: prognu:na:J3ric commitmi':tll5. They do not ioc!ude wupproved sen"icc improvements. The- pi:OJected funJJe expmdi~. r~"tlltle:S, and fund bal:mccmay v.u:y b3S("d on chang~ to fee or ax mes, 11S:'lgc'~ .infution, furutt bbor .i,grecr:nrots. ;md other bcton not assumed Me.

2. ~ to revenue from FY20--24 ;i;rl!', based on a combinari® of increased hours of omfor=t lD lots .md gar.iges and over.ill r.ttes, w:ith the details to~ ddel".m:i::iffi

i:n rollaboca.tion Wlth the Sih"O"" Spring Ch.amber of Commace and the County Council 3. The ParlciD.g Lot Disttiru Juve .a fond wlanct- policy ta:rget equ.al ro 25- pcrcfflt oftbe following }-or's projected openti.og budgd ~.

Projecwd

2024

lS.23%

2.43% 3.'.!0'lo

4,591,101

14,9'....3.333 1,897,689

532,670 17,353,692

(2,737,178) (533,.lli!l' (528.468)

(5,000)

(2,203,710)

(2,203.710

19.208,6-U

f:!.i00,000)

(12.878,020) (33,373

(1,910)

(12,913..303)

(15,613.303)

3,595,311

28-%

3.!!S,326

Parking District Services Transportation 47.g

FYl.9-24 PubHt Serrices Pros;r'am: Fiscal Plan

\\'heaion Parking Lot District EirtimatNi Reromlllf1UINi ProiKted Projected Pro1ected PToierled

2018 2019 1020 ,on 2022- 2023

·"-" -Indirect Cost Rm: 17.39% 18.23% 18.2~~ 18.23% 18.23% 18.23%

CPI (Fi.seal Year} L60o/• 1-95% ?.07% 2.20% 230'% 2.38%

Inves.tme:u1 lncome Yield 1.20% 1.70-/4 2.20% 270-/4 3.20%, 3.20%

.6E:ginning FUlld Bab.nn• s ... ~,. s 451,008 s 39U33 s 43:?,030 s 939,018 s S10.541 ' Revenues

·.

n.-..-..c:s for Scmtes ' 725.000 • 725000 • 1.325,000 s 1,825.000 s 1.825.000 s 1,325,000 ' Fines & Fam-its ' 476.000 s 476.000 s 476,000 ' 476,000 ' 476.000 • 476,000 s

¼scdl:mcous ' 9,S.70 ' B.980 s 18,090 ' 22.200 s 26310 ' 26310 ' Subtotal Rn·enues s 1.210,.870 s 1.214.,980 s 1,819,090 • 2.,323,200 • 2.,327,.310 s 2,317,310 s

Trnnsfirrs s (!>6,0S4) s 288,852 s (8,545) s (310,129} ' i611.Sll s (313,613 s

Transfers to General Fund s (71,726) s (74,611) s (72,008"} s (:3.5!>2) s n5,284) s fiJ,076) $

""""" Com ' (67 662 s r70,54 s !72.008 ' (73.592\ s 175.284 ' (77.076) S

T~NDA ' (4.064) ' (4,064) s ' - s • - ' T r'ansfers to · Funds:T.u:Su s C?.4,3 s ,., s 63.463 s ( ' ' (536,537} S IZ36.53, s

WhGttoD Uroan District s (24,358 s (36,537) s (36,537) s (136,537) s (135.537) S (236,537) $

Tr.msft:J from~ PI.D s s 400,000 s 100,000 ' (100.000) s (400,000} S ' .

