1 20 3 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/44124/archive/files/b3e26638dc70256209670aee36ecc72c.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=ABNLqsCrjOBaVWvi1EebjlVxzqjj83PicdfGgBDhBH20d1Ov3rOxySilz1z69g5CuSF7fxj55OJzcCT36nXtdSmzM69MTKn2TiaER8PUJadEXir1jUoSj0p1e53MiFGF-uBbgbYTdtoyGliUKiesNTVgDlzTYEFxazJQHaYhNwOOtaXgeWPmR6gf829Y-AszeGbz5SZylKTVqR25jswTyvWPSQpA22WXU71PitkqLcR9IFTMoxv1PMao9aq-4XQslkbTPR7gQfKymEdL7f5Y3Ugq91OuibWSmirrVEiu5S4gztSOCZUTJ5TxZfCtnAF5nm-9U1mLagI4zKhVDUwwGg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM f87bc6e19162318c9cf4f88ab370c886 PDF Text Text WEST READ STREET MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION TYSON STREET ASSOCIATION HOWARD READ ASSOCIATION Mike Bauer, Representative Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council of Baltimnre: The time of decision has come for all of you. A day you must decide if the citizens, your constituents, need have a boulevar d system laid before their doorstep against their will. It has been clearly heard, time and again, that the majority of the citizens do ~ want or need this roadway system. It has also been clear that the only proponent that has come forward in defense of the proposed system has been the Greater Baltimore Committee. most members of which live in the surrounding counties~ It is hard to see the benefits offered to the city dweller in a I1Six Lane People Hazard. " It will disturb and uproot several thousand reSidents, will do nothing but increase the new very dangerous levels of air and noise pollution, and will seriously hinder the growth of any remaining communities. The roadway our city planners propose is clearly for the convenience of the 9 to 5 suburbanite commuter and does not offer any real convenience to the city dweller. \\'e lay before you a chance to save our city from its dwindling residential popUlation. Offer us the challenge to rebuild and refurbish as many neighborhoods as can be saved. To restore the uniqueness of the very old and regain our reputa_ tion for having a real sense of neighborhood living, is not at all an unworthy community project to resurrect the pleasures of downtown living. We, the members of the community of Baltimore, have come at your invitation to express once again our opposition to the entire boulevard system. Your task is obvious to us. Repealing the c~ndemnatien lines that have played such a large part in the disintegration of the neighborhood structure, and have added to the promotion of a poor situation in the area of crime, will be the first real step to building for a better Baltimore. Once and for all let us close the door to this deplorable situation and get about the business of putting the pieces of our city back together again. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Movement Against Destruction Description An account of the resource This exhibit examines community opposition to expressway construction in Baltimore during the 1970s through the organizational records of the Movement Against Destruction (MAD). Founded in 1968 as a coalition of 25 neighborhood and community groups, MAD's leaders included George and Carolyn Tyson, Barbara Mikulski, Walter Orlinsky, Norman Reeves, and Parren Mitchell. The complete MAD collection at the University of Baltimore consists of 9 linear feet of records, which are described in an online collection database. The complete collection has also been digitized at the folder level and is available in this guide. For this exhibit, 32 documents have been selected from the complete collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="http://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Special Collections &amp; Archives, University of Baltimore</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://archivesspace.ubalt.edu/repositories/2/resources/80" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Movement Against Destruction Records</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">University of Baltimore Special Collections &amp; Archives</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1968-1983 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Use of these images is governed by U.S. copyright law. The University of Baltimore Special Collections and Archives makes digital surrogates of collections accessible if they are in the public domain, the rights are owned by the University of Baltimore, the Special Collections and Archives has permission to make them accessible, or there are no known restrictions on use. Due to the nature of archival collections, rights information is not always discernible. The Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any rights owners wishing to provide accurate information. Upon request, material will be removed from view while a rights issue is addressed. Contact the Special Collections and Archives for more information regarding this image. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource text/pdf Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context R0062-MAD Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2019-09 Extent The size or duration of the resource. 32 documents Subject The topic of the resource Express highways Maryland--Baltimore Urban renewal Highway planning Community activists Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Paper Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mount Vernon Merchants Oppose Construction Description An account of the resource Mike Bauer, representing the West Read Street Merchants Association, the Tyson Street Association, and the Howard Read Association, addresses the Baltimore City Council to express community opposition to highway construction Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1970 Subject The topic of the resource Homeowners' associations Trade associations Speeches Baltimore (Md.). City Council. Mount Vernon (Baltimore, Md.) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bauer, Michael Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available University of Baltimore Special Collections & Archives Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context mad06.04.28 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Movement Against Destruction Records, series 6, box 4, folder 28, Special Collections & Archives, University of Baltimore Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Use of this digital material is governed by U.S. copyright law. The University of Baltimore Special Collections and Archives makes digital surrogates of collections accessible if they are in the public domain, the rights are owned by the University of Baltimore, the Special Collections and Archives has permission to make them accessible, or there are no known restrictions on use. Due to the nature of archival collections, rights information is not always discernible. The Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any rights owners wishing to provide accurate information. Upon request, material will be removed from view while a rights issue is addressed. Contact the Special Collections and Archives for more information regarding this image. Baltimore (Md.). City Council. Homeowners' associations Md.) Mount Vernon (Baltimore Speeches Trade associations https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/44124/archive/files/c2bac33465d5185f6bc025bfa9ed3362.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=kaReu7EBi-3mKrCaFkO9YOh9rLsjlMnOE6rV7eDsLfY7aeWcHCgWbyUcKAytb9nBhGXL8aN6gqYGAf%7EhxDVwb8T6Y8n7J8nBsqWqHfO8PmkbgjtqAq7s2x0xE76RopdFttqCQepSFWF6cJQfQ9Mi4yAGwY2Fn9T8OpUIRHNKZKs2g3I7LqXt0kIPQO0tXq1kKOidVQ0iUIeAmDrwi2H49fBWM975-95Wb4VmH%7EFa6-7GEE8wZs5E7C2ojFlMQ5x9oqqVtCy9pNSqkaVYIPHuwExknyY44wket2pWDPblNeNj8VslPFELr1h%7Ee7pbMvCItVW20uXLUJXge668bCfQ4A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5158bfbd41eeed87508313956017932a PDF Text Text CITIZENS PlANNINGandHOUSING ASSOCIATION 330 N. Charle s S t . Baltimore , Md. 21201 600 East Joppa Road, Towson, Md . 