[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6614017,"mediaKeyId","2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce","parentId",2866348,"title","Council members criticize MNCPPC project-charge administration as inconsistent; staff defend process and say reforms are underway","audioSeconds",2185,"startMs",9291000,"endMs",11476000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce&start=9291&end=11476","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce/thumbnail_9291000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6614017/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-members-criticize-MNCPPC-project-charge-administration-as-inconsistent-staff-defend-process-and-say-reforms-are-underway","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614017-db3942b0ad2221759239680a053dafcb/orig.mp4?Expires=1777119948&Signature=GP54IiDbYVnMO3BXWJfnhTTmjxPngtCVK9yr3x7PlasObROwh69IHAvSO5Fn682LV75GF6N1loHC3r92g4MDwqXNHk7YJ5iu2i1Nj89JATvg1GJGQ8bUAwWEgVtQ7SBbZc9Pgo83sJ7DM0sGx5oOuLMecppppURAJZ0BF7roZhB2CNCVS0AwG1Yja4PunjlBPN52cL85kJ6XiYdob0MqvQkAkiV9jkuxy5nq-mlrLs8ywepl3eJWP2bS~cdFSU5YB14RynU8GOAn6giv1s4OwN6LjnO30KeRwUmK3-wqkvomK-hs4LCd5VPLvQzEhHxbdw8veaD9Zww85xPS5ibsvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George","date","2025-04-03T00:00:00Z","article","A major policy dispute emerged during the PHED committee’s April 3 session when several County Council members sharply criticized how MNCPPC’s Department of Parks and Recreation administers “project charge” reimbursements to community organizations.

Council Chair Burrows and other members said they found inconsistent decisions — including denials or rejections for organizations with similar program descriptions — and described a pattern they said left some council districts underserved. “It just seems that they’re arbitrarily picking and choosing which organizations,” said one council member during a prolonged exchange with MNCPPC staff. Council members pressed officials for a plan to make affected organizations whole and to ensure consistent, transparent application of project-charge criteria.

MNCPPC staff and budget office representatives described inherited complexity and a mix of legal, administrative and historical factors that have produced uneven outcomes. David Alexander, acting assistant budget manager, said the department has pushed staff to work collaboratively with applicants and avoid outright denial where scopes can be revised to fit the department’s recreation-focused eligibility. “One of the things that we've definitely put forward to our team is we do not deny project charges,” Alexander said on the record, adding that teams will work with nonprofits to bring applications into alignment with eligibility criteria.

Council staff analysis and MNCPPC’s own budget team acknowledged the appearance of inconsistent treatment in some 2024 scopes. Josh Allen, a council budget analyst who reviewed a sample of contracts, said he found instances where similar program offerings were treated differently and recommended clearer guidelines and documented decision rules. “There did appear to be circumstances where there was not a uniform application or even a real clear articulation of what consistency with the core mission… meant,” Allen told the committee.

Council members raised specific examples (provided in committee exhibits) where they said organizations were denied funding on residency or scope-of-service grounds while other contracts with similar language were approved. MNCPPC staff said some differences reflect long-standing, grandfathered awards in which previously approved project charges were carried forward, and a decision made this budget cycle to treat legacy recipients differently as the department transitions to clarified guidance. Staff also described legal and accounting constraints that have tended to require project-charge reimbursements to be tied to verifiable, program-specific costs rather than open-ended grants.

Council members demanded near-term fixes and asked MNCPPC to produce a corrective plan and an audit trail showing why approvals and denials differed. MNCPPC Chair Peter Shapiro and Department Director Bill Tyler said they would work with the Council to improve clarity, but several council members said the department needs to demonstrate actionable changes quickly to restore confidence.

Why it matters: Project charges are a discretionary, Council-approved mechanism that routes county funds to community organizations for recreation and related public-service activities. Council members said inconsistent administration has concrete consequences for constituents — fewer services, delayed programs and missed opportunities for youth, seniors and neighborhood groups.

