What does the mock hard hat below have to do with the current relationship between Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and the County Council? Quite a bit, actually.
At last week’s unveiling of the new Silver Spring library, Executive Branch staff handed out the above hats calling for a pedestrian bridge between the Wayne Avenue parking garage and the library. (Just Up the Pike posted a picture showing the director of the library system holding one of the hats.) Leggett advocated for the bridge to enable greater accessibility for disabled people. The County Council voted down the bridge in July by 8-1, with George Leventhal dissenting, citing the bridge’s $750,000 cost and the fact that the library was ADA-compliant without it. There is no indication that the council will reverse that vote in the near future, if ever. But Leggett made a point of noting that the building’s design would accommodate the bridge and had the above hats passed out to make a point: namely, that he is right and the council is wrong. Advocates for the disabled, who favor the bridge, are no doubt applauding.
We express no opinion on the merits of the bridge, but this episode is part of an evolving pattern of the Executive’s budgetary conduct and his relations with the County Council. On the one hand, Ike Leggett is definitely running for a second term as a fiscal conservative. There is no question that he has moved to limit the growth of spending to match the county’s anemic revenues, as he is required to do by law. The FY 2010 operating budget recently passed by the County Council contains the first tax-supported budget cut since FY 1992. But Leggett also negotiated the most recent union contracts with MCGEO, the Fire Fighters and the Police that have been criticized by Council President Phil Andrews and others as unaffordable. And the council trimmed $20 million from Leggett’s charter-limit-breaking tax increase in 2008 at the behest of Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg and Roger Berliner, all of whom believed “labor savings” were important at that early stage of the budget crisis.
At the same time that Leggett is preaching fiscal conservatism, he is supporting small but prominent spending items sometimes aimed at noisy constituencies. The Silver Spring library pedestrian bridge, which appeals to the disabled, is one example. Two others include the $150,000 appropriation for Sligo Creek Golf Course, which was approved by the council, and the new police helicopters, which will probably never get council approval. Leggett shows no sign of backing off on the bridge or the helicopters despite their massive unpopularity with the council. This is smart politics since small, highly motivated constituencies make for excellent field soldiers in an election. But some Council Members will see this as little more than posturing that is inconsistent with the Executive’s attempts to acquire the high ground on the issue of fiscal prudence. It is the council, after all, that has the responsibility for deciding the ultimate fate of the budget.
And so when Ike Leggett’s people pass out “Build the Library Bridge” hats, they are poking eight Council Members in the eye over an issue that has already been decided. That has not escaped their notice. Leggett is still the Executive, and likely will still be the Executive after 2010, but his current politics of going small will only shrink his political capital with the council.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Hard Hats and Small Politics in Rockville
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What People Are Looking For on MPW
Our new Statcounter premium account enables us to pay close attention to which subjects draw the most page views. This is unique political intel on what makes Maryland’s cyberspace buzz! And as usual, we provide it to our esteemed readers free of charge. Who loves you more than we do?
Among the 100,000 page views we drew between May 30 and August 23, here are the most-viewed blog posts:
1. Pols Party While Budget Burns
2. More Warnings of State Budget Apocalypse
3. How to Save Money on Your Electric Bill Right Now
4. People with Development Disabilities at Risk of Losing Services
5. Is WMATA Management Starting to Crack?
6. The MACO Moment
7. Young Guns of MoCo Part Two
8. MACO Mushroom Cloud
9. Young Guns of MoCo Part Four
10. Funniest Facebook Status of the Day
11. Ten Random Questions
12. Saqib Ali and Nancy King Discuss Progressive Issues Part Two
13. Eli El’s Domestic Abuse Record
14. Democrats for Pelura
15. Single Tracking is a Terrible Idea Except When it’s a Good One
16. Red Line Opposition is Good News for MoCo Transit Supporters
17. Saqib Ali and Nancy King Discuss Progressive Issues Part One
18. Is Leggett Undermining Navarro on Day One?
19. Why CCT Supporters Should Give BRT a Chance
20. Dereck Davis vs. Jim Rosapepe on Electricity Reregulation
Now here’s something interesting. What are people searching for on MPW? We found out the search terms used by people to find MPW content, usually on Google, and combined it with the terms that had the greatest number of searches once people arrived on the blog. Now in most cases, people searched on “Maryland Politics Watch,” “Maryland political blog” or some variant thereof to find us. We excluded those terms since they are little more than identifiers for MPW. Here are the remaining terms that drew the greatest number of searches to and inside this blog:
1. Montgomery
2. WSSC
3. Saqib Ali
4. Budget
5. Pagnucco
6. Taxes
7. Facebook
8. Blair Ewing
9. O'Malley
10. MACO
11. Boy King
12. Purple Line
13. Baltimore
14. Sligo Golf
15. Electric Bill
16. I-270
17. Eli El
18. Slots
19. Helicopter
20. Cheryl Kagan
What a list! This is what caught our eye:
WSSC
The MSM may occasionally relax their coverage on WSSC, but the issue never goes away. Discontent with WSSC is always simmering because people constantly struggle with perpetual matters like dirty water, small outages, street repaving problems and the like that really add up. Then when a big pipe bursts, the frustration boils over.
Here’s a prediction: if County Executive Ike Leggett draws a quality challenger and someone dies because of another River Road-style pipe break, that challenger will make major hay by framing it as a failure of leadership. You read it here first.
Saqib Ali
We all knew he was the King of Facebook, but it turns out that Saqib Ali is the Emperor of all on-line media. He has surely earned that title with his serial Facebook updates, Twitterings and constant MSM and blog coverage. We’ll see if his cyber-domination can actually translate into enough votes to beat District 39 Senator Nancy King if he challenges her.
Helicopter
The MSM may have woken up to the County Executive’s helicopter grab late, but this is a sleeper issue. It symbolizes the sort of county government cluelessness that first materialized during the $65,000 bathroom scandal. People are paying a LOT more attention to this than anyone in the Executive Branch wants.
Cheryl Kagan
Her hyper-charged insurgent campaign for Jennie Forehand’s District 17 Senate seat is drawing lots of interest. No current challenger equals her energy at the moment. This is yet another sign that Forehand has a big, big race on her hands.
We’ll have more exclusive intel on our next batch of 100,000 page views, probably in the fall. Stay tuned!
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Leggett Replies to Andrews on Helicopters
County Executive Ike Leggett replied to Council President Phil Andrews’ memo on his intended acquisition of two donated police helicopters today.
In his response, the County Executive notes “the first two years of the program are mainly without cost to taxpayers” and that the program can be canceled thereafter, discusses the benefits of helicopters in a jurisdiction with a low number of officers relative to the population and makes the case that they will be especially useful in searches for missing persons. He states that Fairfax, Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore Counties, Baltimore City, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Park Police have aviation units. And he does not cede any ground on fiscal conservatism, reminding the Council President that passage of the ambulance fee – which Phil Andrews opposed – could have raised tens of millions of dollars that would have been available to fund needed services.
No, folks, Ike Leggett is not backing down. Following is the text of his reply.
September 1, 2009
TO: Phil Andrews, President, Montgomery County Council
FROM: Isiah Leggett, County Executive
SUBJECT: Donated Helicopter Evaluation
I received your memorandum of August 24, 2009, which laid out your concerns regarding the proposal to acquire donated helicopters for our police. Your memorandum raises a number of legitimate issues. At the same time, there are a number of overly broad and unsubstantiated statements that have been attributed to you in the press that I would like to first dispel.
According to these press reports, you claimed that this acquisition is nonessential and a waste of taxpayers’ funds.