21204 539-1369 821-1920 E S lEIEASE FOR RELEASE 3,15 P . M. , June 21 , 1 973 Testimony of CPHA for the Baltimore City council Regarding 'the Financing Plan for the Interstate System Mr . Pres1dent and Members of the City Council : I am Christopher c. Hartman, Executive Director of the citizens P lanning and Housing Association o We find ourselves in a rather unusual position as regards the framework of todays hearings ~ We are not here to speak against the expressway system. ~ In fact , historically our position has been consistently for a b a lanced transportation system for Baltimore city including expre~sways ~ In 1 971 because of the massing amount of con f l icting r eports coming forth on the e x pressway issue # we requested that the ctty Council hold full , fair and fr~nk public hearings at which time it was hoped that all the facts woul d c ome forth on the basis of which a decision could be made whether or not constr u ction should begin . At those hearings in January, 1972 we particularly stressed our strong support of the high priori t y construction and comoletion of Interstate 95 ~ The construction of the 3A Expressway System is a po~itical issue and this political decision has been made by the admini3tration and reaffirmed by this city Council in the two city budgets i t has dealt with thus far ft We Corne before you today because we feel that there is one decision which has not yet been fully made by the members of this Council ~ I refer to the financing plan for the expressway system which has been ~resented to you by the Department of Finance ~ In the 1972 Council hearings , the administration reported to the Council and the public that the construction of the expressway system would have no impact on the property tax ~ Short l y afterwards , under the direction of our treasurer , James H ~ Franklin , CPHA began a thorough a n alysis of the fiscal policy as expressed in the 1972 financing plan prese n ted to this Council . In May of 1972, we issued a report which showed that there would be a direct and substantial impact on the property tax from the construction of the 3A System ~ We recommended this impact could be somewhat mitigated by the financing of the harbor ccossing through the use of revenue bonds which would pay the more than $60 million city share through tolls collected from each vehicle using the facility . -more- �-2- We have continued to analyze the situation since our initial report in May of 1972 and last came before you on Taxpayers night, Monday June 11, to emphasize that in the budget you were about to adopt, the administration was asking you to substantially reduce services to the city residents while at the same time asking you to place an additional 8.18 cents burden on the property tax for expenses normally paid through motor vehicle revenues. Since the time of our initial statement we have seen a number of sets of figures presented by the administration, nOnE of which have been able to withstand the glare 6f public disclosure and analysis. We have carefully examined the new financing plan for the expressway system submitted to the City Council on June 8 t 1973 by the Director of Finance. After a thorough analysis we firmly believe that the city Council and members of the public have once again been presented just another constantly shifting set of figures which are both incomplete and incorrect and incapable of being relied upon for a fiscal decision of such imoortance, which this Council is being asked to make. There are a number of areas in which we feel both the city Council and members of the ?ublic must demand further proof of the financial credibility of the figures ?resented to you today. One of the major problems we have run up against in our attempt to provide a fair, responsible analysis of the financing plan is the fact that the figures por?orting to re~resent the same type of income or expense differed depending UDOn where you read them. It remains unclear to us from which sources we are to select the correct figures. The 1972 financing plan presented to this council, you may recall, set the total cost of the Interstate System at $1.116 billion, the city 1s share of which was to be financed entirely out of state transportation loan funds and direct contributions from the motor vehicle revenue funds. By contrast, the 1974 City budget listed the total cost of the interstate system at $1.176 billion, an increase of over $60 million. The budget, however, shows that the need for direct contributions from the motor vehicle fund has been totally eliminated and the amount of state de9artment of transportation loan funds substantially reduced by the projected inclusion of more than $70 million t o be raised from revenue bonds to pay for the Fort MCHenry crossing of the Harbor. The city1s budget was adopted on Monday night. The new city financing plan for the expressway system prepared between April 30 and June 6, 1973 shows the cost of the expressway system at $1.186 billion an increase of an additional $10 million from the figures submitted to you in the 1974 budget only a month ago. Despite the more than $70 million increase in costs of this ?ackage between January of 1972 and June of 1973, the cover letter from the Director of Finance indicated actual experience with construction contracts completed has been that the contracts were coming in substantially under the estimates of January 1972 . As regards costs of .'the system, we should like to draw your attention to two very interesting sets of figures. -more- • �-3The projected city cost of the Interstate System and Boulevard Ring is listed in the January, 1972 financing statement at $192,957 , 000 . Remember that this figure represents the cityls share of the entire Interstate System including the Fort McHenry Harbor Crossing. Look, however, to the figures presented to y ou in the financing plan submitted June 8 : 1973. Here you will find the projected total city cost of the Interstate System listed at $151 , 233,000. The city's share of the cost of the Harbor Crossing listed at $71 ( 244,982 will be paid through the sale of revenue bonds and is not included in the $151 million price tag. Recognizing that up to $11 million or So will be necessary to construct the toll plazas which costs will have to be borne entirely by the revenue bonds and will not be participated in by the federal government, we still have a $60 million city share of the Harbor Crossing not included. If you wou[d add that $60 million to the $151 million c ost of the Interstate System, and we accept Mr. Benton's statement that costs of the Interstate System are running below the original estimates, why we ask, do we now have a total Interstate cost of $211 million which seems to represent a cost overrun of $18 million . This Council should also address itself to the question of costs as regards Urban and City projects. The 1972 financing statement lists these projects at a total cost of $57.5 million. The statement presented to you June 8 .. however, lists the costs of these projects at $70.7 million. Both the Council and the public have the right to demand a full and frank explanation of these unexplained increases in costs. Now let us take a direct look at the financing package itself~ presented to you by the Department of Finance . I . We'd like to first draw your attention to the operating budget against the motor vehicle fund which very clearly demonstrates the fiscal Dol icy of this administration which is to freeze or eliminate certain expenses in the operating budget. Incremental indreases for those areas frozen plus the total amount of those areas which have been moved or will be moved off of the motor vehicle fund, will fall squarely on the property tax . This leaves only two fiscal choices. The first is to increase the property tax itself to pay for services which were formerly funded from motor vehicle funds. The second, and only other alternative, is to pay these transferred expenses from the property tax and then reduce substantially services presently being recieved by city residents in other budget areas to make up the additional burden placed on the general revenue fund by thes e transfers Each member of the city Council present at Taxpayers night heard us list the specific charges which the property tax would have to bear for the course of this financing plan so we consider it unnecessary to review this matter again at this time . A -more- �-42 . The figures listed for the fiscal year 1973 are the same figures which were adopted by you in the 1973 budget in June 6f 1972 . While it is perhaps true that there can be no firm handle at this time on the expenses against the fund for 1973, there is some information available which suggests that the revenue figures listed for 1973 are incomplete or incorrect or both. Direct revenue from the motor vehicle fund is listed as $39.4 million in fiscal 1973 . Information obtained from the state Department of Transportation indicates that this figure should be increased by to to 2 milliop dollars . This amount then " must be added to the operating surplus found at the bottom of the page u9der 1913 . Additionally in 1973, interest on investments is listed at an extraord£narily conservative $700,000 . At the request of the CPHA, the Department of Finance reviewed the cash balances over the past year of the motor vehicle fund, and on May 14 of this year conservatively estimated the 1973 interest income from motor vehicles at $2 . 557 million. CPHA has projected the 1973 interest income at $2 . 81 million -- more than G2 0 11~i11ion than has been reported to the City Council. Again this figure must be added to the operating surplus shown at the bottom of the page under fiscal 1973. Coming into fiscal 1974 therefore you must add an extra 3 to 4 million dollars in additi~al surplus from 1973 . The 1974 income projection of the Department of Finance for state Revenue is listed at $41,675,000 . The State Department of Transportation estimates that Baltimore city ' s share of these funds for fiscal 1974 would amount to $44 . 