Total RE-soU('("es s 2,015,136 s 1.954,840 s Z,202,678 s 2,44:'-,101 s 1,354,507 s 1,.524,244 ' CIP CUJT~t Renna-e. ronriadon nditure s <L...,._ooo $ (157,.000 $ (157,000 s '157 000 s (157""0 s 1',.45,000 s

Appropriatiom.rt3penditttrts

" ' fl.407.128 s (1,405,707) S {1,608,405 ' (l.643,790) s (l,681,59, s {l,Til,619) S

R.et:ircc Hc:altb Ins=ncc PR-F"""';..,,,. ' - s s (160) S (210 s ,m s (''SO) S

ubm ' - s - s (5,083) $ (5.0&3) $ (5,083) $ (5.0S3) $

Subtotal PSP { Bud A rilltion s (1.407,1.28} S (1.405,70 $ fl,613,645) $ (1.649,083 s (l ,.686,960) S (1,726,981) S

Tobi L'SE' of Resources s (1.564,1?8) $ (1,.561',707) s (1,770.648) ' (1. .... 083) s (l,84l .... ) s (l,971.,982) S

1'ear End Avaifabh• Fund Bala11r.e- s 451,008 s 392,133 s 432,030 s 639,018 s 510.--'i-4-7 $ 552,262 s

•• "l'.=a~ .. ~ anu .oa,11.nn- .-..s .... ~i·cent,0.1. .,e.u iear s. ---

El::P""mH 31'¼ 24% 26% 38•1,, 30% 31%

T11.1~ Balance s 351,427 s 403,412 s 411,171 s 421,7,1.{l s 431,.746 s 442,204 s

As-sumptions: 1. These projcctioos are based on the E=cutive's R.ccOUJlllCildcd Budget nod inchlde the rev= and= =JIDf'bons of that budget Fi:"""20-24 ~hnes are based on the

~maj01, known ro:ruruitroents~ of derud officials arid include ne~ bbor ~. cstun3tes of ~OD~ inflation cost inc=.scs,-the opc:r.rting ~ of c-apit;:il

fucilitics, the :fiscal 1~ of~ legislation. or regul;nions, and athc:r progr.u:mnatic t:ommitnients. They do not include~ SITT-"ice imprn~ The projec:aJ

fumre apmditul6, revenues, :and fund b:ahnceimy-\-;uy~ on~gcsto fl':e ortnratcs:, usage, infl:acion. futon· boor :a~, :andotht:rbctonnot assumed here_

2. Iner~ tor~ from FY20..24 :tre based o:n tht cc,mpktion of the 'Whe.ttorl R.mt:alizatim Progr.itn in FY20, and.a cOODirnltion of iDcrezed ho= of (Ilf=t in lot5-

:and pages .md m,a:ul rates st:arting ttl FY21, with the deb:ils lo be det~ Ul collabontion with the Whe:aton Chamber ofC-omme:rce and the County Council.

3. The Parl;mg Lot .D1strictl-- have a fund balaoc:e policy targd: eqnal to 25 po«nt' of the fo.lloWlllg )'1'21'~ projected operating budget ~-

\

Projerl~d

.!024

18.23¾ 2.43% 3 2()01,

552,.262

1.825 000 476,000

26,310

2.317,310

.

(315,486)

{78,949) (78 949)

-(236,537 (236,537)

2,564,{186

rns,ooo

(1,763,455) (280)

{5.0S3)

(1,768,818)

(2,.013,818)

550.US

31%

442.204

13

47-10 Transportation FY19 Operating Budget and Public Services Program FY19-24

______________________________ Exhibit 51

Recommended Allocation of Baseline and Enhanced Maintenance Seivices

Coun!J:'.wide Baseline Services'

BETHESDA

• Litter Collection

• Street Sweeping

• Sidewalk Washing

• Roadside Mowings

• Emptying Trash Receptacles

• Street Tree Maintenance

SILVER SPRING


• Street Sweeping

• Sidewalk Washing • Roadside Mowings



WHEATON


• Street Sweeping • Sidewalk Washing

• Roadside Mowings



Freguen£:Y

Sx/week 3x/week

2x/year

12x/year

2x/week

as needed (on an 8 year cycle)

Sx/week

3x/week

2x/year

12x/year 2x/week

as needed ( on an 8 year cycle)

Sx/week 3x/week

2x/year

12x/year

2x/week

A,; needed ( on an 8 year cycle)

Enhanced Urban District Services2

Freguency

• Litter Collection 3x/day 5 days/week

• Empty Trash 4x/week Receptacles

• Inspection, Mulching, daily inspections and Pruning, and Plantin semi-annual maintenance

• Litter Collection 2x/day (Mon-Fri) Ix/day Sat.

