Prince George’s council votes to ‘clarify’ controversial budget transfer ahead of pivotal court hearings

The Prince George’s County Council voted Tuesday to “clarify” a controversial budget transfer at the center of a lawsuit between the county government and a bi-county agency that oversees the region’s parks and recreation programs.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a state-supervised agency that administers parks, planning and recreation in Prince George’s County and parks and planning in Montgomery County.

The commission sued Prince George’s County in June, marking an escalation in a tug-of-war between the sides over $39 million in taxpayer funds.

In an initial win for the commission, a Circuit Court judge in June temporarily blocked the transfer of the $39 million from the commission to the county.

The commission’s budget is made up of county property tax revenue, and the County Council approves the commission’s budget each year, though state law determines how the money can be spent.

Leaders on the County Council have contended that Tuesday’s resolution, introduced by Council Chair Krystal Oriadha, would “more precisely reflect the Council’s intent,” according to a Sept. 1 news release from the council.

The release says that “the appropriations, funding decisions and public purposes” approved by the council remain unchanged.

It also says that spending related to the budget transfer is “already fully accounted for” and that “no transfer is needed to right-size the budget or make the budget whole.”

A spokesperson for the county’s Office of Management and Budget told The Banner in August that the county had incurred $8.1 million in costs on the commission’s behalf and expected reimbursement.

Not all council members are on board with the clarification. Nor are supporters of the commission.

“It seems disrespectful to the state to continue like this,” council member Jolene Ivey said in a phone interview Monday. “And the timing is also interesting, because unless something changes, park and planning is taking the council to court.”

Ivey and council member Sydney Harrison voted against the resolution, while eight council members voted for it. Council member Edward Burroughs was absent from the meeting room during the vote.

Harrison said to reporters after the council’s meeting that, in voting against the resolution, he “erred on the side of caution” and sought “to show respect” for the judicial process.

Adrian Gardner, the commission’s chief legal officer from 2000 to 2022, contended that the county has tried to misappropriate funding “that is limited for park and planning purposes” and said this recent resolution “does not solve or cure the problem.”

Gardner said the resolution “is an admission that what they were trying to do was unlawful from the get-go.”

He added, “You cannot put any lipstick on this legal pig.”

Brian Fischer, a spokesperson for County Executive Aisha Braveboy, couldn’t be reached for comment.

The funding at issue is part of a decades-old program through which organizations and municipal governments can seek expense reimbursements known as “project charges.”

Council members generally recommend organizations in their districts that they believe should receive project charges. The council chair then typically decides which organizations to include in the budget.

To receive reimbursement, the organizations must submit invoices to the commission and receive approval.

Since taking leadership roles on the County Council, Oriadha and Burroughs have come under scrutiny for pushing to divert millions of dollars in project charges to their preferred organizations, including one run by Oriadha’s close friend. Oriadha was unavailable for comment before publication.

Ivey and Harrison have requested an independent audit and a state investigation into their colleagues’ use of the program.

The commission’s attorney claimed in a court filing that the county is attempting to “commandeer” commission funds.

The council adopted a budget in May that said the $39 million in funding would be due to the county’s Office of Management and Budget by July 1 “without any further action of the County needed, to include memoranda of understanding, or invoices for reimbursement.”

The council’s resolution will change the budget language to state that the funding would be transferred to the budget office “by way of reimbursements to the County, based on invoices submitted to the Commission.”

It remains to be seen how, or if, the resolution will affect the lawsuit between the county and the commission. The two sides are set to appear in court on Sept. 21 and 22.