Without a proper evaluation or data regarding this proposal, I am not clear how you have come to this conclusion. You are well aware that helicopter units have been in wide use for many years by many jurisdictions around the country as an important public safety tool. Indeed, this proposal before the Council will simply allow the County to implement a pilot program with minimal taxpayer funds. This will be followed by a thorough and complete evaluation by our well-respected CountyStat office. Only at that time will we determine if the use of substantial taxpayer funds is justified for a continuation of the program.
In addition, you attribute a cost of $4.5 million over the next five years to this program. As noted above, the first two years of the program are mainly without cost to taxpayers and any subsequent years would only be funded if the Council and I collectively believe, after a two-year evaluation period, the benefits of the program merit any future expenditures. It will cost virtually nothing over the next five years unless we determine it makes fiscal sense to continue this program past the two-year pilot phase.
I believe the facts will show that acquiring these donated helicopters for a two-year evaluation of their effectiveness in enhancing public safety could very well be in the best long term financial and public safety interests of our community. The discussion of the grant, should we receive it, will provide us with the appropriate opportunity for a full debate on all the issues.
First and foremost, the donation of these helicopters provides our County residents with a significant boost to public safety. While our police, like all County employees, are being asked to do more with less, this additional crime fighting tool is critical to their ability to keep up with the public safety needs of a growing population. Our police have to cover a large geographic area, while coping with significant traffic congestion and other challenges. Given the relative small size of our police force compared to our population, these helicopters provide us with a low-cost option for increasing our public safety abilities in the near term. We have all agreed that were it not for the difficult financial times in which we find ourselves, we would be adding significantly to our police force.
The helicopters will serve many needs within the County. They will be used to safely and effectively track fleeing criminals and manage crime scenes. The program will also enhance police officer safety and help us to manage traffic congestion and collisions. It can also be used now to support possible homeland security missions, deploy K-9 assets quickly and efficiently, and manage large events like the Fair and annual golf tournaments.
Additionally, the police currently are often hampered in their searches of missing persons – particularly children and cognitively-impaired elderly. Searches from the air clearly improve outcomes while freeing up resources. In just three days the week before last, the police received 15 reports of missing persons, one requiring a search which involved thirteen police units, diverting them from a variety of other calls for service. The ability to search with a helicopter would have precluded the need for at least some of those units to respond and freed them up for other critical police duties.
In 2008, at least three Montgomery County police units responded on each of 452 occasions involving intensive missing person searches. In addition, MCPD participated in 17 active Project Lifesaver searches. Typically these are time intensive searches involving K-9 units, patrol officers and trained Project Lifesaver Officers. Just one example was a search that occurred at night in 2008 conducted with the assistance of air support. An Alzheimer’s client was reported missing and located after 3.5 hours of searching performed by PGPD and MCPD and several K9 assets. The client was ultimately located using a helicopter. The program coordinator commented that without this assistance it is hard to know if the missing person would have been located in time.
Police Chief Tom Manger knows well the valuable force-multiplier this unit can represent. Fairfax County has an aviation unit, as does Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore County, as well as Baltimore City, the District of Columbia and U.S. Park Police The effectiveness of this resource is well recognized and utilized in these jurisdictions on a daily basis.
Today, Montgomery County must rely on the resources of other law enforcement agencies within the surrounding National Capitol Region to complete its mission when aircraft are required. Honoring these requests is at the discretion of the assisting agency which often has its own list of competing priorities. Just last week officers requested that Maryland State Police helicopter assist with the search for an armed bank robber in our community. Maryland State Police were unable to provide assistance because the helicopter was occupied performing its primary role, medical transport.
After the two-year evaluation period, this program, if successful, may be expanded to assume the current traffic monitoring mission which is currently assigned to the traffic plane. Currently County taxpayers fund a leased plane, contract pilots and a leased hangar. As our County continues to grow, our population and, unfortunately, our traffic congestion will increase. We must look to innovative and efficient methods in which to better deploy our resources to advance the good of our residents. This helicopter program could help.
Why this and why now?
• Donated helicopters. We have received two donated Army-surplus helicopters. Unlike the previous helicopter proposal from a decade before, there is no up-front purchase cost.
