PHED Item 4
April 22, 2010
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee
~Michael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Worksession:
Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversight
SUBJECT:
Bill 1-10, Development
Coordination, Oversight, sponsored by Councilmembers
Trachtenberg and Knapp, chairs of the Management and Fiscal Policy and Planning, Housing
and Economic Development Committees, and Councilmembers Berliner and Andrews, was
introduced on January 19, 20lO. A public hearing was held on February 9, at which the only
speakers were Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Diane Schwartz Jones, representing the
County Executive, and Natalie Goldberg, representing the White Flint Community Coalition (see
their testimony, ©7-10).
Summary
Bill 1-10 requires the County Executive to designate an employee in the
Executive's or Chief Administrative Officer's Office as development coordinator for each
approved development district and each geographic area where a newly revised master or sector
plan has authorized intensive new development or redevelopment. Each coordinator would
perfonn similar management functions as then-Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Bill
Mooney perfonned for the Silver Spring redevelopment. Each coordinator can be an existing
employee; this Bill does not require the Executive to create a new position unless he decides that
no current employee can perfonn the required functions.
Applicability
In Council staffs view, this Bill would require the Executive to designate
coordinators for the Clarksburg Town Center development district, which has been approved but
not implemented, and for the White Flint sector under the revised sector plan. The Bill would
not require a coordinator to be designated for the two existing Gennantown development
districts because the required County infrastructure for those districts has been largely if not
entirely completed. Depending on the intensiveness of the development allowed under the final
plan, a coordinator probably would be needed for the Gaithersburg West plan area. For other
master and sector plans, the need for a coordinator would depend on the level of development or
redevelopment allowed in the plan.
Fiscal impact
Executive testimony refers to a "potential annual cost of in excess of
$500,000". OMB assumed that up to 4 new staff members could be needed, at an annual cost of
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
$504,600. See statement, ©5. In Council staffs view, that estimate assumes that Executive staff
do not currently perform any development coordination duties, which is clearly not the case. In
addition, much of the cost of any staff needed to coordinate the implementation of a development
district could be paid for by the applicants for that district under County Code § 14-6(g).
Economic impact
None assumed by Executive. See statement, ©6. In Council staffs
view, the economic impact of better County government coordination would be positive, with
significant time and cost savings achievable in the development and implementation processes
by both County government and the private sector.
Issues
1) Need for and role of coordinator
The Executive testimony (see ©7-8) "agrees with
the objective of the Bill" but questioned the scope of the coordinator's duties and instead
proposed that the Planning Board be directed to produce an annual master plan implementation
report which the Executive and Council would use "to inform budget and policy decisions".
(The Planning Board did not comment on this proposaL)
In Council staff's view, such a report could be a useful exercise. The White Flint sector
plan requires the Planning Board to submit more or less the same kind of document every 2 years
as a "biennial monitoring report" for that sector plan area. The Planning Board believes that its
biennial Growth Policy report, along with the special White Flint reports, would adequately
serve this purpose (see Planning Board letter, (17).
.
But the Executive's alternative, in our view, misses the point of this Bill. We understand
the coordinator's intended role to be a day-to-day function, making sure that each element of
County government is aware of what
it
needs to do to move the approved development toward
completion, just as Mr. Mooney did for the Silver Spring redevelopment. (See, e.g., letter from
former Planning staff division chief Perry Berman on ©15.) Although the coordinator would
help define and inform policy decisions, we see this role as primarily a management function
rather than a policy-making one, as the Executive appears to view it.
Council staff recommendation:
retain the scope of each coordinator as proposed in ©2,
lines 10-23 and ©3, lines 33-48.
2)
Monitoring and reporting
The White Flint Community Coalition (see testimony,
©9-10, and followup memo, ©12-14), in supporting this Bill, would expand the coordinator's
duties to include carrying out the monitoring and reporting required by the approved Sector Plan.
However, the Plan assigns this function to the Planning Board. Council staff believes that the
coordinator could be directed to take the lead in disseminating the Board's reports and findings
to the public. If any more specificity needs to
be
added to the coordinator's role as "primary
point of contact for residents and businesses located or that could potentially locate in that
planning area and the developer of any development located in that planning area" (see ©2, lines
17-19), Council staff would rewrite the Coalition's amendment on © 14 by adding a new
paragraph (4) on line 21 and renumbering the current (4):
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ill
acquire and distribute mode share measurements and other relevant data,
methodology, and results for monitoring of a master or sector plan, and
make that information publicly available; and;
The areas for which mode share measurements would be acquired under this formulation include
sector or master plan areas where mode share assumptions for those areas were used to achieve a
traffic mobility standard for a master or sector plan. The County Civic Federation (see letter,
©
16) also supports this and the following amendment. The Planning Board believes this
amendment is not necessary (see Board letter, ©18).
3) Point of contact
Council staff agrees with the Coalition that the coordinator should be
the "point of contact" for residents of the surrounding area as well as those located in the master
plan area. To make this clarification, we would insert on ©2, line 18, after in:
The Civic
Federation and Planning Board also support this amendment.
4) Specificity
Civic activist Max Bronstein (see letter, ©11) questioned whether certain
terms in this Bill, such as "intensive", should be defined more precisely. Because the
coordinator requirement could be applied to various master plans and development districts in
various parts of the County, Council staff would advise against adopting a numerical standard as
Mr. Bronstein proposed.
Mr. Bronstein also suggested that this Bill include penalties for noncompliance and
specific financing standards. In our view, those are substantive provisions that more
appropriately belong in the underlying master plan or development district resolutions.
The Planning Board proposed more precise language to describe which plans this
provision would apply to (see letter, ©18). While the Board's proposed language is indeed more
specific, it may be too specific. For example, although the Great Seneca Science Corridor is
expected to have a Transportation Management District, as the Board language would require, all
of it might not be included in an urban area under the road code. Council staff recommends the
broader standards in Bill 1-10 as introduced, mainly because we expect each major plan adopted
in the future to specify whether an area coordinator of this type is needed.