42 million -- which figure does not include a special $3 million grant which the city has received for both fiscal 1973 and fiscal 1974 to be used in the repaving of city streets ¥ The state estimate of the city ' s share therefore would increase the o?erating surplus of fiscal 1974 by almost $3 million. Further, we find that again interest on investments is shown at $700,000 for fiscal 1974 despite the De9artment of Finance's recognition that it had grossly underestimated the same category for fiscal 1973 . Using the same formula as the Department of Finance we have estimated interest income in 1974 at a conservative $3 . 3 million -- which figure does not take into account any interest which should be earned on the $3 .mi11ion additional projected state revenue for 1974. Again adding these figures together you must add a minimum $6.3 million to the surplus listed for 1974. Considering therefore the fiscal years 1973 and 1974 together, we find that the Department of Finance has underestimated revenues by more than $9 million. 3. On May 14 the Department of Finance estimated that at the end of fiscal 1973~ the ~ash balance of the motor vehicle funds would be in excess of $48 million. Again we believe this to be a very conservative figure, but using it along with the expenditures and income listed by the Department of Finance; . we have calculated that through 1980, in the area of interest income alone, revenues have been underreported to the city Council and the public by $14,272,354 . -more- �· -5- In computing this 14 . 3 million dollar figure we used the expenditure rates in the latest financing statement and found it necessary beginning in 1976 to give away large sums of money for good behavior~ For instance in 1976 we deducted an additional $10 million in the balance of ~otor vehicle revenues for good behavior. In each of the succeeding four fiscal years , we deducted an additional $5 . 5 million from cash reserves for good behavior and did not include any interest computation on those figures ~ While this rather questionable disposal of $32 million might be frowned upon by more experienced fiscal experts , we believe that it would tend to make our interest income projections far more conservative than would have normally been the case under more conventional computation schemes . 4. Referring to the gebt service on Department of Transportation bonds as listed on the next page of the statement supplied by the Department of Finance on June 8 to the city Council, you will note that in 1973 the Department of Finance is projecting DOT debt service as $4,570,lll . In a March 23rd letter from the Division of Fiscal Policy and Management of the Department of Transportation to Baltimore city ' s Director of Finance lists the revised debt service totals for the $63 million in Transportation bonds which the city of Baltimore has purchased in the 1972 and 1973 fiscal years . According to this document J which was verified last week by an official in the Maryland De?artment of Transportation , the 1973 debt service figure was actually $4 , 267,865, not the $4,311 , 609 as submitted in the Department of Finance's June 6 statement to the Council . The projections for the debt ser9ice of bonding requirements contained on your June 6 statement were computed by the Department of Finance at an interest rate of 4 . 724 percent, the same interest rate at which the bonds sold in August of 1972 . Since that time interest rates have increased substantially and as late as last week officials of the Maryland Department of Transportation were predicting that the 1974 bond issue before you today would probably go out at 5 percent or something above 5 percent . The debt service figures for the 1974 bonds listed on the June 6 statement are therefore incorrect because the rate of interest used is unrealistically low . It is a normal fiscal practice to somewhat overestimate expenditures and underestimate income . We therefore find it strange that in this area the Department of Finance chose to underestimate rather than overestimate its expenditures ~ 5 . proceeding to the expenditure forecast 6f the Interstate System as supplied to the city Council on June 8, please note that there will be three expenditures for the toll facility totalling $247,317 paid for apparently out of current revenues . Additionally, the Department of Finance predictions call for expenditures of an additional $1 . 6 million in fiscal 1974 for portions of the Fort McHenry crossing ~ It is our understanding that the financing plan presently before the city Council and the public calls for the payment of these ' expenses out of revenue bonds ¥ -more- �-6Whe,re are these revenue bonds? At a time when the administration is complaining it has too little money in the motor vehicle fund to pay operating expenses and finds it must move the impact of these expenses to the property tax, both the City Council and the public need assurances that this $1 ~ 9 million will be reimbursed to the motor vehicle fund once the revenue bonds are sold. 6 0 Again on the expenditure forecast page for the Interstate System, if you will look at the last column on the page which is "Grand Total city Share" t the 16th figure down in that column, wn;ich is underlined is $178,918,861 .. This figure purports to represent the total city share of the Interstate System and Boulevard Ring, without~the inclusion of any expenditures for the toll . Segments ' If you look again, however, at the page which lists bonding requirements and the debt service schedule, where it suggests that the total cost of the Interstate and Boulevard Ring will be $51,233,OOO ~ Both CPHA and the public would like the Council to find the answer as to why these projects are listed at almost $19 million more on the expenditure page than they are on the income page ~ 0 7~ Directing your attention again to the expenditure fdrecast page, if you will go down to the line on the left which is entitled "Segment E and F J Boulevard Ring." For each cif the years 1973 through 1978 , the Department of Finance has listed the total cost of the project and the city ' s share of that project. It was our understanding from conversations with the Department of Finance that the financing mechanism used for the Boulevard Ring is indeed different than the Interstate ? On Interstate projects : 82 percent of the cost is paid by the federal government ~ with the remain~ng 18 percent being paid by the city of Baltimore ~ On the Boulevard Ring ; however ~ the division of fiscal responsibility is somewhat different ~ I believe the figure here for the split is that the city pays more than 30 percent of the Cost to these projects ~ If this is true and you follow the expenditures across the line for each of the fiscal years, and go over to the last column where it shows grand totals, there is a cost overrun of the c~ty ' s share here of $l2,643,720 ~ The correct city share should : we believe , be $15 , 663r069 ~ not the $28 , 306 , 790 as listed on the financial statement ~ Even though the CPHA figure of 38 percent may be incorrect . CPHA , tne public and the council have the right and the duty to ask and obtain answe rs as to why different percentages have been taken in each of the fiscal years on the Boulevard Ring . In 1973 1 for instance , the De?artment of Finance figures show the city paying 58 percent of the cost for the Boulevard Ring. In 1974 .. the city will be paying 72 percent of the cost. In 1975 r the city is estimated at paying 74 percent of the cost, and in 1976 the city is estimated at paying 38 percent of the cost ~ This averages out to the city paying 69 percent of the cost ~ Again, members of the Counc~l, this ~s an area that needs further explanation by the Department of FLnance . -more- �-7.8. As we indicated earlier, by way of a letter to the Citizens Planning and Housing Ass ociat ion ~ the Department of Finance conservatively estimated that as of June 30, 1972 there would be approximately $48 million as a cash balance in the motor vehicle fund . To this figure must be added federal reimbursement for costs advanced by the city. Financing statements supplied by Mr. Benton to the City Council indicate that as of April 30 r $4 , 578 , 548 was receivable from the federal government for the non-toll segments of the expressway system and an additional $81 , 490 was receIvable from the federal governme nt for the toll segment of the expressway system . This $4.6 million should be added to the $48 million that the Department of Finance shows as a $48 million balance on June 30 . In addition ~ you will not~ce on the expenditure forecast supplied by the Department of Finance for fiscal 1973 that in the months of May and June on the Interstate system alone the city will have expended $l4,235 J 866. The normal payback t~me from the federal government, with the exception of the acquisition advancements , is 30 to 60 days a Therefore, both the council and the public could reasonably expect that by the end of July, the federal government w~ll have reimbursed the City of Baltimore an additional $11 . 