• Empty Trash 4x/week Receptacles

• Mulching, Pruning, and annual maintenance Plantin


• Mulching, pruning, and planting

3x/week

annual maintenance

1 Baseline services are based on urban district services detailed in tbe FY 89 Recommended Operating

Budget Countywide baseline services shoud also •include snow removal, lighting maintenance, and sidewalk and curb replacement. 2

Enhanced services levels are based on urban district contracts and information provided by the Bethesda Urban Partnership.

116

C-s ~

\)1if~~25 SILVER ANNIVERSARY ---1f9J-,,20JI---

OUR MISSION: Working to enhance the economic prosperity of greater Silver Spring

through robust promotion of our member businesses and unrelenting

advocacy on their behalf.

Montgomery County FY19 Operating Budget Wednesday, April 11, 2016

Council President Riemer, members of the Council, I'm Jane Redicker, President of the Greater Silver

Spring Chamber of Commerce. Our Chamber represents more than 460 employers, mostly small

businesses, and several non-profit organizations, that provide more than 17,000 jobs in greater Silver

Spring and surrounding areas in Montgomery County. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on

the proposed FYI 8 Operating Budget My comments this afternoon are directed toward the proposed

budgets for the Silver Spring Urban District and the Silver Spring Parking Lot District.

Please Increase the Resources Available to the Silver Spring Urban District

As you know, we learned early this year that Discovery Communications will leave its Silver Spring

headquarters to consolidate operations in New York and Memphis. While we are disappointed by this

loss, we are optimistic about the future of Silver Spring. We believe that Silver Spring has much to

offer a large anchor business considering a move to Montgomery County- walkable Metro access, an

educated workforce, convenient and desirable housing options to meet any budget, and wonderful

amenities like the AFI Silver Theater, The Fillmore, and a large and diverse array of wonderful dining

options.

That said, we also recognize that in the process of working to attract our next large anchor company,

Silver Spring needs to put its best foot forward visually and aesthetically. In order to do that, additional

resources will be required to extend the work hours of the Clean & Safe crew working to pick up litter,

keep the trash and recycling cans emptied, repair sidewalks, repaint the weather-worn bases of the

decorative light poles.

This year the Urban District gave up the contract for emptying trash and recycling cans throughout the

Central Business District and now, to save money, our Clean & Safe crews handle the collection and

disposal. This practice requires not only increased work hours, reducing time for other responsibilities,

but also takes a vehicle out ofregular service during collection and the drive to the County Transfer

Station.

Over the years, the budget for the Silver Spring Urban District has not kept pace with the dramatic

growth in residents and feet on the street. Since FYl0, the budget for the Silver Spring Urban District

has increased by a mere net 1 %. Personnel costs increased in line wi1h 1he County's collective

bargaining agreement, so 1hat meant that oilier things had to decrease.

As a result, our community is showing more 1han a few signs of wear. Years of being exposed to fue·

elements and lacking regular maintenance, 1he paint at 1he base of many of our street light poles has

eroded away. They need to be sanded, and repainted or replaced. Many of1he trash cans throughout 1he

CBD are rusted, battered, and broken, contributing to what some have described as a scuffed and

shabby look to 1he area. We should replace at least 50 of1hese trash cans this year and 50 more next

year. At a cost of approximately $1,000 per trash can, that means the Urban District need an additional f?',, .