This packet contains
Bi111-10
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal impact statement
Executive testimony
White Flint Community Coalition testimony
Bronstein letter
White Flint Community Coalition memo with amendment
Berman letter
Civic Federation letter
Planning Board letter
F:\LA\V\BILLS\\ 00 \ Development Coordination· Oversight\PHED Memo.Doc
Circle
1
4
5
7
9
11
12
15
16
17
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. _ _ _
~'-"'--
_ _ _ __
Concerning: Development
Coordination, Oversight
Revised: 1-13-10
Draft No.-21
Introduced:
January 19, 2010
Expires:
July 19, 2011
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _--'--_ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
_N~o~n.!!:e'___
_ _ _ _ __
ChI _ _. Laws of Mont.
Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Trachtenberg, Knapp, Berliner and Andrews
AN
ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
provide further coordination and oversight of master-planned development;
provide further coordination and oversight of development districts; and
generally amend the law governing coordination of development.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 2, Administration
Section 2-25
Chapter 14, Development Districts
Section 14-16
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
NO.
1-10
1
Sec.
1.
Section 2-25 is amended as follows:
2-25.
Planning implementation.
2
3
*
*
*
The Executive must
4
5
6
(£l
Coordination
gf
master-planned development.
designate an employee in the Office of the Executive or the Office of
the Chief Administrative Officer as the development coordinator for
each planning area for which
£!
newly revised master or sector plan has
authorized intensive new development or redevelopment. Among other
duties, the Coordinator must:
7
8
9
10
11
ill
coordinate
the
financing
and
development
of
County
infrastructure in that planning area;
12
13
ill
advise
the Executive, the Council, the Chief Administrative
Officer, County Department heads, the Planning Board, and any
other appropriate government agency, of any action needed to
expedite the financing and development of County infrastructure
in that planning area;
14
15
16
17
ill
serve as primary point of contact for residents and businesses
located or that could potentially locate in that planning area and
the developer of any development located in that planning area;
and
18
19
20
21
ill
take or recommend any other action needed to assure that County
infrastructure keeps pace with private development in that
planning area.
22
23
24
Sec. 2. Section 14-16 is amended as follows:
14-16.
Administration of district; Termination.
25
26
27
*
@
*
*
The Executive must designate an employee in the Office of the
@F:\LAW\BILLS\IOOI
Development Coordination - Oversight\BiIl2.I.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
1-10
28
29
Executive or the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer as the
Development District Coordinator for each development district for
which the Council has adopted
f!
resolution declaring its intent to create
f!
development district under Section 14-6.
30
31
32
Among other duties, the
Coordinator must:
33
34
35
ill
ill
ill
coordinate the preparation of the Fiscal Report for the
development district as required
Qy
Section 14-8;
coordinate
the
financing
and
development
of
County
36
37
38
39
40
41
infrastructure in that development district;
advise the Executive, the Council, the Chief Administrative
Officer, County Department heads, the Planning Board, and any
other appropriate government agency, of any action needed to
expedite the financing and development of County infrastructure
in that development district;
42
43
44
45
46
ill
serve as primary point of contact for residents and businesses
located or that could potentially locate in that development
district and the developer of any development located in that
development district; and
ill
take or recommend any other action needed to assure that County
infrastructure keeps pace with private development in that
development district.
47
48
49
50
51
W
The Executive must report to the Council not later than January
li
and
July 15 of each year on the progress made during the preceding
Q
months, and the significant steps to be taken during the following
Q
months, regarding each development district for which the Council has
adopted
f!
resolution under Section 14-6.
52
53
54
[(d)]
ill
*
*
*
(DF:\LAWIB[LLSI I00 I Development Coordination - OversightIBiIl2.1.00c
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 1-10
Development --Coordination, Oversight
DESCRIPTION:
Requires the County Executive to designate an employee in the
Executive's or Chief Administrative Officer's Office as development
coordinator for each approved deVelopment district and each
geographic area where a newly revised master or sector plan has
authorized intensive new development or redevelopment.
Suboptimal coordination of County infrastructure financing and
provision in some intensive development areas.
To coordinate the financing and development of County
infrastructure for each development district and each planning area
where a newly revised master or sector plan has authorized intensive
new development or redevelopment.
County Executive, Planning Board
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7905
Applies only if a municipality is located in a development district or
does not have its own planning authority.
Not applicable
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
F:\LAW\B1LLS\IOO I Development Coordination· Oversight\Legislative Request Report.Doc
f:\law\bills\1001 development coordination oversight\legislative request r
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
Joseph F. Beach
Director
February 8,2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen,
Preside~C~il
Joseph F. Beach,
Direct~a...:.....;:::.
CounciJ Bill 1-1 0, Development - Coordination, Oversight
The purpose ofthis memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
The proposed bill requires the County Executive to designate an employee in the
Executive's or Chief Administrative Officer's Office as development coordinator; to coordinate the
financing and development of County
in.frastnJcture,
for each approved development district and each
geographic area where a newly revised master or sector plan has authorized intensive new development or
redevelopment
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY
While the authority to execute the responsibilities outlined in the legislation are unclear,
and may in fact reside with other bodies (e.g., the County Council and Planning Board), the resources
required to implement those aspects ofthe subject legislation appropriate for the Executive Branch will
depend on the complexity and magnitude ofthe development and redevelopment authorized under newly
approved master plans and sector plans, as well as the development districts approved
by
the County
Council. Whether existing staff could be reassigned or new staff is required, will depend on the level of
development or redevelopment envisioned in each master or sector plan, and the capacity of existing
staff
to perform the required development coordination duties with their other responsibilities. The following
additional staff may
be
necessary to carry out the responsibilities identified in Council Bill 1-10:
Manager I
Senior Planning Specialist
Senior Financial Specialist
Manager
ill
$162,310
$107,870
$107,870
$126,550
$504,600
Total Fiscal Impact
This estimate includes salary, benefits, and related operating costs.
Office of tbe Director
101 Monroe Street, 14th Floor • Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-2800
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
February 8,2010
Page
2
While the subject legislation
is
intended to expedite the pace of County infrastructure
development,
it
does not directly change the size or scope of such development. Therefore, it does not
have an economic impact.
The following contributed
to
and concurred with
this
analysis: Bryan
Hunt,
Office of
Management and Budget; SonettaNeufville and Diane Jones, Offices of the County Executive; and
Michael Coveyou, Department ofFinance.