4 mi11Lon for payments advanced by the City of Baltimore in May and June, 1973 . Adding this to the $4 .6 million listed as receivable as of April 30 , we come to a total of more than $16 million t hat must be added to the cash balance of the motor vehicle fund by the end of July . 9. The 1974 city budget Lon page 62~ adopted last Monday night by this Council showed the total cost of the Interstate system at $l ul76 billion ~ Of this,$158,920 r OOO was to the city's share paid through the Department of Transoortation loan fu nds . The financing plan developed on June 6 and submitted to the Council, however, shows expenditures for the Interstate of only $151 million . We are forced to ask what happened to the extra $8 million in projects, between the time the budget left the Deoartment of Finance's hands in May and the June 6 statement was drawn up . 10. Additionally , comparing the 1974 city budget, page 625 , with the bonding requirements and debt service schedule contained in the June 6 statement submitted to the city Council, we find a rather serious discrepancy as regards the Interstate funds and funds for Urban and city projects. At this p oi nt we should mention that nowhere in the expenditure charts or a?propriations charts do we find any lis ting for Urban and city projects . The discrepancies we f~nd on the bonding requirements chart are the following : l~ The chart shows that the city took $23 million in DOT loans 1971 } $40 million in DOT loans in 1972 , and $40 million in DOT loans in 1973 : and ~s ask~ng for an additional $43 million in 1974 , However, correspondence with the Department of Transportation has indicated that the city has only been taking DOT loans since fiscal 1972 when it took $23 million , and that it took a $40 million loan in 1973 for a total out standing indebtedness of $63 million. -more~n �-8~ The additional $40 million indebtedness that the Administration is now asking from the Council would raise its total indebtedness to $103 million ¥ A glance at the 1974 city budget would show that the administration has listed all of this bond revenue as apolicable to the Interstate System and has not listed any of it for the urban and City projects . Much more information is needed on these Urban and city projects before reasonable analysis can take place. 2 . The city budget for 1974 lists a total Interstate commitment of $158 million in DOT loan funds, of which $103 million will have been used when and if the city Council approves the administration's request for an additional $40 milliOn this August. This would mean that from fiscal 1975 on , the City of Baltimore would only be able to obtain an a dditional $55 million in Department of Transportation bonas , Which figure is substantially less than figures shown on the bonding requirement and debt service schedules submitted by the Department of Finance on June 6 to the City Council . I am sure by this time that the members of the Council are as thoroughly confused as those of us from CPHA who have been working on this project. The figures that have been~?resented to this Council both today and over the last year have consistently proven to be incredibly indefensible. We have now spent a year looking at numbers which constantly shift; numbers which rapidly fall apart on analysis ? and numbers for which no more than the absolute minimum explanation was ever given at any time. W~ believe that the new financing plan presented to you today has been as thoroughly discredited as was the financing plan presented to you in January of 1972. We do not believe that any reasonable person could act with confidence on the figures as they have been presented . Neither the public nor this City Council can in any way rely on the figures as they have been presented by the Department of Finance Further, we do not believe and cannot substantiate the need for a further $~O million in state transportation loan funds for the city of Baltimore this year . This is not , we stress, an issue of whether or not you support the It is , rather i a matter of sound and responsible fiscal policy ~ We stand in support of most segments of the expressway sy~tem and urge its construction , but we cannot and we will not accept the incredible financial calculations which have been presented by the administration thus far . Both the public and this council have a right to know exactly what the figures are, and exactly what the expenditure rates will be ~ This data has not been forthcoming ~ We believe, after looking at the expenditure forecast } that there is clearly no need for $40 million in additional debt for this city this year _ - moreexpressway ~ �-9- ' We do no t believe ' that it is the intention of this Council to create a multi-million dollar authorization which is clearly not needed for this capital pro gram w The pro jections for 1974, contained on the expenditure forecast , indicate a ~rojected expenditure of $4l ~ 6 million, including $1 . 6 million for the toll segment facility, which , it was our understanding r was to be paid for strictly from revenue bonds. Granting, however , for the sake 6f argument, that this should be paid out 6f motor vehicle funds I this year. Let's take a look and see precisely what is or is not needed in this f~scal year. There will be an absolute minimum balance of $48 million in the motor vehicle fund as of July l ~ 1973 0 Add to this $4 ~ 6 million in federal funds receivable as of April 30 , and an additional $12 01 million representing the return to the city for money advanced in May and June of 1973 , the total casb balance of the fund will amount to more than $61 million before any 1974 income is considered. Both the Council and the public should then add an extra $3 million for revenue underestimates in 1973 and remember that the underestimates for fiscal 1974 will I we believe, amount to an excess of $6 m~llion ~ You must also add to the above figures the $5 . 2 million surplus shown for f~scal 1974 . Adding all these figures together you arrive at a total of $78 . 9 million that should be available for capital purposes in fiscal 1974 ~ This figure does not include any adjustment which should be made on the city : s share of the Boulevard Ring as contained on the expenditure forecast ~ Using 38 percent as an estimated city share of the cost of the 1974 Boulevard Ring program, we find that the city should be responsible for only $5 ~ 2 million of Boulevard Ring as opposed to the $9 . 8 million expressed on the expenditure forecast . Again, we stress that we have not made any adjustments for this possible $4 ~ 5 million cost overestimate ~ The city is required to pay the construction contracts in full as they fall due, then seek reimbursement from the federal government. For a long period of time I t 'h ese payments ran substantially behind because large percentages of these payments were for acquisition costs. We are now , however, in a d~fferent phase of the expressway program, and the city is obtaining reimbursement 30 to 60 days after payment is made . This procedure will have an effectl therefore, on the amount of money available in anyone fiscal year with which to fund the contracts that have been let The expenditure forecast page shows total expenditures for fiscal 1974 of $188 . 7 m~l.lion. Of this, the city's share is projected at $41.6 million y Using the Department of Finance's own figures and considering that it takes 60 days at a maximum to obtain repayment from the federal government, we have computed that at the end of the fiscal year 1974, the city will have approximately $31 ~ 4 million due from the federal government reoresenting 1/6 of the total cost of the entire year's capital program . This figure iS r we believe } substantially high . However , deducting it from the cash -more- �"-10- balance we computed above, this leaves the city with $47.5 million with which to fund its share of the yearls construction program which is listed as ~41 . 6 million. Deducting this from the cash balance. we find that at the end of the year, when all construction can be pai d for and all operating expenses as expressed in t he budget pai.d for t that the city should end up wi th a minimum balance of $5.9 mil l ion in its construction fund at the end o f the 1974 f iscal year with the expectations of receiving $31 . 4 million to be paid by the federal government within a period of a few weeks after the beginning of the 1975 fiscal year. You must also add an additional $3 . 