• Available funds outside the County budget for start-up costs. The federal grant we have applied for, along with funding from the Drug Forfeiture Fund, would cover outfitting the units and refresher training. For the first two years there would be next-to-no general fund expenditures. Therefore, your argument that this would “take away” from other police priorities in tight budget times is false. By the third year, when we have gauged the effectiveness of the effort, we can decide how it stacks up against other public safety needs.
• Available hangar space. As you know, the State has cut back and no longer stations any State helicopters at the Norwood hangar. This hangar offers a base of operations.
• Trained personnel. We already have trained and certified ex-military helicopter pilots within the ranks of the Montgomery County Police Department.
On behalf of the Council you have questioned the fiscal wisdom of taking these donated helicopters.
I am grateful for the Council’s recent efforts to help control expenditures and ensure the sustainability of our budgets. Since the first day that I became County Executive, I have raised concerns regarding the sustainability of past fiscal choices and acted to reverse unsustainable budget trends of past years. Over the past three years, my recommended budgets have closed shortfalls of nearly $1.2 billion. This year’s budget represents a significant decrease in expenditures and the lowest rate of growth in 18 years. The year before I took office, the then-Council approved a County government spending increase of 14 percent.
Under my administration, I have proposed difficult and significant expenditure reductions. I have also expressed my disappointment at times when the Council has chosen not to take all of the recommended expenditure reductions. On at least four separate occasions, I have proposed levels of budget reductions that have been rejected by the Council. Nor did the Council provide alternatives to reach the needed savings targets. And, of course, for the first time ever, the Council in 2008 actually passed a budget with a $16 million shortfall. The Board of Education and I filled this shortfall after the fact, at the Council’s request. Additionally, there are a number of revenue enhancements that I have proposed that the Council has either not approved or has significantly reduced. Often, Councilmembers cited as the reason for their refusal to accept my budget recommendations a belief that County revenue projections were overly conservative and/or that our fiscal challenges were not as difficult as I described. It is now clear that events have shown that I was quite accurate as to our need for further efforts by the Council to help resolve our budget challenges.
Had the Council approved my recommended expenditure reductions as well as my proposed revenue enhancements, we could have significantly mitigated the current financial problems by well over $100 million. For example, just your refusal to approve the Emergency Medical Services transport fee that would charge health insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid for County ambulance transports – at no cost to County residents – has alone already cost us tens of millions of dollars since first proposed. Nearly all our neighboring jurisdictions are using these funds to improve services and save lives – with no adverse effects on residents. We should have done the same.
You may recall that, as a Councilmember, I opposed the purchase of helicopters to form an aviation unit. As County Executive I have continued to oppose previous suggestions that involved the purchase of helicopters.
The recommendation currently before you is a very different proposal. It uses donated helicopters, refitted and equipped with non-taxpayer funds. We have available hangar space and trained personnel already on staff to operate them. This proposal requires minimal investment for a two-year pilot program that could prove very advantageous in advancing public safety.
Given my concern for fiscal prudence, I would not have moved to accept these helicopters if I did not believe that they are in the best long-term interests of our community – both from a public safety and a financial perspective. I believe that these donated helicopters provide us with the unique opportunity to pilot this program with little or no financial risk to our taxpayers. The donated equipment, coupled with the grant and the funding from the DEF, means there will be minimal use of tax-supported dollars for this purpose.
It is rare that such an opportunity presents itself and it requires leadership to take that opportunity – especially in difficult financial times.
But, after many years in public service, I have learned that the best opportunities often present themselves at inopportune times. Sometimes, in order to move our community forward and position ourselves for the future, it is necessary to make an investment. This repeatedly has been the case in our County.
I am hopeful that you and your colleagues will see that while this program may at first blush appear to some to be put forward at the wrong time. In fact, it is exactly the right time for such a move. We have a unique opportunity to boost our public safety capacities at little cost and little risk to County taxpayers – and without competing for funds with other police priorities for the first two years of operations.