JFB:bh
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Marc Hansen, Acting Director, Office ofthe County Attorney
Dee Gonzalez, Offices of the County Executive
Diane Schwartz Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Jennifer Barrett, Director, Department of Finance
Michael Coveyou, Department of Finance
John Cuff, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE ISIAH LEGGETT
ON BILL 1-10, DEVELOPMENT - COORDINATION, OVERSIGHT
Good afternoon. My name is Diane Schwartz Jones and I am pleased to provide
testimony on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett on Bill 1-10, Development
Coordination, Oversight. Bill 1-10 requires the designation of one or more employees as
"development coordinator" for each area of the County in which newly or recently revised
master plans call for "intensive new development or redevelopment.".
The County Executive agrees with the objective of the Bill to coordinate the financing
and development of infrastructure in areas with newly revised sector plans.
It
should be noted
that Executive departments balance many competing needs in their budget preparations and are
mindful of the needs of both existing and developing communities in planning areas throughout
the County. The County Executive and the County Council have historically worked together to
establish transportation priorities and will continue to do so.
Bill 1-10 seems to go far beyond the role of mere coordination and implies specific
budget and implementation priorities by referring to "any action needed to expedite"
infrastructure in specific planning areas.
It
also has a potential annual cost of in excess of
$500,000.00, which could make it quite costly in actual implementation. Realistically, numerous
planning areas would be covered by Bill 1-10 including Clarksburg, White Flint, Gaithersburg
West, Germantown, Twinbrook, Langley/Takoma Park, and Wheaton.
The coordinator -- or coordinators -- must, among other things, "take or recommend any
other action needed to assure that County infrastructure keeps pace with private development" in
covered planning areas. This is in addition to coordinating the financing and development of
County infrastructure within the numerous planning areas that would fall under this provision.
This Bill places heavy responsibility upon one or more individuals who do not approve
the elP, coordinate the elP, set transportation priorities, issue financing, approve the growth
policy, or review and approve applications for development. And, even if the planning, land use,
budgeting and funding responsibilities that are ascribed to this person or team of persons could
be funded to effectively coordinate all of the necessary information, it still will not account for
political will.
Montgomery County Code section 33A-15(c) requires as part of the Growth Policy
process, that the Montgomery County Planning Board include with the Growth Policy a status
report on general land use including remaining growth capacity of zoned land. Rather than
embarking on a potentially expensive process of staffing a function that still will not yield the
desired results given the fact that the ultimate decisions on planning, development approvals and
budget lie with others, a variation of what is provided for in 33A-15(c) would help both the
Executive Branch and the County Council achieve the same result.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Specifically, it would be beneficial to the Executive agencies and to the County Council
to have an annual master plan implementation report from the Montgomery County Planning
Board in advance of budget preparation that summarizes by planning area the amount of
development authorized within a planning area, the amount of development approved through
the end of the prior fiscal year, the amount of development projected for the upcoming fiscal
year, and a listing of the public infrastructure believed to be necessary to support existing,
approved and projected infrastructure through the next fiscal year. Given that Park and Planning
is the repository of this information, it is in the best position to provide the report. This master
plan implementation report would be used by both the County Executive and the County Council
to inform budget and policy decisions.
Again, while County Executive Leggett supports and agrees with the objective ofBi1ll­
10, he is concerned that at a time that we are cutting costs significantly, implementation ofthis
Bill would introduce a need for additional funds.
Mr.
Leggett also believes that there is a better,
more implementable way of achieving the objective of this Bill and instead urges the Council to
work 'With the Montgomery County Planning Board and Executive Staff to come up with a
Master Plan Implementation Report that will facilitate orienting budget and policy decisions in
different planning areas.
Thank you for your consideration.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
THE WHITE FUNT COMMUNITY COAUTION
Representing the wishes of the people of the White Flint area
11111 Jolly Way
Kensington, Md. 20895
February 9, 20lO
Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversighf"
President Floreen, Members of the Council, I am Natalie Goldberg, testifying in behalf of the
White Flint Community Coalition. We support Bill 1-10 as it applies to the White Flint Sector
Plan and believe that the details of the Sector Plan, the fmancial requirements, and the staging
constraints lend themselves to an objective coordinator within the Executive Branch.
This bill is particularly important to White Flint, where the coordination between infrastructure
and development is essential,
It is critical to have a person as the key contact, overseer - the coordinator - on this huge
complex redevelopment project. It is important to have someone that is not within one of the
participating county departments or agencies so that parochial departmental interests do not
overshadow the implementation of the sector plan.
We have several comments:
Community Involvement: This bill as written has the development coordinator identified
as the primary point of contact for residents located in that planning area. While these citizens
have a vested interest, those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhoods, but outside the
sector, have a vested interest as well. We would like to see the community involvement concept
broadened to include all citizens, especially those of us in existing residential neighborhoods
adjacent to new plans.
Reporting: We would like to see the Development Coordinator carry out the monitoring
program specified in the Master/Sector Plan. In particular, we desire that the Coordinator
monitor the status of staging requirements of the Plan, and submit an annual, readily
understandable and readily available report to the County Council on that status. The
Development Coordinator should also initiate or confirm when it is appropriate to transition from
one phase to another.
Monitoring of Mode Share: Because the balance between density and infrastructure in
White Flint hinges on the mode share levels of other Master/Sector plans, extensive monitoring
of mode share goals and progress reaching those goals needs to take place. We would hope that a
designated development coordinator for the White Flint planning area would have sufficient
CDmbining the strength Df cDmmunity bDdies representing mDre than
3,200 hDusehDlds and 8,500 residents in Dr near the White Flint SectDr
Crest of Wickford Condominium Association . Garrett Park Citizens Association
Garrett Park Estates-White Flint Park Citizens' Association· Luxmanor Citizens Association
Parkwood Residents Association . The Sterling Condo HOA
Timberlawn Homeowners Association . Wickford Community Association
l!.J
10\
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
resources to provide the mode share monitoring of other planning areas to ensure that balance in
White Flint is provided.
Cost: We believe that the funding for this position should be part of the financial
planning for the Master/Sector Plan infrastructure. We have seen no cost estimates for the
proposed new position and recognize the fiscal constraints facing this County.