2 million to the balance whi c h represents the savings on debt ser~ice if the Counci l votes down the loan plan . Wh ile we believe that no compelling fiscal need has been demonstrated by the administration for the city to obtain Departme nt of Transportation loan funds from the state this year , we would suggest to the Council that, using the most conservative and responsible fi scal policy 1 it mi gh t well wlsh to allow the city to purchase,. approximately $10 mil li.o n i n l oan funds for the 1974 fiscal year ~ This unquestionably wi ll provLd e for a very comfortable cushion for unforseen difficulties in the construction program in 1974 and allow any greater surplus to go into the 19 75 capital program . We have asked the De?artment of Finance on a number of occasions to supply us with a chronological list of 1974 anticipated payments on contracts . The best we have been able to obtain is that past experience shows that expenses seem to run on a fairly equal monthly basis. W did e not like to have to make projections in such an o ffhand manner for projects involving hundreds of millions of dollars , but in the absence o f firm details from the Department of Finance , anything more is unattainablE both tb the City Council and the public . I t is the posit.ion of the Citizens Planning and Housing Association that all details relating to the accumulation and use of public fu nds shou ld be fully detailed and opened to constant review. Where such public account.ing does not meet the test of analysis " we believe that it is our responsibility to come forward and make these facts known . We assure each of the members of the Council t hat we will continue to do so until we feel that figures have been supplied on which the reasonable reliance of both the public and the membErs of the City Council can be firmly placed o We urge the Council , individually and as a whole, to separate the decision on the city's purchase of $40 million in transportation bonds from the decision it will make later today on the expressway system . The two are only tangentally related. On the one hand you a:re asked to make a decision on a massive capital orogram for this c ity and many people today have and will be spea.k ing both pro and con . The other decision, however , i s one of responsible fiscal policy and the financial credibility of the fi gures wh ich have been s up~lied to both th e public and the city Council . - mo re- �-11There is no question in our mind but that on the basis of the figures supplied which, we believE, have been substantially discredited} that there is no need for the $40 million this year . We do not believe that it is a wise and responsible fiscal policy to accumulate vast caDi tal reserves without firmly outlining the plans for their expenditures and this has not been done , Because of the contradictory nature of the figures which have been presented today by the Departmentof Finance, we suggest that the Council vote no on the $40 million in transportation bonds ~ Their need has not been demonstrated ~ We have suggested instead that the Council allow the City to purchase $10 million in bonds this August. We do not believe that even this sum is necessary, but we suggest that by allowing the purchase of $10 million in bonds, the City will be provided with a reasonable cushion on which to base the capital program. We thank the members of the Council for their attention and for the opportunity to come before you today ~ For further information contact Christopher c. Hartman 539-1369 �CHART A INTERSTATE SYSTEM 1974 City Budget , Adopted June 18 (page 625) (000 omitted) Source of Funds-Interstate 114 116 200 Federal Grants other (Revenue Bonds) State DOT Loans June 6, 1973 Aporoved to Date Total Cost 433,438 963 102,378 536,779 946,642 71,073 158,920 1,176,635 Statement- Bonding Requirements Total Interstate and Boulevard Ring 151,233~ Urban and city projects 70,767 January 21, 1972 statement - Bonding Requirements Total Interstate and Boulevard Ring Urban and City projects * *'" 192,957 ~* 57,543 does not include $71,244,982 toll facility does include toll facility prepared by the Citizens Planning and Housing Associati.on June, 1973 Balance 513,204 70,110 56,542 639,856 �CHART B Total unrepo£ted Intece.t Income ,1.4,272,354 Add i tl. ana 1 ~ Dept . of Finance unreported l.ncorne 1973 2 , 810 , 879 700,000 2,1 10,879 1974 3,363 ,20 0 700,000 2,663,200 1975 2,831,864 1,200,000 l,4i31,864 1976 2 / 411,374 500,000 1,911,374 1977 1,799,834 300,000 1 , 499 ,83 4 1978 1,668 , 924 1,668,924 1979 1 , 509,6 4 5 ],5 09,645 1980 1,476,63 4 1, 476,6 34 Prepared by the Citizens Planning and Housing Ass ociation June 1 1973 �CHART C VARYING COSTS OF EXPRESSWAY SySTEM I. II. III. January , 1972 Federal City Total Cost 1974 City Budget Federal city Revenue Bonds Total Cost 903 million .213 . 3 milli o n 1.).16 billion 946 159 million million -2h 1.116 bi llion million 1.176 billion ],,176 billion June 1973 Federal City Revenue Bonds Total Cos t 947 . 3 170.9 71.2 1 . 189 million million million billion 1.189 billion prepared by t he Citizens Plann i ng and Hous ing Ass ociation June , 1973 �CPHA CHART D CASH BALANCE CONSTRUCTION FUNDS (f~gures $48.0 4.6 12.1 in m~11ions of dollars) D.D.F . Projection as of June 30 Federal Repayment for work pr~or to April 30 Federal Repayment for May, June 1973 3.0 Revenue 6.0 Revenue Underestimate 1974 5.2 1974 D.O.F. Projected Surplus over Operating Expenses $78.9 Underest~mate 1973 Balance July 1973 CAPITAL PROGRAM FISCAL 1974 $78.9 Funds Available -41. 6 City Share - All Construction 37.3 -31.4 5.9 + 3. 2 Accrued Balance End of Fiscal 1974 Adjustment on Federal Repayment Cash Balance July I, 1974 Saving on 1974 Debt Service ($.10 on property tax) $ 9.1 million Prepured by the Citizens Planning and Housing Association, June 21, 1973 �• CIIART E SAVINGS ON NEW DEBT SERVICE Fiscal Year Debt Service Saved 1974 3 r 298,OOO . 1975 1976 2,283,000 3 , 817,987 12.6¢ property Tax Relief? lO ~ 9¢ Fiscal Year 1977 1978 3,809,108 3,805,595 Debt Service Saved pro~erty Tax Relief? 12 . 6¢ 12 . 6¢ 1979 3,826,680 12.6¢ Prepared by the Citizens Planning and Housing Association June, 1973 1980 3,860.,240 12.6¢ �cpha NOft_'roflt 0,.,. us, POSTAGE PAID CITI ~I:N' " ..... NN'N. AND H OU IING .....cel ... TI O N sao NOIITH co ..... ..,.... 1.11;"'0'., Md. :>Elt.41T No. 1 0 . ITIIIlI:T .....TINOIIIl . .... IIII1'L..ANg .,10 1 U199 Bettie Su~~~r9 3406 W kens Ave. il B81ti ~o r e . ~d . 2 1229 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Movement Against Destruction Description An account of the resource This exhibit examines community opposition to expressway construction in Baltimore during the 1970s through the organizational records of the Movement Against Destruction (MAD). Founded in 1968 as a coalition of 25 neighborhood and community groups, MAD's leaders included George and Carolyn Tyson, Barbara Mikulski, Walter Orlinsky, Norman Reeves, and Parren Mitchell. The complete MAD collection at the University of Baltimore consists of 9 linear feet of records, which are described in an online collection database. The complete collection has also been digitized at the folder level and is available in this guide. For this exhibit, 32 documents have been selected from the complete collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="http://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Special Collections &amp; Archives, University of Baltimore</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://archivesspace.ubalt.edu/repositories/2/resources/80" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Movement Against Destruction Records</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">University of Baltimore Special Collections &amp; Archives</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1968-1983 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Use of these images is governed by U.S. copyright law. The University of Baltimore Special Collections and Archives makes digital surrogates of collections accessible if they are in the public domain, the rights are owned by the University of Baltimore, the Special Collections and Archives has permission to make them accessible, or there are no known restrictions on use. Due to the nature of archival collections, rights information is not always discernible. The Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any rights owners wishing to provide accurate information. Upon request, material will be removed from view while a rights issue is addressed. Contact the Special Collections and Archives for more information regarding this image. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource text/pdf Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context R0062-MAD Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2019-09 Extent The size or duration of the resource. 32 documents Subject The topic of the resource Express highways Maryland--Baltimore Urban renewal Highway planning Community activists Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Paper Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Testimony of CPHA for the Baltimore City Council Regarding the Financing Plan for the Interstate System Description An account of the resource Press release of the Citizens Planning and Housing Association (CPHA) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1973-06-21 Subject The topic of the resource Press releases Testimony Express highways Finance, Public Citizens Planning & Housing Association (Baltimore, Md.) Baltimore (Md.). City Council. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Citizens Planning and Housing Association (Baltimore, Md.) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available University of Baltimore Special Collections & Archives Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context mad06.04.11 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Movement Against Destruction Records, series 6, box 4, folder 11, Special Collections & Archives, University of Baltimore Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Use of this digital material is governed by U.S. copyright law. The University of Baltimore Special Collections and Archives makes digital surrogates of collections accessible if they are in the public domain, the rights are owned by the University of Baltimore, the Special Collections and Archives has permission to make them accessible, or there are no known restrictions on use. Due to the nature of archival collections, rights information is not always discernible. The Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any rights owners wishing to provide accurate information. Upon request, material will be removed from view while a rights issue is addressed. Contact the Special Collections and Archives for more information regarding this image. Baltimore (Md.). City Council. Citizens Planning & Housing Association (Baltimore Express highways Finance Md.) Press releases Public Testimony https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/44124/archive/files/909f0e485d87f22c080b1445cb1c3527.pdf?Expires=1789603200&Signature=Vhk1lVz8e8bPHoUaTuZQwhBHL2O4UHEWenFi70Fr-BiMfk-WX3b4VRWifuBZEaLRmoHqsLRFZSimL-sFWnpKgbk0RJIhG8HQhpS-8-5ENnTHetS7LPII2I6XbaxujUlBGZZx1mgvGN7EiTCv06AdJri6iXJkmPDVE1Ym%7EWWnDsYWYr-imQa3pBaJ4ieK8nWibATnl7F581uqZz%7Em%7E-TRlTldpqf1vGGmJ%7Eusj9%7EESyUZBmLkGXhGq6zVg7YAbMakY%7EHVd70dq4dOtRsAjAGrA6m3g5IrWRDK36uS5KwvQOvDz4J2TA8O0qphwJBLFU0KoHdsvrK6qDnhwZeKavtA8g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 73d5075f4ba5e6d40221e3e606b56435 PDF Text Text BALT IM ORE CITY COUNCIL THOMAS WAXTER, JR. - Filth District !100M SIC. CITY HALL 100 N. HOlUDA'I' STllrT..... lTIMO"" /r,l,urLAND 21202 TlU'HOHI: Jf6...4UZ CHAl lMAN: !'OlICY AND 'LANNING COMMlnn UI .... H ""'''''IS COMMITTU IUDG£T AND flNANel COMIII ITTlI June 26, 1980 TO: All Persons Interested In The City Counci l Investigation o~ _ FROM: Interstate S~tem Th'bh,a~. kJfe1./ br'" Chairman Policy and Planning Committee RE: The Attached Report of the Policy and Planning Committee Attached is a copy of the report submitted by the Policy and Planning Committee pursuant to CC 23 concerning the Interstate H ghi way System for Baltimore City . This report was accepted by the City Council at its last meeting on June 23 , 19BO. If you have any quest ion s regarding this report or need further information, please give me a call. TW :FML :be Encl. �• < REPORT ON BILL NO. 23 - CONCERNING THE INTERSTATE flIG HI4AY SYSTEM FOR BAL TlIl0RE ClTY The Policy and Plannino Committee of the Baltimore Gity Gouncil was directed by City Council Resolution No . 23. introduced and adopted by the City Council on December 10. 1979 to revie'r" the current plans to complete Interstate-70 and Interstate-83 in 1i9ht of present conditions. The Policy and Planning Committee \'las directed to hold hearin~s. obtain current infor mation on the status of both routes, and thereafter to review and make recommendations concernin~ the desirability of completin9 Interstate- 70 and Inter- state-B3. In the event the Po licy and Planning Committee and the City Coun- cil were to consider either or both segments not realistic in terms of present conditions , the Committee was directed to examine possible alternatives and the eff.ect of withdrawal of the prior commitments for construction of either or both routes. . The Policy and Planning Committee and its staff have enga~ed in thorough and complete investigation of the present status of 1-83 and 1- 70 and with the cooperation of the Baltimore City Interstate Division and the Department of Finance of Baltimore City, t he COMmittee is prepared to issue an i nterim report. Prior to commencing hearin~s on this subjec t, meetin9s "ere held with the President of the Baltimore City Council and with the Hayor of the City of Baltimore . both of WhOM instructed this Committee to engape in objective and complete analyses of present conditions as they affect prior ex - press"ay plans. The Mayor and t he President of the City Coomcil have advised tbe Committee th~t they \'loulrl accept its fina.l recOf!1.l'!\enrlations. Thereafter, meetings were held with Nr. William Hell mann , the ~1ayor's Transportation Coordinator at the Interstate Division, and \'t'ith his assistant, Mr. Da vid Chapin. A series of questions ~·/ere addressed to the Interstate ~ivision . The ComP"littee invited re~ional representatives, including County Council Members from Anne Arundel, Harford , Howard , and Baltimore Cou nties to participate in its hearin9s in view of the regional nature of the transportation implications of 1-70 and 1-83. The Committee received informa tion and participation from the Federal Highway Admi nistration and also from the Urban f1ass Transit Authority and sent notices of its hearings to all potentially affecten community associati ons in the City of Ba ltimore. The Committee welcomed the contributions by all and believes that it heard from the t echnicians involved and the planners involved as well as from the people affected by both routes. At the first public hearing on January 21. 1980. President Halter Orlinsky forma lly charged the Policy and Plan nin9 Conmittee \"';th its responsi - bility to completely and thoroughly review the present planning for 1-70 and 1-83 in view of the on - going commitment of the City Administration to complete Interstate-95 . including the Fort flcllenry Tunnel through Baltimore City . and in view of the local funding situation as it impacted the need for requireP"le nts for 1-83 and 1- 70, particularly in light of increased construction costs and decl ining highway- user revenues. ~lr. Orli nsky's conclusion " lith reg ard to 1-70 as conceived through leakin Park , was that there was a "near concensus" among �e'ecte~ officials and the ~eneral public that this seoment was expendable and should not be built . In such an event , Hr. Orli nsky asked the Committee to examine whether there should be any connector between the Franklin-Mulberry Corridor and 1- 70 . Mr . Orlinsky directed the Committee to co nsi de r whether the high cost of Route 83 could be afforded in view of present conditions. A comprehensive report on the present status of the total expressway system was developed for the Committee by the Interstate Division . A planning model of 1-95 , 1-395 , Ha rbor City Boulevard , and I-B3 was also brought to City· Hall for examination by members of the public and members of the Commi ttee. Mr . Hellmann noted the City's highest priority was the completion of 1-95. With the awarding of contracts for the 1-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel by the Board of Estimates on May 7, 1980 all sections of 1~9S Fort ~icHenry Tunnel by the Board (5 . 9 miles) or under construction (4.6 miles·) . The Federal Hi9hway Administration (fHHA) will fund 90% of the cost of the tunnel. The local share (10%) of the project would be the responsibility of the City. However , under the Federa l Aid Highway Act (23 U.S .C. 129) , the City or State can establish a toll facility to recover the local share (10% of the project. This special l egis ) lation only applies to major Interstate bridge or tunnel corssings. The revenues from the toll facil ity ·may be used to recover the l ocal share (10%) and to pay for operation and maintenance costs while the local sha re i s being re covered. Ourino construction, the local share (10% of the project wil l be ) advanced to the City by t he Federa l Highway Administration (FHI4A) under the provisions of 23 U.S . C. 124(b). This special federal legislation el iminates the need for local funds during construction . In July 1979, the Honorable William O Schaefer, ~1ayor , requested that the Honorab le Harry Hughes , Governor . have the Maryland Department of Transportation sell bonds to cover the local share (10% of the project and to guarantee the bonds with the surplus revenues ) from the existing toll facilities in Maryland. The Mayor noted that the State 'iI'as already in the toll business , has a more favorable bond rating, and could operate 'and maintain the tunnel at a cost less than the City . Governor Hughes has agreed to the Mayor 's request . However . the Gover~or. ' s a~reement is li mited to $90 million. Therefore, the City will be responsibl e for t he local share (10%) of cost overruns that occur. 1- 395 and the Harbor City Boulevard . the second and third Admi nistration priorities, are under construction and scheduled to be opened to traffic in late 1982 and late 1981 respectively . Mr. Hellmann presented an explanation of the requirements of fundin9 for 1-7(1 and 1-83 , indicating that the federal government was responsible for 90% of such funding and the local government . or Baltimore Ci ty , responsible for 1 0~ . 