Next steps: Committee members sought written explanations for specific denials and requested updated guidance and a corrective plan. MNCPPC staff indicated they will supply the requested scopes, a process audit, and options to standardize review criteria and decision documentation in the coming weeks.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George - Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee - Apr 03, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A lengthy committee exchange over project charges erupted during the parks budget briefing, with council members alleging inconsistent enforcement and discrimination in approvals and MNCPPC staff and budget analysts saying rules and long-standing awards complicated uniform application.","taxTitle","Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",3378,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6614021,"MNCPPC parks and recreation FY26 budget seeks $387M; officials flag vacancies, fund balances and PAYGO shifts",2114,4745000,6859000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce&start=4745&end=6859","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce/thumbnail_4745000.jpg","/articles/6614021/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/MNCPPC-parks-and-recreation-FY26-budget-seeks-387M-officials-flag-vacancies-fund-balances-and-PAYGO-shifts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614021-0fdd1defb795be75fe12edd4d5c726d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1777119948&Signature=cGCFyAAE9xfCu4e12h5f9Sm4L~~B20vkyAdHtFRB6RZ9Gzx0O7yOYXAnVYs-gZez1TGgWrqaDCMaIbtl0Lrusk6IFY4RuJOXmRQ71JjbL7xEEshAAQiJIxCjKWlmmjiFKy0G5QSGX13HpJLyzkBDSZvtkGhiwXtLVlDyY-dbtmj6CEWDKfnY9gZg4KQTub2zkEARpNu5DHufrwojTrbsQhQ86hoZiBntILPfmjyOUbe57NWRarNDKlCQaAtIxQuKUVlA8KfdJIFbaQzrm1SfPzZijzupt8L6ZcHZ5CpEGpXnNgHqNIHzidbIyOTTEeN7VvgS6np0GlWLJRc8hMt8KQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) staff and the Department of Parks and Recreation briefed the PHED committee on April 3 about the Department’s FY26 operating budget request and related operational issues.

Staff review: County budget staff summarized the request and key context. MNCPPC’s FY26 proposal seeks roughly $387 million across park, recreation and enterprise funds, an increase from the current year’s adopted budget driven in part by personnel costs and planned transfers for capital financing. Eric Irving, who presented the staff review, noted that 57% of the proposed spending is for personnel costs (supporting roughly 1,300 career positions), and that the FY26 budget includes a marker for collective bargaining-related wage adjustments and an allocation to fund retiree post-employment benefits.

Irving and staff flagged two issues for the committee: persistent vacancies and historical “underspending” on personnel. MNCPPC reported nearly 200 vacant positions at the close of the prior fiscal year; those positions had been vacant an average of about 249 days (roughly eight months). Staff showed that adopted budgets have sometimes outpaced actual spending, which then creates fund balance that can be carried forward. MNCPPC reported park and recreation fund balances of roughly $175 million at the end of FY24 and projected year-end balances around $138 million in the current year (staff noted estimates may change as assessable base updates arrive).

Revenue and capital: Property taxes were identified as the primary revenue source — Park and Recreation funds together rely on property tax receipts for the vast majority of revenues — with user fees and investment income making up smaller shares. Irving noted that estimated interest income has moved from very conservative assumptions in prior years to larger projections this cycle because of higher fund balances. The FY26 budget plan proposes transfers totaling roughly $55 million for capital financing and a near-term shift toward using more PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) funds rather than bonds for smaller capital projects such as playgrounds; the department will present the capital improvement program on April 29.

Department presentation: Bill Tyler, director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, reviewed program highlights — including summer camp registration growth, inclusive and therapeutic recreation, adaptive-trail planning and tree-planting/forest stewardship efforts — and described priorities for FY26 that include branding and customer-service investments. The department told the committee about field-maintenance workloads and the operational case for routine field closures to protect turf quality.

Committee questions: Council members pressed the department on vacancy details (seeking a multi-year vacancy trend and the split between full-time and part-time vacancies), fund-balance projections and the tradeoffs between PAYGO and bond financing. Committee members also asked about expanded environmental stewardship and tree-planting capacity, senior programming and the department’s ability to staff summer camps and youth employment positions. Capital budget staff joined the briefing to explain differences among PAYGO capital outlays (vehicles/equipment), CIP transfers and debt-service categories.