Once you take the financial issue off the table – at least until year three when we will be able to judge the program’s effectiveness before continuing – the issue becomes “Does this strengthen our Police Department?” Police Chief Tom Manger, who knows better than any of us the competing needs and specific challenges his officers face on the front lines each and every day says, “Yes, definitely.” I agree we should proceed. I urge you, as Council President and chair of the Council’s Public Safety Committee to take a fresh look at the facts.
Below are answers to the specific questions outlined in your memorandum.
1. Has the County taken possession of any surplus helicopters for use by the Police Department? If so, when did they arrive, where did they come from, and where are they being housed? How much was spent transporting these helicopters?
MCPD received military surplus helicopters from the Department of Defense on July 17, 2009. Two of the aircraft are currently undergoing diagnostic testing in Philadelphia, PA where the aircraft vendor is located. A third aircraft was accepted by MCPD and is currently housed in the Norwood Hangar.
The two aircraft in Philadelphia were previously in the possession of the Department of Natural Resources in Easton, Maryland. The helicopter housed in Norwood was previously assigned to Princess Anne County. MCPD does not intend to rehabilitate this aircraft, but rather use this aircraft for parts – many of which are valuable and in good condition.
Transfer of these surplus helicopters to MCPD has required approximately $3,500.
2. Has the Police Department assigned any personnel specifically to this effort? If so, how many positions/workyears are assigned and what is the monthly cost?
Currently, MCPD has assigned two police officers to work on this effort. Both officers are in a Light Duty status and would not be performing patrol duties if assigned elsewhere.
3. How much money do you plan to spend evaluating, repairing, or equipping these helicopters prior to the Council considering a request by you to appropriate grant funds if the County is awarded the grant you submitted? What will be the revenue source for any such expenditures?
The one-time expenditure necessary to rehabilitate the two aircraft has not yet been determined. It is estimated that up to $140,000 may be necessary to complete this work, but until the diagnostic is completed by the vendor, MCPD will not know what specifically will need to be replaced/repaired. The figure is an average cost to complete similar class helicopter refurbishment. The Department is currently in possession of a significant number of critical parts that will be used to offset repair costs. Funding for this rehabilitation would be covered under the pending federal grant.
The cost of equipment for the helicopters is estimated at $71,000 which includes communication gear.
4. Do you expect to authorize the use of County funding for training or equipping pilots for these helicopters prior to the Council considering a request by you to appropriate grant funds if the County is awarded the grant you submitted? If so, what is the expected cost and what is the revenue source for such expenditures?
The cost of equipping and training pilots is estimated at $30,000; however, MCPD is currently working with other allied aviation units in an effort to coordinate and partner with their training and thus realize significant savings. We don’t anticipate the use of any taxpayer monies for this purpose.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Andrews Warns Leggett Again About Helicopters
As we previously reported (and the Examiner confirmed), the Leggett administration is proceeding with plans to acquire two helicopters for the Montgomery County Police Department despite objections from the County Council and the statehouse delegation. That has prompted a new memo from Council President Phil Andrews reiterating the council's opposition.
In the memo, Andrews cites a Delmarva Now article describing MCPD officials loading one helicopter onto a flatbed truck for transport from Princess Anne to MoCo. The article states that the helicopter's transfer has been "in the works for the past three or four months."
Andrews writes, "While I am very disappointed that you have chosen to move forward with the helicopter proposal given our extremely tight budget, I certainly hope that you will not authorize any additional expenditures until after the County has learned whether the [federal] grant has been awarded and the Council decides that matter. The County cannot afford to waste money on a new program that cannot be sustained at a time when we are forced to consider reducing or eliminating existing programs and services that are more important than a police helicopter unit to the people we represent."
Your author does not know of a single Council Member who is willing to vote for the County Executive's helicopter program and that has been the case for more than a month. Also, Phil Andrews is the Chair of the County Council's Public Safety Committee so his opinion carries extra weight on this issue.