We believe that all ofour comments should apply to both Sec. L which amends Section 2-25 and
to Sec. 2. which amends Section 14-16. We hope that the Council will give this bill serious
consideration.
Thank:
you for the opportunity to voice our concerns.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of 1
Faden,
Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
susan or max [sumax@verizon.net]
Friday, February
OS,
2010 11 :58 AM
Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office,
Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Eirich's Office, Council member; Knapp's
Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Council member; Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Ervin's
Office, Councilmember
Faden, Michael; Ike Leggett
Cc:
Subject: Bill 1-10 Development Coordination/Oversight
February 5, 2010
Dear Councilmembers:
After reading the draft of Bill 1-10 I feel that certain portions need more clarity and offer the
following suggestions and comments.
Instead of having newly revised master or sector plans being a prerequisite for designation of a
coordinator, it will be much more effective if a numerical value referring to the number of
dwelling units as well as square feet of commercial space proposed serves as a trigger. Very
large developments needing oversight can be planned for existing master/sector plans.
Along with this principle, use of words like "intensive" (line 8) leaves too much room for
dis~greement
as to the word's meaning between affected parties, so again it is suggested that
a numerical value be used as the basis for use of a coordinator. Too often legislation has
been fashioned with imprecise language which has led to unnecessary litigation which is costly
in time and money.
Another item that needs to be included is teeth. By that we suggest that there be meaningful
penalties for non-compliance and an ability to stop construction until compliance occurs plus
language that deals with insuring that infrastructure is provided in accordance with the APFO.
On line 35 there is reference to financing in a development district. Does that section mean
that paying for the infrastructure there depends in any degree on tax collections from that
development district? The answer should be clearly stated in the bill.
Additionally, we feel there should be provision for staff for each coordinator as it appears that
the scope of dealing with large developments would be overwhelming for one person.
Sincerely,
Max Bronstein
@
2/512010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
THE WHITE FLINT COMMUNITY COALITION
Representing the wishes of the people of the White Flint area
March 31. 2010
The Honorable Mike Knapp, Chairman
Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Cmte.
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Ave., Rockville, MD 20850
Dear Councilmembers Knapp, Floreen, Eirich, and Trachtenberg:
The White Flint Community Coalition supports Bill No. 1-10, concerning Development
Coordination and Oversight, which the PHED Committee will consider on April 5. We
suggest an addition to that bill, which accompanies this letter. We propose that the
Development Coordinator ("Coordinator") specified in the bill carry out several clear­
inghouse' functions, by collecting and distributing information at a few key pOints in the
implementation of development plans.
First, we recommend that the Coordinator compile and transmit data on mode share
goals for areas outside a plan - if the related mode share assumptions were used to
achieve a traffic mobility standard for that plan. This information does not seem to be
centrally located or publicly available. It is vitally important that the Planning Board and
advisory committee have it, to gauge progress on these goals for plans - like White
Flint's - where traffic mobility is important to developers and residents alike.
Second, we recommend that the Coordinator collect and distribute certain monitoring
information to the general public. This is critical information for measuring the success
of a plan's implementation. As a matter of good governance, the public should have it.
Finally, we ask that the Coordinator submit any comments on Planning Board staff
recommendations to transition to later phases of plans. The Coordinator will bring
additional expertise and perspective to matters relating to these transitions, and the
Planning Board should have any comments from the Coordinator when making the
important related decisions.
These duties should not add Significantly to the costs of the Development Coordinator
office. The first 2 functions would be carried out only as often as plan monitoring occurs,
and involve existing data. The last responsibility would occur only a few times in the life
of a plan. We think the duties will greatly enhance development coordination and
oversight, especially for the White Flint plan.
Combining the strength of community bodies representing more than
3,200 households and 8,500 residents in or near the White Flint Sector
Crest of Wickford Condominium Association . Garrett Park Citizens Association
Garrett Pork Estates- White Flint Park Citizens' Association . Luxmanor CitiZens Association
Parkwood Residents Association . The Sterling
Condo
HOA
Timberlawn Homeowners Association . Wickford Community Associatjon
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Thank you for considering our opinions.
Sincerely,
John King
On behalf of the White Flint Community Coalition
cc: Councilmember Roger Berliner
Michael Faden
2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
White Flint Community Coalition Proposed Language for
Bill 1-10
On page 2, in section 2-25(c) of the County Code­
1)
2)
3)
redesignate paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);
in paragraph (3), strike "and" at the end; and
insert the following after paragraph (3):
(4){A) compile current measurements of the non-auto-driver mode share (NADMS), for
all policy. sector, or master plan areas where NADMS assumptions for those
areas were used to achieve a traffic mobility standard for a master or sector plan,
and distribute those measurements to the Planning Board and advisory
committee for review during the same period as monitoring for that plan;
(B)
collect all raw data and methodology used for, and the results of. the monitoring
of a master or sector plan, and make the collected information publicly available;
and
prepare any comments in response to a Planning Board staff recommendation to
transition to a later phase of a master or sector plan, which comments will be
submitted to the Planning Board. County Council, and general public not later
than 3 days before the Planning Board conducts its public hearing on the
transition; and
(C)
Amendments to section 14-16(d) of the County Code may also be necessary.
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
D
Marin, Sandra
From:
Sent:
To:
Floreen's Office, Councilmember
Tuesday, February 09,201012:27 PM
Montgomery County Council
\
..
o
,
Page 1 of 1
Subject: FW: Tuesday's Public Hearing on Bill 1-10 Development - Coordination, Oversight - Item 11
054:169
-----Original Message----­
From: Perry Berman [mailto:perryplanning@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, February 08,201012:56 PM
To: Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember; George Leventhal; Eirich's Office, Council member;
Knapp's Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office,
Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember
Subject: Tuesday's Public Hearing on Bill 1-10 Development - Coordination, Oversight - Item 11
Council President Nancy Floreen,
On behalf of Jack Fitzgerald, I wish to state my strong support for Bill 1-10 Development - Coordination, Oversight. This proposed
legislation is essential to the success of the White Flint Plan. Silver Spring's redevelopment could not have been as successful
without a development coordinator office. In the coming years, White Flint Plan's implementation program will need a focused
effort from all branches of government, but the biggest responsibility will lie with County Government. White Flint needs strong
leadership to carry out the plan's vision. This office is needed now.