Why it matters: The presentation framed FY26 as a relatively modest operating increase but highlighted structural issues — unspent appropriations carried forward into large fund balances, persistent vacancies that limit service delivery, and critical capital-financing choices — that the Council must weigh as it considers operating and capital priorities.

Next steps: MNCPPC will provide additional vacancy detail, multi-year fund-balance analyses and the FY26 capital improvement program when it returns to present the CIP.

","Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission staff and the Department of Parks and Recreation presented a FY26 operating request projecting $387 million across primary funds, highlighted large fund balances, workforce vacancies and a shift toward PAYGO capital transfers.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6614025,"DHCD outlines FY25 housing pipeline, rental assistance wind-down and preservation priorities",743,598000,1341000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce&start=598&end=1341","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce/thumbnail_598000.jpg","/articles/6614025/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/DHCD-outlines-FY25-housing-pipeline-rental-assistance-wind-down-and-preservation-priorities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614025-df21c816569389ed2dfede3dff0df0ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1777119948&Signature=knJJViGV1Qw7NgL4WNNtWD-As-Z8zLnxLZyDNEj0S-UUwbP7EtW18vKXob-2W1OFXjLXzv~XFTmX4ZNByn7-hoBquAYrnH~saQrbFJUR6Fy-ZAs62jLa3KsH8VxSvtiATQwM8ew8XlR1jx5al5RWuEdlVaD4v1C6xzSdn1Xg9O77LgoLhnZNnNfrpmeGoYyakik0xAVQLIKZUliop0Wt8QbI1xl3BdOu7Q~Q-sd~PStrOYzTnlZKuYtJGO6XomcIW7EgZF7hbj34a6Z6uX14mQjLVFBYCK4-C1yIYcDKiAzIFUuqM0HxYRWIXBGf5OsGj3rWmS1SOy9eG3QMDLuqNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) briefed the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee on April 3 about its FY25 work program, ongoing projects and program outcomes.

DHCD staff described a portfolio of activities that spans preservation, production and homeownership supports. The department said it was actively working on 17 housing development projects that together represent roughly 2,577 units at varying stages — from applications pending legislative approval to projects under construction. DHCD officials said the county’s Housing Investment Trust Fund provides roughly $10 million per year and typically serves as one piece of financing in larger projects.

On preservation, DHCD reported work on 11 properties in the most recent fiscal year, preserving roughly 465 affordable units in mixed-income developments. The department said it generally sets affordability restrictions to reflect the existing rent roll on each property rather than imposing uniform rent levels. DHCD said market conditions slowed some transactions in 2024, in part because of higher interest rates.

Homeownership and rehabilitation programs: DHCD described three homeownership programs — a down-payment assistance program branded “Pathway to Purchase,” a Home Rehabilitation Assistance Program (HRAP) run with nonprofit partners, and a HOPE rehabilitation program delivered in partnership with Habitat for Humanity. In calendar-year 2024, Pathway to Purchase assisted 18 first-time buyers; DHCD said the down-payment maximum was increased from $10,000 to $25,000 in early 2024 and that staff plan to tweak the program further in April to increase market impact. HRAP completed 27 rehabs in 2024 (with five more underway) and the HOPE program completed 25 rehabs with 13 more underway.

Special populations and federal funds: DHCD said it received HOME-ARP funds and used them to support units for people experiencing homelessness and a small number of deeply subsidized units. The department said those HOME-ARP resources will be fully deployed by the program deadline (DHCD staff gave the deployment time frame during the briefing). DHCD also described the “YES” (Youth Experiencing Success) partnership with Department of Social Services and the Housing Authority to deliver units for young adults exiting foster care, capped at a higher income threshold in some projects (staff said they expect actual occupant incomes to be substantially lower in many cases).

Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP): DHCD reported ERAP is in a wind-down phase. Since March 2021 the county has deployed more than $20 million in direct rental assistance and assisted over 12,000 households; in calendar year 2024 the program deployed roughly $7.6 million. DHCD staff said the federal statutory authorities for ERAP limit the program’s deployment window (staff said the federal program concludes under current guidance in 2025), and the county expects to exhaust its funding availability prior to the federal statutory end date.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Community Development (CDBG/CTBG) work: DHCD described annual NOFA rounds, restrictions on eligible CDBG activities (for example, street improvements on county roads are not eligible under CDBG) and continuing high demand for public-service category funds. The department said competitive rounds and technical assistance have strengthened nonprofit partners’ capacity to use federal funds and noted an increase in HUD technical-assistance engagements.

Committee questions touched on timelines for an inclusionary zoning market study to be funded via a regional grant, the planned timeline for HOME-ARP deployment and how DHCD coordinates with DSS on rapid re-housing and supportive services. Council members asked for more detailed breakdowns by geography and for lists of senior housing projects in the pipeline; DHCD said it could supply that information offline and referred Council members to an online dashboard with project-level details.

Why it matters: DHCD’s briefing highlighted both the limits of local finance (county funds are typically a portion of larger project financing stacks) and areas where county policy or added funding could expand permanent local solutions — including rental assistance after federal ERAP funds run out, preservation tools beyond right-of-first-refusal, and expansions of HOME-ARP supported units for extremely low-income households.

Next steps: DHCD will supply requested project-level information, timeline details for the inclusionary zoning market study and senior-housing breakdowns to committee members. Staff said they will continue to coordinate with the Council on funding decisions as projects move from state awards to county funding commitments.

","The county Department of Housing and Community Development briefed the PHED committee on the FY25 work program, describing active preservation and production projects, homeownership and rehabilitation programs, and the wind-down of emergency rental assistance.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6614029,"PHED committee recommends Seabrook MARC Station for Maryland transit-oriented development designation",212,382000,594000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce&start=382&end=594","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce/thumbnail_382000.jpg","/articles/6614029/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/PHED-committee-recommends-Seabrook-MARC-Station-for-Maryland-transit-oriented-development-designation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614029-93169a0c401f4cb87b1c3955feb2aae9/orig.mp4?Expires=1777119948&Signature=kKQoGuC0sWMOhk1aYk9EJ3sjisrQT2BzFCx2~laKt78S7VRJnU5r3SBrt~sd~RyEQNACvzbh-5rf52IfOx8wO5UCYVvjRf4wG7AluOlIPf6RHuKbWukiXCrRTQ1nCgeQIVnCOxKtX9Ag5XiqxfJAD1T~c01sm~1nsBjSH71b8r7bIzm-axffrcVvwTgmMo4dWEfH2nwe-qqTQuqheB4NJ0TMxBMMyq-z~1VpwDQ62L4S2~UPml-Ho~95Z9VC0bqVPFROMIFHe~sxjWS0BUjzvA6T35vX9pgb4vXzJba~gMBKJr75SReY7iL0aAhTBENEY5lAIk-Q50SwntZpWmVScg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee on April 3 recommended a favorable vote on a resolution expressing support for designation of the Seabrook MARC (Seabrook MARC Station) and its surrounding area as a Maryland transit-oriented development (TOD) site.

Committee members and planning staff discussed whether the resolution should name or otherwise clarify the boundaries of the “surrounding area.” Planning staff had submitted a memorandum requesting the resolution clarify the area to be designated. The resolution’s sponsor said the initial purpose is to allow a study and planning work to proceed with Maryland Department of Transportation and other partners, and that the phrase “surrounding area” was intended to permit the study to refine boundaries.

Lakisha Hall, a planning director appearing for Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission staff, told members that the planning memo was a standard comment advising that context sensitivity and boundary definition could be helpful, but she did not recommend specific language changes at the committee hearing. County administration staff said the Executive supports the resolution and the Office of Law provided a memorandum stating no legal impediment to adoption. After brief discussion the committee voted to recommend the resolution favorably.

Why it matters: designation as a Maryland transit-oriented development site can qualify an area for additional state planning attention and potential access to state resources aimed at coordinating land use and transit investments. Committee members noted that future planning and study work would refine the exact area covered by any designation.

Next steps: The committee forwarded the resolution to the full County Council with a favorable recommendation. Planning and Maryland Department of Transportation staff will continue to work on study parameters and boundary definitions as the designation and follow-up planning proceed.