We reproduce the Council President's memo below.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Leggett Defies Council, Delegation on Helicopters (Updated)
In blatant defiance of both the County Council and the Montgomery Delegation, the Leggett administration has decided to proceed with its acquisition of police helicopters. A source with knowledge of this decision states, "It is confirmed that the county has acquired two helicopters and assigned an officer to an informal 'aviation' job. They are going to keep the helicopters at the M-NCPPC Norwood facility."
We await the blowback. No doubt, the Lords of Annapolis are celebrating as they plot to hand down teacher pensions. After all, if MoCo can afford helicopters, why not pensions too?
Update: The Examiner confirmed our story.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Andrews: No Helicopters
County Council President Phil Andrews sent the following memo to County Executive Ike Leggett today indicating that the Council will not support the Executive's helicopter proposal.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Why MoCo’s Helicopters Won’t Fly in Annapolis
As we revealed last week, County Executive Ike Leggett is requesting county funding to augment a federal grant for the purchase of two police helicopters. The County Council is considering the merits of that request. But whatever those merits may be, the Executive and Legislative branches must consider the political consequences of going forward. Simply put, Montgomery’s helicopters could very well throw the county’s Annapolis priorities into a tailspin.
The Executive’s request to the council was remarkably short on specifics. While his request did outline acquisition costs of $248,894 in federal grant money and $279,890 in local funding, it did not estimate the maintenance and operating costs. Council staff volunteered a rough estimate of 1-2% of the total police budget, which under the Fiscal Year 2010 budget would amount to $2.5-4.9 million per year. The Police Department estimates the operating cost at $7.9 million over five years. The county faces a $350 million budget deficit next year.
In normal times, this issue would be kicked around between the Executive and the County Council and eventually resolved. But these are anything but normal times. Montgomery County’s budget is extraordinarily dependent on the state government at the moment. Specifically, two issues will make or break us in the near term.
School Budget Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
State law requires that counties at least maintain their level of local school funding in order to be eligible for state aid increases. Montgomery County requested a waiver from this requirement from the State Board of Education this year owing to its poor economy, its fiscal problems and the tax-limiting consequences of the Ficker Amendment. The board denied its request so the county resorted to an accounting maneuver to get around the requirement. The board has requested an Attorney General opinion on the issue and it is far from clear as to whether Montgomery’s MOE compliance will be upheld.
Our sources tell us that the helicopter proposal has been in the works for at least a year. That means that while the county was crying poverty to the State Board of Education, it was already considering purchasing helicopters. The Executive Branch further postponed its funding request until after the county budget was finalized in May. The state board and other decision-makers in Annapolis may very well conclude that the county made its case for a waiver in bad faith. After all, if it was secretly considering purchasing police helicopters, how could it credibly say it was too poor to afford its MOE requirement? Whatever the ultimate mechanism for settling the MOE dispute, this will diminish the county’s leverage and cast doubt on the veracity of its budget claims, both now and in the future.
Teacher Pensions and State Aid
The state’s desperate budget situation ensures that state aid to counties, and specifically teacher pensions, will remain part of the budget discussions in Annapolis. In Maryland, the state pays pension benefits for teachers, school administrators and support staff. This is one of the few state programs that benefits Montgomery County since it pays its teachers more than other counties due to its high cost of living, and thereby generates higher benefit levels. Montgomery enjoys the highest absolute dollar benefit and the third-highest per-capita benefit of the state’s jurisdictions from this program.
In the last general session, Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller introduced a bill to phase in a handoff of teacher pension costs from the state to the counties. Montgomery would have been disproportionately damaged by that bill. Furthermore, the colossal unfunded liability in the state pension plan – which was, after all, caused by state fiscal policies – could very well be imposed on the counties. But Big Daddy’s plan is far from the worst scenario. A Western Maryland Delegate introduced a bill during the 2007 special session that would have wealth-adjusted the handoff of pensions. That proposal would devastate Montgomery’s finances just as it would protect other counties around the state.