Please place my letter in your hearing record.
Perry Berman
Office 301-854-2098
Cell
240-888-6166
Fax
410-799-0517
7910 Briarglen Drive
Elkridge, Maryland 21075
..0
I
2/912010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(9
B\LL.
\-rD
Page 1 of2
(3)
,,\~
\D/;W/fJ'\
~~
W\\t\~
FLltS'r
SP
~Mf
Guthrie,
Lynn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
__________
~
__________
~
__ ..... _._
~
_._"'_,__.________
- =_ _ _ _ _ _ _
'~.m.'_.
..= ..........
.. ..
c-c...
M~
Jim Humphrey [theelms518@earthlink.net]
Monday, April 19, 2010 2:44 PM
",>-
:
Knapp's Office. Council member; Floreen's Office, Council member; Eirich's Office,Councilmember
Faden, Michael; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember;Montgomery County Council
Subject:
Civic Federation support for Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversight
056081
April 19, 2010
Montgomery County Council members
100 Maryland Ave. - 6th floor
Rockville, MD 20850
SUBJECT: Support for Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversight
Dear County Council members,
The members of the Executive Committee of the Montgomery County Civic Federation support Council
approval of Bill 1-10, legislation to add the duties of "development coordinator" to staff in the Office of
the County Executive or Chief Administrative Officer. We do, however, urge two key amendments be
made to the legislation prior to its passage. These amendments were recommended by the White Flint
Community Coalition, and Council Senior Legislative Attorney Michael Faden proposed language for
these amendments in his memo in the staff packet he prepared for the April 5 PRED Committee
worksession on Bil11-10 (which was postponed until April 22).
Monitoring and reporting.
We support expanding the coordinator's duties to include taking the lead on
acquiring and disseminating Planning Board reports and information on plan monitoring, including
intersection analyses and measurements of transportation mode share. The following language is from
bottom ofpg.2 of the Faden memo-­
Add a new paragraph (4) on line 21 and renumber the current (4):
ill
Acquire and distribute mode share measurements and other relevant data, methodology, and
.
results for monitoring of a master or sector plan, and make that information publicly available; and,
.
Point of contact.
We agree that the coordinator should be the "point of contact" for residents of the
surrounding area as well as those located in the master plan area. The following amendment language is
near the top of pg.3 of the Faden memo-­
insert on line 18, after "in", or near
We trust that you will carefully examine our comments as you consider Bill 1-10. Thank you.
4120/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
THE MARYLf.ND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE
CHAIRMAN
April 15, 2010
The Honorable Mike Knapp, Chair
Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee (PH ED)
Montgomery County Council
Stella B. Werner Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Mr. Knapp:
The Planning Board recommends adoption of Bill 01-10 with amendments to Section 2­
25 that would clarify and narrow its applicability. The Bill is consistent with the on-going
efforts of the Planning Department and other County agencies to coordinate planning,
capital programming, and master plan implementation.
Council staff's analysis of public hearing testimony identified four issues and made
recommendations with respect to each. Our comment on each of these
recommendations follows.
Issue #1: Need for and Role of Coordinator
The Board agrees that the coordinator would function in a management role, and
therefore, supports the recommendation t6 retain the scope of each coordinator as
proposed in Bill 01-10.
We agree with the Executive's testimony that the Planning Department's Master Plan
Status Report could be expanded to include information about development capacity
and development activity within each planning area. However, annual reporting would
provide little additional benefit over the biennial reporting currently included in the
Growth Policy legislation and supplemented by additional analysis as required in the
White Flint Sector Plan. Since plan implementation efforts are largely capital-intensive,
a biennial reporting schedule efficiently supports the County's capital budget cycle.
While we support proposed legislation that would move to a quadrennial growth policy
review as pertains to the mechanics of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, we
also support retention of regular reports on the pace and pattern of growth and its effect
on public facilities. We shall explore the value of these reports further during our
discussions on our operating budget and semi-annual report.
8787
Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Phone: 301.495.4605
Fax: 301.495.1320
100% recycled paper
www.MCParkandPlanning.org
E-Mail: mcp-chairman@mncppc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Honorable Mike Knapp
April 15, 2010
Page 2
Issue #2: Monitoring and Reporting
The Board believes unnecessary Council staff's recommendation to add language that
would require the development coordinator to acquire and distribute mode share
measurements and other relevant data and make that information publicly available.
This language does little more than describe the current division of responsibilities in
existing Transportation Management Districts (TMDs) as outlined in Section 42A-27 of
the Montgomery County Code.
In White Flint, the Planning Board will be required to submit a biennial monitoring report ,
to the Council and the Executive prior to the development of the biennial CIP. In
preparing that report, our staff will receive monitoring data compiled by the North
Bethesda Transportation Management District and analyze it for the Comprehensive
Local Area Transportation Review (CLATR), which will forecast the effects cif additional
approved and pending development and recommend needed jnfrastructure
improvements.
A similar process has been included in the Great Seneca Science Corridor Sector Plan.
Issue
#3:
Point of Contact
The Planning Board fully supports Council staff's recommendation to add language on
line 18 that would extend the coordinator's responsibility to serve as the primary point
of
contact for residents and businesses located or that could potentially locate in
or near
that planning area. We see no conflict with the Planning Department's responsibilities
under existing law, including publication of adopted plans, making Growth Policy
recommendations, providing land use information, or allowing buyers to review master
plans.
Issue #4: Specificity
The words "newly" and "intensive" in Section 2-25 appear intended to limit substantially
the application of the proposed amendments. However, the testimony indicates that the
terms have created confusion about the potential scope of the proposed legislation. To
avoid any confusion about its applicability, we recommend the following change:
Line 7: each planning area for which a ne'Nly revised master or sector plan adopted
after Januarv 13, 2010 that provides for intensive new development or redevelopment in
an area designated as a Transportation Management District and which is located
within a Central Business District. Metro Station Policy Area. Road Code Urban Area.
