Today Tom Moore is officially declaring his run for City Council. We here at Rockville Central do not endorse candidates, but we love participation in our local elections and are pleased to provide information on all the candidates.

He announces his candidacy with this statement on why he wants to be a City Councilmember:

Our federal, state, and county governments have been hit hard by this recession. Rockville’s city government has largely been spared so far, but there is trouble coming. I will be a leader with the energy to address the tough decisions that lie ahead, and the flexibility to catch whatever curve balls get hit to us. I have been involved in Rockville’s planning, our traffic, our libraries, and our neighborhoods. I have worked with our seniors. I have helped drain the politics out of some of our most touchy compensation issues. My background in Rockville’s public safety is unmatched among council candidates and incumbents.

If elected, my number one task will be what ought to be the number one task of everyone associated with Rockville’s government: The continued delivery of exceptional services to our residents. I will work to assure that we have affordable housing that respects our neighborhoods. I will pressure Rockville’s commercial landlords to quickly fill their empty spaces, such as the SuperFresh site in Town Center. I will work with the county and the state to ease Rockville’s traffic woes. I will monitor the implementation of our new green building code and make sure it achieves its goals without bringing unintended burdens. And I will work well with my colleagues, no matter who they are. There has been far too toxic an atmosphere among councilmembers; the people of Rockville deserve better.

More information can be found at his website.

If you would like to meet this new candidate, he’s kicking off his campaign in person at Giuseppi’s Pizza on Sunday, July 12, 2009 at 1PM. He says “Come thirsty for a little bit of civics and hungry for a lot of pizza!”

However, we also encourage people to run for office and the more the merrier. We love that stuff! (We first reported when Mark Pierzchala announced his candidacy for City Council and have been keeping up with who has “pulled papers” to run.)

So, in that spirit, we wanted to point you to the new blog of another City Council candidate for 2009, Max Van Balgooy. Max has written a number of comments here at Rockville Central over the last few months. (He has a nice recent post on his blog about his experience at Hometown Holidays this weekend.)

Welcome Max!

(Photo of Max is from his website.)

The City Council on Monday narrowly adopted Rockville’s fiscal 2010 budget with an operating budget that is nearly 1 percent less than fiscal 2009 while including salary increases for all city employees.

The adopted operating budget is $101.8 million, a decrease of 0.9 percent, or $893,705.

The Capital Improvements Program is budgeted at $68.2 million, a decrease of nearly $5.5 million over last year.

Councilwoman Anne M. Robbins and Councilwoman Phyllis R. Marcuccio voted against the budget, with Robbins saying her opposition is primarily due to the cost-of-living and merit increases for city employees totaling $1.78 million that is included in the budget, a concern she has raised throughout the budget process. . . . Marcuccio’s concern was with the budget process and said she still had outstanding issues that were not addressed.

“The process we use on the budget I’m sure is very efficient and very thorough as far as the staff is concerned, but it’s not very satisfying as far as a council member is concerned,” Marcuccio said.

The Gazette quotes Council Member Phyllis M. Marcuccio: “No, thank you, I suppose is the only way I can put it. . . . We certainly know this is not the time.”

The move keeps legislators’ pay at $25,750 for the Mayor, and $20,600 for Council members. Council Member Piotr Gajewski proposed a reduction in these amounts (to $19,000 and $15,000 respectively), which he said would save the City $30,000 per year. His proposal failed for lack of a second.

As many readers also know, there’s an important County Council election coming up for District 4, the seat formerly occupied by Don Praisner and, before him, Marilyn Praisner. MPW has been covering this race in detail (as have our good friends at Just Up The Pike).

In an article this morning, former Rockville mayoral candidate Drew Powell has a very complete review of the District 4 candidates’ finances. One of Drew’s chief issues in his analysis is how much “developer money” the candidates are receiving. People differ on how important that is and what actually constitutes a “developer,” but regardless of your stance on that question, the piece is useful overall to give you a sense of this important aspect of the race.

It costs money to run a campaign. It’s hard for me to see how a serious candidate can get out their message with little or no funds. Based on the State Board of Elections database, it appears that there are only three candidates on which to perform campaign finance analysis. Those are (in alphabetical order) Kramer, Lamari and Navarro. From the standpoint of campaign funding, each candidate falls into very different categories. . . .

I urge people to read the rest. I am neither endorsing nor criticizing Drew’s conclusions, I am just pointing out that he makes a useful analysis.

Thanks, Drew, for a helpful addition.

