Kensington council backs drainage study but fails to adopt contract after extra‑majority threshold not met

The Kensington Mayor and Council on June 4 debated a contract authorizing Brudis & Associates to perform storm‑drain analysis and design near Kensington Parkway and Frederick Avenue but did not adopt the measure after the vote failed to meet an extra‑majority requirement.

Town Manager Hoffman told the council staff provided video evidence of flooding at 10009 Kensington Parkway linked to pending redevelopment at 10005 and 10009 Frederick Avenue and said the proposed analysis would allow the Town to impose permit conditions and design storm‑drain inlets along the 10000 block of Frederick Avenue. Council Member Crimmins moved to approve Resolution R‑09‑2026; the motion received three votes in favor and one opposed (Council Member Sparker), but the resolution required an extra‑majority under Section 2‑405 (“Professional Services Contracts”) of the Town Code and therefore was not adopted.

Council Member Engle urged the use of a longer flood‑return period in the analysis and suggested the Town explore using Kensington Cabin Park and lobbying county officials to support a more innovative solution. Council Member Lichter said she supported moving forward because of the pending development and advocated for a bioengineered approach. Council Member Sparker said he supported the goal but opposed the resolution because it represented a “significant sum of money” and asked that the work be competitively bid in accordance with Article 4, Section 2‑402 of the Town ordinances.

Town Manager Hoffman said the Brudis proposal is carried forward from a prior contract awarded in 2023 (Resolution R‑08‑2023) and that the cost was consistent with three previous drainage analyses performed for the Town. Town Attorney Ferguson advised the council that, aside from going out to bid, the Town may adopt a fully bid contract already in effect for other jurisdictions that covers the same services and pricing, which would satisfy competitive‑procurement requirements and avoid the time and expense of a new solicitation.

The council did not adopt R‑09‑2026. The discussion left two likely procedural paths: staff may pursue a new competitive solicitation (estimated by a council member at about four months) or attempt procurement under an existing fully bid contract from another jurisdiction as described by the Town Attorney. The council did not direct a final procurement path during the open meeting.