This modified language is consistent with the objective of the Bill to provide for
development coordination and oversight in a limited number of instances where the
scale and complexity of redevelopment will require coordination and oversight.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Honorable Mike Knapp
April 15, 2010
Page 3
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Planning Board believes that this proposed legislation will provide an
excellent framework for improving the coordination of planning, monitoring, capital
improvements, and budgeting in our most intensive and complex development!
redevelopment areas. We urge the passage of this legislation, with the limited
modification outlined above.
Sincerely,
RH:js:ha
cc:/Michael Faden
The Honorable Duchy Trachtenberg
The Honorable Roger Berliner
The Honorable Phil Andrews
Diane Schwartz-Jones
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
PHED Item 4
April 22, 2010
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee
~Michael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Worksession:
Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversight
SUBJECT:
Bill 1-10, Development
Coordination, Oversight, sponsored by Councilmembers
Trachtenberg and Knapp, chairs of the Management and Fiscal Policy and Planning, Housing
and Economic Development Committees, and Councilmembers Berliner and Andrews, was
introduced on January 19, 20lO. A public hearing was held on February 9, at which the only
speakers were Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Diane Schwartz Jones, representing the
County Executive, and Natalie Goldberg, representing the White Flint Community Coalition (see
their testimony, ©7-10).
Summary
Bill 1-10 requires the County Executive to designate an employee in the
Executive's or Chief Administrative Officer's Office as development coordinator for each
approved development district and each geographic area where a newly revised master or sector
plan has authorized intensive new development or redevelopment. Each coordinator would
perfonn similar management functions as then-Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Bill
Mooney perfonned for the Silver Spring redevelopment. Each coordinator can be an existing
employee; this Bill does not require the Executive to create a new position unless he decides that
no current employee can perfonn the required functions.
Applicability
In Council staffs view, this Bill would require the Executive to designate
coordinators for the Clarksburg Town Center development district, which has been approved but
not implemented, and for the White Flint sector under the revised sector plan. The Bill would
not require a coordinator to be designated for the two existing Gennantown development
districts because the required County infrastructure for those districts has been largely if not
entirely completed. Depending on the intensiveness of the development allowed under the final
plan, a coordinator probably would be needed for the Gaithersburg West plan area. For other
master and sector plans, the need for a coordinator would depend on the level of development or
redevelopment allowed in the plan.
Fiscal impact
Executive testimony refers to a "potential annual cost of in excess of
$500,000". OMB assumed that up to 4 new staff members could be needed, at an annual cost of
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
$504,600. See statement, ©5. In Council staffs view, that estimate assumes that Executive staff
do not currently perform any development coordination duties, which is clearly not the case. In
addition, much of the cost of any staff needed to coordinate the implementation of a development
district could be paid for by the applicants for that district under County Code § 14-6(g).
Economic impact
None assumed by Executive. See statement, ©6. In Council staffs
view, the economic impact of better County government coordination would be positive, with
significant time and cost savings achievable in the development and implementation processes
by both County government and the private sector.
Issues
1) Need for and role of coordinator
The Executive testimony (see ©7-8) "agrees with
the objective of the Bill" but questioned the scope of the coordinator's duties and instead
proposed that the Planning Board be directed to produce an annual master plan implementation
report which the Executive and Council would use "to inform budget and policy decisions".
(The Planning Board did not comment on this proposaL)
In Council staff's view, such a report could be a useful exercise. The White Flint sector
plan requires the Planning Board to submit more or less the same kind of document every 2 years
as a "biennial monitoring report" for that sector plan area. The Planning Board believes that its
biennial Growth Policy report, along with the special White Flint reports, would adequately
serve this purpose (see Planning Board letter, (17).
.
But the Executive's alternative, in our view, misses the point of this Bill. We understand
the coordinator's intended role to be a day-to-day function, making sure that each element of
County government is aware of what
it
needs to do to move the approved development toward
completion, just as Mr. Mooney did for the Silver Spring redevelopment. (See, e.g., letter from
former Planning staff division chief Perry Berman on ©15.) Although the coordinator would
help define and inform policy decisions, we see this role as primarily a management function
rather than a policy-making one, as the Executive appears to view it.
Council staff recommendation:
retain the scope of each coordinator as proposed in ©2,
lines 10-23 and ©3, lines 33-48.
2)
Monitoring and reporting
The White Flint Community Coalition (see testimony,
©9-10, and followup memo, ©12-14), in supporting this Bill, would expand the coordinator's
duties to include carrying out the monitoring and reporting required by the approved Sector Plan.
However, the Plan assigns this function to the Planning Board. Council staff believes that the
coordinator could be directed to take the lead in disseminating the Board's reports and findings
to the public. If any more specificity needs to
be
added to the coordinator's role as "primary
point of contact for residents and businesses located or that could potentially locate in that
planning area and the developer of any development located in that planning area" (see ©2, lines
17-19), Council staff would rewrite the Coalition's amendment on © 14 by adding a new
paragraph (4) on line 21 and renumbering the current (4):
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ill
acquire and distribute mode share measurements and other relevant data,
methodology, and results for monitoring of a master or sector plan, and
make that information publicly available; and;
The areas for which mode share measurements would be acquired under this formulation include
sector or master plan areas where mode share assumptions for those areas were used to achieve a
traffic mobility standard for a master or sector plan. The County Civic Federation (see letter,
©
16) also supports this and the following amendment. The Planning Board believes this
amendment is not necessary (see Board letter, ©18).
3) Point of contact
Council staff agrees with the Coalition that the coordinator should be
the "point of contact" for residents of the surrounding area as well as those located in the master
plan area. To make this clarification, we would insert on ©2, line 18, after in:
The Civic
Federation and Planning Board also support this amendment.
4) Specificity
Civic activist Max Bronstein (see letter, ©11) questioned whether certain
terms in this Bill, such as "intensive", should be defined more precisely. Because the
coordinator requirement could be applied to various master plans and development districts in
various parts of the County, Council staff would advise against adopting a numerical standard as
Mr. Bronstein proposed.
Mr. Bronstein also suggested that this Bill include penalties for noncompliance and
specific financing standards. In our view, those are substantive provisions that more
appropriately belong in the underlying master plan or development district resolutions.