I announce my candidacy for Rockville City Council. In these days of economic stress, Rockville will have to make many hard choices. I am the person who will provide clear, strong, and respectful leadership. I will be “A Leader for Our Times”.

In considering whether to mount a campaign for council member, I ultimately could not accept the first budget passed by the present Mayor and Council that authorized 23 ½ new City Staff positions and that raised spending 9.5%. Even if economic forecasts at that time had been rosy, and they were not, this level of spending increase is not acceptable.

Other major themes of my campaign include the simultaneous promotion of economic development and ecological renewal; a return to civility and a more open government; and strengthening communications between the neighborhoods, elected officials, and City Staff.

I will wage a vigorous and honorable campaign. All candidates have a passion for Rockville and there is honest disagreement on direction. It is time that Rockville had a sharply focused campaign on policy issues and I intend to provide that.

Since it has been a while since the last city election, I thought it might be a nice time to reiterate the Rockville Central approach to elections (an article from the last city election on that is here). We see ourselves a resource for the people of Rockville, a safe space for dialogue and a source of information and news.

Rockville Central itself does not endorse any candidates. While we may hold individual opinions, when we express them it will be clearly indicated as opinion. And, we always bend over backwards to be fair, transparent, and open — actively seeking contrary opinions to our own. And we will always be open to dialogue with readers and members of the community.

Here is what you can expect us to try our best to give you:

• A way to know who is running for what City offices, with a link to their campaign website
• Significant news items or analysis that relate to their positions on City issues or the overall viability of their candidacy
• Interviews with candidates — written recaps and full audio (see below for how you can help)
• Personal opinion — tagged as opinion — about the election if it seems honestly helpful
• A direct statement from each candidate, either text or video or both
• A photo of each person running for City office
• Other information and that seems useful

We will try to make sure you won’t get:

• Screeds, rants, tirades, anonymous flame-wars, personal attacks
• Ideological invective disguised as “news”
• Trumped-up “investigation” pieces that amount to nothing
• Glowing puff-pieces disguised as “news”
• Endorsements by Rockville Central
• Punditry, predictions, and insider politics

As a political geek, I am delighted the election season is here and I wish all candidates the best of luck!

That is a significant amount of money and could have helped avoid any number of anxious conflicts over the last year.

Here is how Adam explains it:

In Maryland, state aid to public schools is driven by a wealth formula. “Wealthier” school districts receive less aid per pupil than “poorer” school districts. One component of this wealth formula is real property value as calculated by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT). . . . In FY 2009, state aid for MCPS was actually cut because Montgomery County’s wealth level allegedly increased in comparison to other counties. At the time he learned of the cut, Dr. Weast claims he complained of an error in the calculations to the County Executive, County Council and state delegation. In a memo to the Board of Education released [Tuesday], Dr. Weast says he has been proven correct. SDAT now admits that it overestimated the value of real property in Montgomery County by $15.8 billion because it double-counted new homes. The result is that Montgomery lost $20-25 million in state aid due from the wealth formula. That money was instead paid out to other school districts in the state.

This remarkable revelation is likely to have serious political and budgetary ramifications.

We’ll be talking more about this with Adam when he is a guest on Rockville Central Radio tomorrow, so be sure to listen. Just go here or dial 646-200-3332.

The resolution in support was needed by the Montgomery Housing Partnership, the development’s sponsor, in order to apply to the State of Maryland for Low Income Tax Credits, a key piece of financing for the construction. The application is due today.

The lack of support means that MHP cannot apply for the state funding in this round, and must wait nine months. According to MHP, this will add up to $1 million in cost to the project and some observers have said it may derail it altogether.

The project has been the source of great controversy for a number of months, after having seen smooth sailing. Despite the West End Citizens Association’s board endorsing the project in February, a number of residents say they first heard of the initiative when it came up for review at a July Planning Commission meeting. That meeting was highly contentious. Since that time, “Stop Beall’s Grant II” signs have appeared throughout the West End neighborhood as well as elsewhere. Montgomery Housing Partnership has also worked behind the scenes to garner support for the project.

In recent weeks, MHP and local residents have met to negotiate possible reductions in the scope of the project, with little evident progress.

The crowd spilled out into the hallway, where people watched on monitors. Throughout the audience, people held signs indicating their support or opposition. Twenty four citizens spoke in favor and 26 spoke against the project at last night’s Mayor and Council meeting. [UPDATE: Other accounts have 53 speakers. There were three speakers who spoke in a row employed by and representing MHP. I didn't count them.]