","The committee voted to send a favorable recommendation for a resolution supporting designation of the Seabrook MARC Station area as a Maryland transit-oriented development site, after receiving planning staff comments urging clarification of boundaries.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6614034,"PHED committee backs resolution urging foreclosure moratorium for Maryland federal employees",271,62000,333000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce&start=62&end=333","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2866348-22000e40cfe2f0eb881e887d1c97dbce/thumbnail_62000.jpg","/articles/6614034/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/PHED-committee-backs-resolution-urging-foreclosure-moratorium-for-Maryland-federal-employees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6614034-a904a83937d9e0375db0b55415cfcd80/orig.mp4?Expires=1777119948&Signature=LNvxdH60Npf1fSxZe4MmhalLzk2tZvu8LChQC2YyB7qGh5EhyKgllFTfREcxhrhpOTpyeFhVmq6POJTBpZTtx1prj7u8DlS3TZaxPcNBzaDHbpiGheg6bq1dpM3vI7gGF6gQbN6cbYZcMuowRva1XpLNjco2EV13nUyco0MSRPCwID5FSVMvfchDqeR~4KqGnKpfXjSxJH8Gauv8~VTfq7giF1Ly76nkRp2pJhNZdwjaLMayuOYQwAk7JWU3QIc1kQ3QQR5LMvGdlQcGPUigRyQY5hqQMhq4ETKqon9yqjNtLPmSsDFJTbYx7ZX4pMtXwFlJ1OXdaOLgOXZcVBNiIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee on April 3 recommended approval of a resolution urging a residential mortgage foreclosure moratorium for Maryland federal employees.

The resolution, identified in committee materials as CR 22 20 25, passed the committee on a favorable recommendation after the sponsor and county administration agreed on “friendly amendments” to narrow the scope and add implementation clarifications. Council member Hawkins sponsored the resolution and moved both the amendments and the final favorable recommendation.

The measure was framed by its sponsor as a preemptive step to address possible mortgage foreclosures tied to federal employment changes. “PR 22 20 25 is really an effort to try to get in front of what may become a very challenging situation with our, foreclosures in Prince George’s County,” Council member Hawkins said during the committee meeting. County administration staff signaled support for the resolution and read proposed edits onto the record that would, among other changes, clarify which federal workers would be covered, exclude cases where a property is abandoned or the homeowner chooses foreclosure proceedings, and suggest relief from penalties and interest on overdue taxes during the protection period.

Committee members accepted a motion to adopt the administration’s recommended amendments. Clerk roll-call votes show Chair DeNova, Council member Hawkins, Council member Olson and Vice Chair Oriada voting to accept the amendments. The motion to move the resolution favorably as amended was later adopted by recorded vote in committee.

Why it matters: committee members said the resolution is intended to send a policy request to the governor and state officials so county residents who are federal employees have additional time or protections if their employer status changes. The resolution does not itself change county code or provide direct financial assistance; it is a formal expression of support urging action by state or federal authorities.

Next steps: The committee forwarded the measure with a favorable recommendation; the full County Council will consider the resolution during its legislative process.

Acknowledgments: County staff from the Office of Law provided a memorandum to the committee indicating no legal impediment to adoption. Committee materials included a Moody’s analysis about state-level exposure to federal job cuts that committee members had before them.

Votes-at-a-glance: The committee recorded aye votes on the amendment and on the favorable recommendation in the meeting minutes and roll call.

","The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee voted to recommend a resolution urging a residential mortgage foreclosure moratorium for Maryland federal employees, approving sponsor amendments and forwarding the measure to the full Council.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council members criticize MNCPPC project-charge administration as inconsistent; staff defend process and say reforms are underway

MNCPPC parks and recreation FY26 budget seeks $387M; officials flag vacancies, fund balances and PAYGO shifts

DHCD outlines FY25 housing pipeline, rental assistance wind-down and preservation priorities

PHED committee recommends Seabrook MARC Station for Maryland transit-oriented development designation

PHED committee backs resolution urging foreclosure moratorium for Maryland federal employees