1-70 and 1-1 70 would appear to cost a total of $620 , 000 ,000 ($328 , 000 ,000 .. Leakin Park; · $196 ,000,000 - Lower Gwynns Falls ; ,96,000 , 000 - Rosemont By pass) , with the local share being approximately $62,000 ,000 . 1-83 as presently proposed with the depressed alternative B m odified would cost in exces s of Slbi l'ion, with the local share fo r Baltimore City being approxi m ately SI00,OOO,OOO. 1-83 is undergoing a final approval by the Federal Highway Administration with the construction to commence in January . 1984 . The annual maintenance costs after construction for I- B3 will be in the ne i ghborhood of S850,OOO . There was a discussion of the City ' s ability to rai se the 5162,000,000 needed for the 1- 70 and 1~83 segments . The Committee believes that a more real is·tic figure will be a minimum of $200,000 , 000 for the local share for both of these -~ - �projects. The State Legislature in 1980 created additional revenues for Baltimore City by transferring 1% of the 5% Vehicle exise tax from the gen eral fund to the Transportation Trust Fund (Transportation Revenue Sharing Account). funds. This would create approximately $3 million per year in additional The legislature also transferred 1% of the 6!.j% corporate income tax from the general fund to the motor vehicle revenue account of the Transportation Trust Fund. This will result in increased revenues of about S3.4 million per year. However, with the continua11y decreasing motor vehicle revenues, due to reduced travel by the public and more efficient motor vehicles, it is expected that additional revenues are only adequate to balance tile de creased MYR . cover ongoiog : Interstate construction and possibly cover a cer- tain amount of potential overruns on the Fort McHenry Tunnel . The State legislature in 1980 was unwilling to either increase the state oasoline tax so . as to provide an additional penny per 9a110n for the CitY;.or increase the fee for automobile license renewal. In view of the reduced number of oallons of gasoline being purchased by Maryland residents as the cost of gasoline has increased, the Motor Vehicle Revenue Funds have decreased and nrobably will continue to decrease . This decreased revenue forecast adversely impacts Baltimore City's ability to meet its local share. In addition , the Committee addressed the availability of transfer of funds which have been assigned to 1-70 and 1- 83 in the event the City decides a9ainst either alternative. There is approximately 5525,000 ,000 available for 1-83 and approximately $485,000,000 for 1-70 and 1-170. The Ilayor and the Governor, together with the concurrence of the Re~ional Plannin9 Commission, are necessary participants if there ;s going to be a request and approval for transfer from one transportation project to another. A reque~t for \,,;thdrawql of federal funds and reassignment to different transportation needs must be submitted on or before September 30, 1983, to the federal government. On March 10, 1980 the Committee heard from the public and community associations concerning the desirability of completing the 1-70 segment through Leakin Park. Leakin Park was identified as the largest city park in the United States and bigger than either Central Park in New York or any other park in any other city. Approximately fifty people were present at this hearing, and some ?ourteen people testified against the proposed extension. The opponents had been fighting against the road for approximately ten years and made some of the follwoing points in their opposition: the environmental and recreational damage done to Leakin Park and those who use Leakin Park would be severe and irreparable; the cost to build and maintain this particular segment is exorbitant and funds would be better directed to be placed in a mass transit system. The Greater Baltimore Committee ~G~C) was opposed to the construction of this segment. Mr. William Boucher. Executive Oirector GBe, joined the opponents to this segment and indicated that present conditions and lack of fundin9 available to Baltimore City necessitated a re -examination of the City's prior commitm~r.t for 1-70. Those who spoke in support of the construction of this seqment did so indicating that it was a necessary part of the National Interstate Hi9hway System and should be constructed. -3- �". .On ~'arch 13, 1980, the Committee heard from person s concerning that . 1- 83 segment , Approximately sixty persons were present , with strong proponents (Jonestown Comnunity . Canton COlTlllunity and Southeast Ba lti more Businessmen's Association) , and strong opponents (Little Italy Community and Restaurants As sociations) testifying . The proponents indicated that 1-83 was essential to industry in East Baltimore to move truck traffic and automob ile traffic rapidly. There also was the concern that East Baltimore streets were bea r;n9 a disproportionate amount of heavy tr'uck and automobile traffic which could be ta ken 'from these local streets by the construction of 1-83. The Greater Bal timore Committee , again represented by William Boucher " indicated in v5ew of the fi - ' nancial circumstances and present conditions of high inf l ation and reduced motor vehicle revenue tax . the Greater Baltimore Committee was not prepared to make a recommendation one way or the other on the withdrawal of its prior com mitment for 1-83 at this time . There was a discussion of the effect of the con struction of 1- 83 \'Ihich would cause a need to relocate the l"rholesale Fish Narketo The Maryland Food Center Authority representatives testified t hat the mer chants now in the Wholesale Fish Market together with the Food Center A uthority were anxious to construct a S15 - 20 million dollar "Fisherman's 14harf l1 on Piers 7 and 8 . Such a Fishennan ' s ~lharf would integrate present Who le sale Fish sales with a tourist attraction , retail shops and restaurants in this area . The Little Italy representatives indicated that the construct ion of this segment would literally destroy their comnunity, reduce the amou nt of parking available in the area , deprive them of needed land, and divide their neighbor hood from the rest of the City. It was pOinted out by the Little Italy Res taurant Association that there was increased oppositio n to the r el ocation of the Fish Market on Fisherman's Wharf for the reason that this was a natural area of expansion for Little Italy and should be reserved as a place for thei.r development. On February 25, 1980 the COllTllittee heard from Mr . L.A . Kimball and . Mr. David Hagner , representatives of the f'1ass Transit Administration, who spoke about mass transit planning in the City . Section A \'thich will ultimatelyextend to Owings ~lil1s , Section B will be a north central corridor extension i n · which there are presently three alternatives under consideration . Representatives Of. the Comnittee engaged in a series of meetinqs in April and May \'Iith members of the Finance Department a.nd a mo re careful analysis indicated that the fo11O\... ing local shares were necessary for construction of the various alternatives: (1) 1- 70 - Leakin Park - 536 , 370 , 000; (2) 1-83 - 5113 , 534 , 000; (3) Lower Gwynns Falls Connector which \'lOuld connect the ex is ting Mulberry Franklin corridor with- 1-95 - $10,296 , 000 . t~otor Vehicle Revenues from the State · of Maryland are the source for payment of debt service. In order to complete present commitments, the City will have to issue approximately $50,000 , 000 worth of Department of Transportation bonds in 1981 . The present debt service on De partment of Transportation bonds of approximately $14 , 600 , 000 will be increased through 1986 with the additional S50 , OOO , OOO worth of bonds to a debt service of . approximately $20 , 000 , 000 annually. In addition , the City is charging sewer bonds for stonn water purposes and will have approximately $3 , 000 , 000 during the same period of time . Motor Vehicle Revenue at best is anticipated to remain rel atively constant through 1986. Present pressure, therefore , without either 1-7 0 or 1- 83 are extreme on the use of flotor Vehicle Revenue up through 1986 . In addition , the highway maintenance expenses also coming from\ Motor Vehicle R evenues are not sufficient to meet the City ' s needs . The Department of Finance's written conclusions to this COlTll1ittee were as follows : �A. The City could not real istica ll y raise tile $150 , OnO ,ooo needed to complete 1-83 and 1- 70; , B. . There appears to b~' no realistic alternative sources of fundin g for either 1-83 or 1- 70 ; C. Current financial circumstances . therefore , prec l ude either alternative. At d publ ic hearing on May 5, 1980, Mr. Charles Benton , D rector of i the Department of Finance, confirmed that under "resent conditions fundina was simple not available for l ocal requirements for either 1-70 or 1- 83 . The conclusions of the Policy and Planning. Committee and the Balti more City Council after a complete review of the proposed construction of 1- 70 and 1-83 are as follows: 1. Neither the 1- 70 seQment as proposed through Leak;n Park nor the 1- 83 se ~me nt as approved by the In terstate Division . mod i f ied Plan R, appear to be financially realistic for the City. 2. There appears to be no reasonable means for the C ity to obtain the necessary funding ·for 1-70 or the "continuation of 1-83 . 