However, the members of the Mayor and Council focused on an issue few raised in their statements. In the hours just before the meeting, Montgomery Housing Partnership’s chief, Rob Goldman, had hit upon what he hoped would be a strategy to keep MHP’s funding application alive while still offering guarantees to the local residents that MHP would still have an incentive to continue negotiations. The strategy involved the Mayor and Council writing a letter in support to add to MHP’s application, but not passing a resolution. The Mayor and Council would defer the resolution until ninety days later, at which point it would only pass it if it felt MHP had continued negotiations in good faith.

The letter would be enough to initiate the application process, but before settling, it is a state requirement that there be a formal resolution in order for the financing to be completed.

The new strategy, while of interest to some members, raised questions for others about procedure. The group agreed that they had been laboring under the impression that last night’s meeting was the “drop dead deadline,” according to Council Member John Britton. But with the new plan, and a new deadline, Britton said, “we might have approached this evening differently.” He said he was “taken aback” by the new tactic.

Council Member Anne Robbins asked City Attorney Paul Glasgow whether the two-step plan had merit and whether it would do what MHP said it would. “I don’t know because I only found out about the idea at five o’clock today,” replied Glasgow. “I think what Paul said speaks volumes,” Robbins said. She later said she felt “ill-used” by the way the idea came up.

For her part, Council member Phyllis Marcuccio said that after a pivotal meeting in October when MHP and WECA vowed to negotiate, she “wished there had been a flurry of meetings” to work out a compromise. But meetings had only begun in the last few weeks. While some point to MHP for the delay, MHP said it had been asked to follow WECA’s lead, and WECA had not formed a committee to negotiate until only recently.

“There were missteps on both sides,” said council member Britton. “WECA was schizophrenic” about a committee, having first not created one and then created one, and MHP “had communications problems. If you wanted our support, this whole strategy should have been laid at our feet weeks ago, so we could see it.”

The two clear supporters of the Beall’s Grant II project, Mayor Susan Hoffmann and Council Member Piotr Gajewski, appeared in favor of the new idea, but there was no support for it.

As debate drew to a close, and the group was considering the original question of whether to pass a resolution in support or not, Mayor Hoffmann read with permission from a letter by Rockville resident Bill Newhouse. “I am concerned that Beall’s Grant II is being subjected to greater hurdles than other developers have to endure,” wrote Newhouse.

However, this was not enough. The agenda item died when none would make a motion to bring the resolution up for vote.

[NB: Quotations are from my notes and may not be exactly verbatim.]

Both of these issues are scheduled to be taken up by the Mayor and Council at Monday’s regularly scheduled meeting at 7pm at City Hall.

• On Beall’s Grant II, the Mayor and Council will consider whether to pass a resolution in support of the project in order to enable it to be eligible for low income tax credits from the state.
• On the zoning ordinance, the Mayor and Council are expected to take the final action of approving it.

I should be at Cub Scouts that night, but I plan to attend in order to discuss Beall’s Grant II. I know that a lot of my neighbors and friends (who hold all manner of views on the issue) are planning to be there too. It should be a lively debate.

For those who are curious, and for transparency’s sake, here is the long version of what I plan to say.

(Winner in bold.)

President
McCain/Palin: 105,088
Obama/Biden: 271,132

Congress (District
Hudson: 57,815
Van Hollen: 187,050

Circuit Court Judges (two)
Greenberg: 238,496
McCormick: 242,009

Court of Special Appeals At Large Judges (vote for continuance in office)
Eyler: 259,991 for; 34,267 against
Zarnoch: 249,833 for; 39,329 against

Early Voting (constitutional amendment)
In favor: 285,156
Oppose: 72,849

Allow Slot Machines (constitutional amendment)
In favor: 190,878
Oppose: 173,897

Board of Education (At Large)
Kauffman: 197,898
Le: 94,071

Board of Education (District 2)
Berthiaume: 149,499 (see below on outstanding ballots)
Abrams: 140,554

Montgomery County Question A (repeal legally ineffective provisions)
In favor of repealing: 202,823
Oppose: 114,939

Montgomery County Question B (require unanimous Council vote to raise property taxes above limit)
In favor: 169,762 (see below on outstanding ballots)
Oppose: 169,171

Again, these are for Montgomery County only, and they are the unofficial (first count, or “election night canvass”) results.

Why are some races not bolded? Too close to officially call them yet. There are still approximately 55,000 absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted. Absentee ballots begin to be counted on Thursday November 6, and provisional ballots on November 10.