All of the reasons above explain why our state delegation’s highest priority, as supported by County Executive Leggett, is to prevent teacher pensions from being unloaded on the counties. Our delegation must make the case that we are not as rich as the rest of the state thinks we are to have a shot at preventing a Montgomery fiscal catastrophe. But if we appear to be wealthy enough to splurge on helicopters, that case will be laughed out of the statehouse.
We asked our state legislators on an off-the-record basis what a helicopter purchase would do to their efforts to defend our state aid. Here’s what six of them said:
“My first response to that is that it may be a needed purchase, but with the fiscal climate we are all in and are going to be in for awhile, I think purchasing helicopters needs to go on a wish list for better times after we take care of the necessities. A purchase of helicopters would be a hard sell to folks in Annapolis.”
“There’s no question the helicopters are needed. The only questions concern timing and priority. At a time when we are all buckling our belts two notches tighter and the delegation is gearing up for a major battle to maintain Montgomery County’s fair share of state aid and protect teacher pensions, it is appropriate to ask whether this is the right priority at the right time.”
“In this case, like most, the merits may end up getting swallowed by the politics.”
“As we continue to struggle to make the case to our colleagues from around the state that Montgomery County streets are not paved with gold as they mistakenly believe and to argue that our needs and corresponding budget challenges are great, dubious spending initiatives at the local level such as this tend to undercut and undermine those efforts.”
“I think it flies in the face of all of our efforts to demonstrate our need for state aid. I’m sure the state is happy it didn’t fulfill our waiver of Maintenance of Effort funding for educaiton. As a county, we spent a great deal of political capital explaining why we were so poor. The state disagreed and then we proved them right. Hope we don’t have the gall to make a second such request next year, absent some new economic catastrophe.”
“It will be Exhibit A for why we ought to be cut.”
Regardless of its merit or county budget impact, this proposal will kneecap Montgomery in Annapolis. Big Daddy will gleefully embrace MoCo’s helicopters if they make it easier for him to send teacher pensions to the counties. Ike Leggett will no longer be able to draw lines in the sand over teacher pensions if the helicopter rotors are blowing them away. And if the State Board of Education gets a chance to punish Montgomery for its Maintenance of Effort compliance tactics, they will do it without regret.
The Executive Branch has already demonstrated its strategic insensitivity to our state budget leverage, but it is not too late for the County Council to do better. They should send the helicopters back to the launch pad, at least until the county and state budgets improve. If they don’t, the helicopters will crash land at the statehouse - and Montgomery’s agenda will go down with it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Ike Wants Police Helicopters; Council Has Questions
The County Executive and the Police Department are requesting funding for a new police helicopter program. The police want to apply for $248,894 in federal grant money and are asking the County Council for $279,890 in local funding to acquire two helicopters. The police have not detailed the annual operating costs, but council staff believes they could account for 1-2% of the total police budget. Under the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, that would amount to $2.5-4.9 million per year. Council President Phil Andrews sent a long list of questions to the Executive Branch that he would like answered by Thursday which we reproduce below.
But here are our questions. First, when we cannot afford to give the police officers raises, how can we afford helicopters? Second, why did the Executive Branch wait until after the Fiscal Year 2010 budget was set in May to send in this request? Third, how does this impact next year's expected $350 million budget deficit? And fourth, what is our state delegation supposed to say when they make a case for state aid to Montgomery in Annapolis?
Montgomery County Council
Rockville, Maryland
Office of the Council President
Memorandum
July 13, 2009
To: Tim Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer
J. Thomas Manger, Chief, Montgomery County Police Department
From: Phil Andrews, Council President
Subject: Proposal for Montgomery County Police Department Helicopter Unit
The Council has received notice from the Police Department of the County’s intent to apply for $248,894 in Federal funds to assist in funding an aviation helicopter unit for the Montgomery County Police Department. The grant application indicates that $279,890 in costs will be funded with non-Federal funds, which the Council understands from Council staff to be the County’s Drug Enforcement Forfeiture Fund (DEFF).