~

860 ! Georgia Avenue, Suite 203, Silver Spring, Maryland 209 ! 0

Phnnf" t?0 11565-3777 • Fax /30 !/565-3377 • /[email protected] • wwwossccorq

I

$50,000 for FY19. That's just trash cans. In addition, many of our sidewalks are in need ofrepair.

These are sidewalks that are the responsibility of the Urban District and not part of a development

maintenance agreement. The current budget for trees provides enough money to cut down and remove

dead or dying trees, but not enough to replace them. These are cosmetic things, but little things that

leave a large impression on someone visiting for the first time, especially someone who would

consider bringing his or her company into one of the largest properties in the co=unity.

Homelessness is a concern throughout the County, and the Silver Spring Central Business District has

seen an increase in our homeless population in the past year. The Urban District staff has developed

relationships with agencies to refer the homeless to shelter and services. Nevertheless, Clean & Safe

Team must deal with homeless people sleeping in business entrances in the morning or on the sidewalk

in mid-day, collecting the cardboard they leave behind, and power-washes urine pools from pedestrian

tunnels that connect north and south Silver Spring under the railroad overpass. Keeping up with the

workload required to address the challenges of our homeless population requires extra work hours. But

this is something that must be done because not addressing it diminishes the clean and safe image we

want to maintain and project, not only to those who already live and work here, but to the visitors who

come to enjoy our restaurants and entertainment venues and those who come seeking a location for a

business.

We asked the County Executive to increase the budget for the Silver Spring Urban District and his

proposed budget reflects a mere 1.6% increase. However, that "increase" is not an increase at all. It

actually reflects a reduction in the working capabilities of the Urban District. The proposed budget

calls for a 3.9% increase in employee benefits and 3% more in "Salaries and Wages." The only way to

accomplish these increases and show a 1.6% overall increase is by cutting" Operating Expenses by

2.3%. This is reflected as a reduction in motor pool expense, but in reality, it is a reduction in the

Urban District's contracting capacity that will affect sidewalk repair, trees, flowers, trash cans, and

painting street light poles.

We recognize that the dollars needed to replace these important services will likely only come through

the Reconciliation List. So, in the coming weeks, we will be submitting specific targeted requests

through the Council's work session process.

Maintain Current Parking Hours and Fees in Silver Spring

We appreciate and support the Department of Transportation's previous proposal to transfer funds

from the Silver Spring Parking Lot District to the Wheaton PLD have been eliminated from the six

year fiscal plan. We also appreciate and support DOT's plan to keep parking in Silver Spring lots and

garages, and on the street, free after 7 p.m.

While the population of the Urban District continue to grow with the addition of new apartment

communities, the daytime population has waned as commercial development has all but halted. Our

restaurants and businesses that once had a thriving daytime business now rely heavily weekend and

evening customers. Eliminating free weekday evening parking could easily drive patrons, movie

theater patrons, for example, to nearby theaters in Wheaton and Calverton, where there is ample free

parking 24/7. This free weekday evening parking is critical to Silver Spring's still-developing

nighttime economy. It is particularly critical to the success of our many retail establishments,

restaurants, theaters, and other entertainment venues that still rely on business from patrons who arrive

by car.

@

General

Who will attend the worksession? For my benefit, please include the position title for each attendee (other than

yourselves) since this is my first year for this budget.

Ken Hartman, Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Director Luisa Montero-Diaz, Mid-County Regional Services Director Reemberto Rodriquez, Silver Spring Regional Services Director Richard Bingham, Chief of Operations, Silver Spring Urban District Joe Callaway, Chief of Operations, Wheaton Urban District Corey Orlosky, Office of Management and Budget

What are the current vacancies by District and by Program?

Budget

In Bethesda, the Program Specialist II position is vacant- interviewing now. In Silver Spring there are two vacant positions: Equipment Operator and Workforce Leader I. In Wheaton, two Urban District Public Service Aides are vacant - interviewing now. 1.7 Public Service Worker II positions are vacant - currently advertising for one.