The Planning Board proposed more precise language to describe which plans this
provision would apply to (see letter, ©18). While the Board's proposed language is indeed more
specific, it may be too specific. For example, although the Great Seneca Science Corridor is
expected to have a Transportation Management District, as the Board language would require, all
of it might not be included in an urban area under the road code. Council staff recommends the
broader standards in Bill 1-10 as introduced, mainly because we expect each major plan adopted
in the future to specify whether an area coordinator of this type is needed.
This packet contains
Bi111-10
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal impact statement
Executive testimony
White Flint Community Coalition testimony
Bronstein letter
White Flint Community Coalition memo with amendment
Berman letter
Civic Federation letter
Planning Board letter
F:\LA\V\BILLS\\ 00 \ Development Coordination· Oversight\PHED Memo.Doc
Circle
1
4
5
7
9
11
12
15
16
17
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. _ _ _
~'-"'--
_ _ _ __
Concerning: Development
Coordination, Oversight
Revised: 1-13-10
Draft No.-21
Introduced:
January 19, 2010
Expires:
July 19, 2011
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _--'--_ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
_N~o~n.!!:e'___
_ _ _ _ __
ChI _ _. Laws of Mont.
Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Trachtenberg, Knapp, Berliner and Andrews
AN
ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
provide further coordination and oversight of master-planned development;
provide further coordination and oversight of development districts; and
generally amend the law governing coordination of development.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 2, Administration
Section 2-25
Chapter 14, Development Districts
Section 14-16
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
NO.
1-10
1
Sec.
1.
Section 2-25 is amended as follows:
2-25.
Planning implementation.
2
3
*
*
*
The Executive must
4
5
6
(£l
Coordination
gf
master-planned development.
designate an employee in the Office of the Executive or the Office of
the Chief Administrative Officer as the development coordinator for
each planning area for which
£!
newly revised master or sector plan has
authorized intensive new development or redevelopment. Among other
duties, the Coordinator must:
7
8
9
10
11
ill
coordinate
the
financing
and
development
of
County
infrastructure in that planning area;
12
13
ill
advise
the Executive, the Council, the Chief Administrative
Officer, County Department heads, the Planning Board, and any
other appropriate government agency, of any action needed to
expedite the financing and development of County infrastructure
in that planning area;
14
15
16
17
ill
serve as primary point of contact for residents and businesses
located or that could potentially locate in that planning area and
the developer of any development located in that planning area;
and
18
19
20
21
ill
take or recommend any other action needed to assure that County
infrastructure keeps pace with private development in that
planning area.
22
23
24
Sec. 2. Section 14-16 is amended as follows:
14-16.
Administration of district; Termination.
25
26
27
*
@
*
*
The Executive must designate an employee in the Office of the
@F:\LAW\BILLS\IOOI
Development Coordination - Oversight\BiIl2.I.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
1-10
28
29
Executive or the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer as the
Development District Coordinator for each development district for
which the Council has adopted
f!
resolution declaring its intent to create
f!
development district under Section 14-6.
30
31
32
Among other duties, the
Coordinator must:
33
34
35
ill
ill
ill
coordinate the preparation of the Fiscal Report for the
development district as required
Qy
Section 14-8;
coordinate
the
financing
and
development
of
County
36
37
38
39
40
41
infrastructure in that development district;
advise the Executive, the Council, the Chief Administrative
Officer, County Department heads, the Planning Board, and any
other appropriate government agency, of any action needed to
expedite the financing and development of County infrastructure
in that development district;
42
43
44
45
46
ill
serve as primary point of contact for residents and businesses
located or that could potentially locate in that development
district and the developer of any development located in that
development district; and
ill
take or recommend any other action needed to assure that County
infrastructure keeps pace with private development in that
development district.
47
48
49
50
51
W
The Executive must report to the Council not later than January
li
and
July 15 of each year on the progress made during the preceding
Q
months, and the significant steps to be taken during the following
Q
months, regarding each development district for which the Council has
adopted
f!
resolution under Section 14-6.
52
53
54
[(d)]
ill
*
*
*
(DF:\LAWIB[LLSI I00 I Development Coordination - OversightIBiIl2.1.00c
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 1-10
Development --Coordination, Oversight
DESCRIPTION:
Requires the County Executive to designate an employee in the
Executive's or Chief Administrative Officer's Office as development
coordinator for each approved deVelopment district and each
geographic area where a newly revised master or sector plan has
authorized intensive new development or redevelopment.
Suboptimal coordination of County infrastructure financing and
provision in some intensive development areas.
To coordinate the financing and development of County
infrastructure for each development district and each planning area
where a newly revised master or sector plan has authorized intensive
new development or redevelopment.
County Executive, Planning Board
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7905
Applies only if a municipality is located in a development district or
does not have its own planning authority.
Not applicable
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
F:\LAW\B1LLS\IOO I Development Coordination· Oversight\Legislative Request Report.Doc
f:\law\bills\1001 development coordination oversight\legislative request r
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
Joseph F. Beach
Director
February 8,2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen,
Preside~C~il
Joseph F. Beach,
Direct~a...:.....;:::.
CounciJ Bill 1-1 0, Development - Coordination, Oversight
The purpose ofthis memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
The proposed bill requires the County Executive to designate an employee in the
Executive's or Chief Administrative Officer's Office as development coordinator; to coordinate the
financing and development of County
in.frastnJcture,
for each approved development district and each
geographic area where a newly revised master or sector plan has authorized intensive new development or
redevelopment
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY
While the authority to execute the responsibilities outlined in the legislation are unclear,
and may in fact reside with other bodies (e.g., the County Council and Planning Board), the resources
required to implement those aspects ofthe subject legislation appropriate for the Executive Branch will
depend on the complexity and magnitude ofthe development and redevelopment authorized under newly
approved master plans and sector plans, as well as the development districts approved
by
the County
Council. Whether existing staff could be reassigned or new staff is required, will depend on the level of
development or redevelopment envisioned in each master or sector plan, and the capacity of existing
staff
to perform the required development coordination duties with their other responsibilities. The following
additional staff may
be
necessary to carry out the responsibilities identified in Council Bill 1-10:
Manager I
Senior Planning Specialist
Senior Financial Specialist
Manager
ill
$162,310
$107,870
$107,870
$126,550
$504,600
Total Fiscal Impact
This estimate includes salary, benefits, and related operating costs.