As the Council has not received any written information, other than this grant application, or a briefing on the proposed helicopter unit, there are many questions about the cost of the proposal, its benefits to the County, and how it ranks in the Executive’s funding priorities. The Executive and Council have continually placed a priority on funding for public safety, even in this current fiscal crisis. However, it is not clear what the long-term annual costs of this proposal are and how they will be paid for once the grant and DEFF monies are spent.
Please provide to the Council by noon on Thursday, July 16 a written overview of the current proposal and a five-year cost estimate. I recognize that this proposal is different from the proposal forwarded to the Council in 2001 by then Chief Moose. However, I will note that the 2001 proposal said that, “The average helicopter budget for an existing program is around 1% - 2% of the total law enforcement budget.” This memo will also reference some other information from that proposal.
Please include as a part of your response answers to the following questions:
1. What are the benefits to the County from having its own police helicopter unit and why is it needed now?
2. Please confirm that the County is expecting to acquire two helicopters. If not, what is the expected size of the helicopter unit?
3. Where will the helicopters be housed? What is the annual cost associated with any lease or facility upgrades?
4. After the initial refurbishment, what is the expected annual cost for maintenance including parts and labor?
5. How many hours is the Department expecting the units will be in service and how many miles are they expected to fly in a year? What are the expected fuel costs for the annual mileage?
6. How will the County provide insurance for this program and what is the expected annual cost? The information provided in 2001 included a preliminary response from Risk Management that the County Attorney’s Office felt the County could not self-insure for the full amount of the aircraft and that supplemental insurance would be needed. A preliminary estimate, not based in a detailed application, was that supplemental insurance might cost $50,000 per year.
7. How many staff will be assigned to the unit? In 2001 the staff was proposed as one supervisor, five pilots, and five observers (two officers would be in the aircraft). It was felt that pilots should be police officers rather than civilians. If a lower number of staff is now being recommended, will the helicopter be ready for dispatch 24-hours a day? If not, what will be the impact on helicopter response time?
8. What divisions will police officers assigned to the helicopter unit be reassigned from and how will their current assignments be filled?
9. Will the Department have memoranda of understanding with municipal, Park, or State police regarding when the County will respond to requests from these agencies?
10. What is the expected useful life of the helicopters that are being acquired? Does the Executive branch propose establishing any type of sinking fund or internal service fund account in motorpool for a planned replacement?
11. Please confirm that the DEFF is the source for the non-Federal funds. If not, what is the source of funding?
12. What is the current balance in the DEFF? While the Council recognizes that there are detailed items funded by DEFF that should not be publicly disclosed, what were total expenditures from the fund in FY08 and FY09, and what were the major categories for those expenses?
13. What are the total planned expenditures from the DEFF for FY10, and what are the major categories for expenditures in the coming year?
14. Assuming the DEFF is the source of funds, why is the creation of a helicopter unit a higher priority than other items that might have been funded with DEFF monies, such as additional in-car video cameras?
15. If as Council staff understands, it is expected that the DEFF will cover the non-Federal costs in FY10 and FY11, what source of funding is expected to be used for the ongoing costs beginning in FY12?
The Council is very interested in understanding the benefits of establishing a helicopter unit, but we must also make a decision regarding the long-term costs. As you know, the Executive and Council have reduced police officer positions, eliminated a recruit class, and considered having to limit public access to at least two police stations. In addition, some of the other grants that already been applied for, such as the crime lab expansion and COPS hiring grant, will have future fiscal impacts. The State will likely be sending additional reductions to the counties. It would be unfortunate if the County established this new unit only to find that it is not sustainable after the grant period ends.
cc: Councilmembers
Joe Beach, Director, Office of Management and Budget