3. The leas t desirable of the blo is the 1- 70 segment , but the $1 bill ion pr i ce tag for t he 1-83 alternative . includin9 the $100 , 000,000 fo r the local share for 1-83, make the cost of this segment proh ibitive in view of the reduced availability of I~otor Vehicle Revenue Funds . . 4 . Hhile t here remain transportation-oriented support groups for both segments, there persists strong con~u nity opposition against I-70, and only t he Little Italy Community and Restaurant Association against 1-83 . The .Grea ter Ba lti more Committee, an originally strong supporter for 1- 70 , is now opposed to 1-70 and is not now committed to 1-83 but is presently reviewing its. pas i ti on wi th respect to it . 5. There exists a need for improvement of the transportation system in East Bal ti more to avoid the impact of truck traffic on local streets . Under any factual circumstances, substantial funding should be available to assist East Baltimore in avoiding unecessary and unvlant"ed truck traffic and its effects on ·local" streets and nei ghborhoods . 6. There needs to be a consideration of whether l ower Gwynns Fall s alternative is desirable and needed as a connector between the ~1ulberry - Frank ­ lin corridor and 1- 95 and the Committee is advised that currently a study is being undertaken by the Interstate Division which will assist the authorities in making this determi nation. 7. The Inters tate D vision ha s received approval and intends to comi mence construction of the new Bu reau of Animal Contro l Facil ity. The construc tion shall proceed on schedule . Should 1-70 not be constructed , the City would have to repay the Federal Government the federal share of the project, $2,000,000 . 8. There needs to be an evaluation by Baltimore City authorities and State of Ma ryland authorities regarding the desirability of the relocation of the Fish Ma rket to Fi sQerman's W harf. There furthe r needs to be an evaluation as to whether 1-83 , if not fully constructed should at leas t be ex t ended from 1 - 5- �" . its present terminus to Pratt Street. 9. There needs to be a consideration of the desirability of alternatives for the approximate S800,OOO,OOO available under the Interstate Transfer provision' for both segments, 1-70 and 1-83, in the event the City was to request withdrawal from the "3-A" System of either or both segments. In view of the above considerations, the City Council unanimously recommends as follows: 1. The Interstate .Oivision be directed to report back to the City Council on or before January 1, 1981, as follows: a. recommendations for the desirability of construction of the lower Gwynns Falls segment; b. recommendations for whether I-R3 should be extended to Pratt Street; c. recommendations as to alternative uses of some or all of the $800 , 000,000 available in the event of withdrawal of 1-83 and I-70 from the 113_A II Sys tern; d. recolm1endations as to what plans can be made for truck traffic in East Baltimore if 1-83 ;s not constructed and what, if any, other plans for funding of local streets is desirable in view of present condition of the local streets . 2. The Mayor's Transportation Coordinator shall be further directed to consult with the Mass Transit Administration to determine \'Ihat. if any. improve ment' in the Mass Transit timetable would be affected if portions of the federal funds ¥lere cOC1mitted to llass Transit rather than to 1-70 and 1-83 . Following receipt of the above reports and coordination with the Naryland Food Authority regarding plans for the Fish I~arket Fisherman's Wharf, the Baltimore City Council will consider its final recomme~dations to the Mayor and to the Governor and to the Regional Planning Council, regarding funding for both 1-70 and 1-83. ' The Policy and Planning Committee respectfully requests that this report be filed and journalized in the minutes of the City Council . ( -6- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Movement Against Destruction Description An account of the resource This exhibit examines community opposition to expressway construction in Baltimore during the 1970s through the organizational records of the Movement Against Destruction (MAD). Founded in 1968 as a coalition of 25 neighborhood and community groups, MAD's leaders included George and Carolyn Tyson, Barbara Mikulski, Walter Orlinsky, Norman Reeves, and Parren Mitchell. The complete MAD collection at the University of Baltimore consists of 9 linear feet of records, which are described in an online collection database. The complete collection has also been digitized at the folder level and is available in this guide. For this exhibit, 32 documents have been selected from the complete collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="http://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Special Collections &amp; Archives, University of Baltimore</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://archivesspace.ubalt.edu/repositories/2/resources/80" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Movement Against Destruction Records</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">University of Baltimore Special Collections &amp; Archives</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1968-1983 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Use of these images is governed by U.S. copyright law. The University of Baltimore Special Collections and Archives makes digital surrogates of collections accessible if they are in the public domain, the rights are owned by the University of Baltimore, the Special Collections and Archives has permission to make them accessible, or there are no known restrictions on use. Due to the nature of archival collections, rights information is not always discernible. The Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any rights owners wishing to provide accurate information. Upon request, material will be removed from view while a rights issue is addressed. Contact the Special Collections and Archives for more information regarding this image. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource text/pdf Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context R0062-MAD Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2019-09 Extent The size or duration of the resource. 32 documents Subject The topic of the resource Express highways Maryland--Baltimore Urban renewal Highway planning Community activists Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Paper Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Report of Bill No. 23 - Concerning the Interstate Highway System for Baltimore City Description An account of the resource Investigative report of the Policy and Planning Committee of the Baltimore City Council regarding the interstate highway system in Baltimore, as mandated by City Council Resolution No. 23, which was adopted by the Council on December 10, 1979 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-12-27 Subject The topic of the resource Investigative reporting Public meetings Highway planning Interstate 83 (Pa. and Md.) Interstate 70 Baltimore (Md.). City Council. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Baltimore (Md.). City Council. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available University of Baltimore Special Collections & Archives Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context mad02.01.67 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Movement Against Destruction Records, series 2, box 1, folder 67, Special Collections & Archives, University of Baltimore Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Use of this digital material is governed by U.S. copyright law. The University of Baltimore Special Collections and Archives makes digital surrogates of collections accessible if they are in the public domain, the rights are owned by the University of Baltimore, the Special Collections and Archives has permission to make them accessible, or there are no known restrictions on use. Due to the nature of archival collections, rights information is not always discernible. The Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any rights owners wishing to provide accurate information. Upon request, material will be removed from view while a rights issue is addressed. Contact the Special Collections and Archives for more information regarding this image. Baltimore (Md.). City Council. Highway planning Interstate 70 Interstate 83 (Pa. and Md.) Investigative reporting Public meetings