Can OMB/Bethesda UD provide an explanation and justification for the White Flint Advisory Committee

Projects funding add? If not addressed in the explanation/justification writeup, please provide details about:

• The projects that are anticipated in FY19, including the estimated expenditures for each project;

• Whether the projects are anticipated to be one-time or ongoing;

• The contract vehicle for these funds ( e.g., will it be through the RSC or through BUP); and

• Justification for funding these projects through the UD (as opposed to the RSC or other County budget).

The proposed projects in White Flint are consistent with the activities of the Urban Districts. Activities would be contracted by the Bethesda Urban District which is managed by the B-CC Regional Services Center.

The 2010 White Flint Sector Plan recommended the creation of a new urban district in that area. Establishment of an urban district or business improvement district in White Flint is expected in the next few years.

The Council created the White Flint Downtown Advisory Committee in 2012 in part to "coordinate community activities that promote and assist in activities that advance business interests and sense of community within the area". The Committee and B-CC Regional Services Center organized and manage landscaping, a weekend clean team (in partnership with DOCR), website and social media promotions, and an annual street festival.

Projects anticipated in FY19 include: additional special events and placemaking activities; strengthening social media and marketing; coordination of cleaning and landscaping; and wayfinding and branding. The FY19 recommendation includes $50,000 in one-time costs for visual branding of the Sector Plan area.

What is the reason/justification for the decrease in Streetscape Maintenance for Bethesda? What is the

anticipated service impact?

®

The number of Optional Method Developments in Bethesda has risen from 25 to 3 6 during the past four years. OMD properties are billed directly for maintenance of installed streetscape. Accordingly, a decrease in the General Fund transfer for maintenance is expected.

What is the reason/justification for the decrease in Carpentry- Wheaton?

The 4% reduction could not be achieved by lapsing one FTE; therefore, $1,898 needed to come from operating expenses. The $1,898 decrease will not significantly affect general services WUD provides.

What is the reason/justification for the 1.00 FTE transfer from Promotion of Community and Business Activities

to Enhanced Security? ls this transfer related to a specific UD?

This is a technical adjustment to the labor distribution of current staff in Wheaton, to better align with the services provided. There is no change in service delivery as a result of this adjustment.

Fiscal Plan

Can 0MB verify the following funding required to achieve the 2.5% fund balance at close of FYI 8 for Silver

Spring and Wheaton?

• Silver Spring: $85,834

• Wheaton: $42,811

0MB confirms that adding these amounts to the current FY18 estimates would leave Silver Spring and Wheaton at an estimated 2.5% fund balance at the end of FYI 8, but is not recommending adding funds for this purpose in FY 18.

What assumptions in economic growth and which projects were included in the increase in assessable base for

each UD?

The estimates for the taxable assessments both real property and personal property for the urban districts are calculated based on the relationship of both assessments to the county-wide taxable assessments, that is, the proportion of the actual taxable assessments for the urban districts to the actual taxable assessments countywide for the latest fiscal year - FY2017. The actual assessments for both the countywide and urban distributions in FY2017 are provided by the Treasury Division, Department of Finance. The growth in the taxable assessments for the urban districts is estimated based on the estimated growth in the countywide taxable assessments maintaining the proportion calculated from taxable assessments in FY2017. Therefore the estimates of the taxable assessments are based on the proportion of the assessments for the urban district to the countywide assessments in FY201 7 and adjusted for the estimated growth in the countywide taxable assessments.

What non-baseline services are funded by the General Fund transfer in Wheaton?

The non-baseline services line serves as the primary source of funding for the Wheaton Urban District, in the same fashion that the PLDs serve as the primary source of funding in Bethesda and Silver Spring. As Wheaton's PLD cannot provide the same relative level of support, in order to maintain the services at the WUD, an additional transfer is required, and it is currently provided through this general fund transfer.

Documents

May 14, 2018 Worksession MEMORANDUM May 10, 2018