Office of tbe Director
101 Monroe Street, 14th Floor • Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-2800
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
February 8,2010
Page
2
While the subject legislation
is
intended to expedite the pace of County infrastructure
development,
it
does not directly change the size or scope of such development. Therefore, it does not
have an economic impact.
The following contributed
to
and concurred with
this
analysis: Bryan
Hunt,
Office of
Management and Budget; SonettaNeufville and Diane Jones, Offices of the County Executive; and
Michael Coveyou, Department ofFinance.
JFB:bh
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Marc Hansen, Acting Director, Office ofthe County Attorney
Dee Gonzalez, Offices of the County Executive
Diane Schwartz Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Jennifer Barrett, Director, Department of Finance
Michael Coveyou, Department of Finance
John Cuff, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE ISIAH LEGGETT
ON BILL 1-10, DEVELOPMENT - COORDINATION, OVERSIGHT
Good afternoon. My name is Diane Schwartz Jones and I am pleased to provide
testimony on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett on Bill 1-10, Development
Coordination, Oversight. Bill 1-10 requires the designation of one or more employees as
"development coordinator" for each area of the County in which newly or recently revised
master plans call for "intensive new development or redevelopment.".
The County Executive agrees with the objective of the Bill to coordinate the financing
and development of infrastructure in areas with newly revised sector plans.
It
should be noted
that Executive departments balance many competing needs in their budget preparations and are
mindful of the needs of both existing and developing communities in planning areas throughout
the County. The County Executive and the County Council have historically worked together to
establish transportation priorities and will continue to do so.
Bill 1-10 seems to go far beyond the role of mere coordination and implies specific
budget and implementation priorities by referring to "any action needed to expedite"
infrastructure in specific planning areas.
It
also has a potential annual cost of in excess of
$500,000.00, which could make it quite costly in actual implementation. Realistically, numerous
planning areas would be covered by Bill 1-10 including Clarksburg, White Flint, Gaithersburg
West, Germantown, Twinbrook, Langley/Takoma Park, and Wheaton.
The coordinator -- or coordinators -- must, among other things, "take or recommend any
other action needed to assure that County infrastructure keeps pace with private development" in
covered planning areas. This is in addition to coordinating the financing and development of
County infrastructure within the numerous planning areas that would fall under this provision.
This Bill places heavy responsibility upon one or more individuals who do not approve
the elP, coordinate the elP, set transportation priorities, issue financing, approve the growth
policy, or review and approve applications for development. And, even if the planning, land use,
budgeting and funding responsibilities that are ascribed to this person or team of persons could
be funded to effectively coordinate all of the necessary information, it still will not account for
political will.
Montgomery County Code section 33A-15(c) requires as part of the Growth Policy
process, that the Montgomery County Planning Board include with the Growth Policy a status
report on general land use including remaining growth capacity of zoned land. Rather than
embarking on a potentially expensive process of staffing a function that still will not yield the
desired results given the fact that the ultimate decisions on planning, development approvals and
budget lie with others, a variation of what is provided for in 33A-15(c) would help both the
Executive Branch and the County Council achieve the same result.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Specifically, it would be beneficial to the Executive agencies and to the County Council
to have an annual master plan implementation report from the Montgomery County Planning
Board in advance of budget preparation that summarizes by planning area the amount of
development authorized within a planning area, the amount of development approved through
the end of the prior fiscal year, the amount of development projected for the upcoming fiscal
year, and a listing of the public infrastructure believed to be necessary to support existing,
approved and projected infrastructure through the next fiscal year. Given that Park and Planning
is the repository of this information, it is in the best position to provide the report. This master
plan implementation report would be used by both the County Executive and the County Council
to inform budget and policy decisions.
Again, while County Executive Leggett supports and agrees with the objective ofBi1ll­
10, he is concerned that at a time that we are cutting costs significantly, implementation ofthis
Bill would introduce a need for additional funds.
Mr.
Leggett also believes that there is a better,
more implementable way of achieving the objective of this Bill and instead urges the Council to
work 'With the Montgomery County Planning Board and Executive Staff to come up with a
Master Plan Implementation Report that will facilitate orienting budget and policy decisions in
different planning areas.
Thank you for your consideration.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
THE WHITE FUNT COMMUNITY COAUTION
Representing the wishes of the people of the White Flint area
11111 Jolly Way
Kensington, Md. 20895
February 9, 20lO
Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversighf"
President Floreen, Members of the Council, I am Natalie Goldberg, testifying in behalf of the
White Flint Community Coalition. We support Bill 1-10 as it applies to the White Flint Sector
Plan and believe that the details of the Sector Plan, the fmancial requirements, and the staging
constraints lend themselves to an objective coordinator within the Executive Branch.
This bill is particularly important to White Flint, where the coordination between infrastructure
and development is essential,
It is critical to have a person as the key contact, overseer - the coordinator - on this huge
complex redevelopment project. It is important to have someone that is not within one of the
participating county departments or agencies so that parochial departmental interests do not
overshadow the implementation of the sector plan.
We have several comments:
Community Involvement: This bill as written has the development coordinator identified
as the primary point of contact for residents located in that planning area. While these citizens
have a vested interest, those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhoods, but outside the
sector, have a vested interest as well. We would like to see the community involvement concept
broadened to include all citizens, especially those of us in existing residential neighborhoods
adjacent to new plans.
Reporting: We would like to see the Development Coordinator carry out the monitoring
program specified in the Master/Sector Plan. In particular, we desire that the Coordinator
monitor the status of staging requirements of the Plan, and submit an annual, readily
understandable and readily available report to the County Council on that status. The
Development Coordinator should also initiate or confirm when it is appropriate to transition from
one phase to another.
Monitoring of Mode Share: Because the balance between density and infrastructure in
White Flint hinges on the mode share levels of other Master/Sector plans, extensive monitoring
of mode share goals and progress reaching those goals needs to take place. We would hope that a
designated development coordinator for the White Flint planning area would have sufficient
CDmbining the strength Df cDmmunity bDdies representing mDre than
3,200 hDusehDlds and 8,500 residents in Dr near the White Flint SectDr
Crest of Wickford Condominium Association . Garrett Park Citizens Association
Garrett Park Estates-White Flint Park Citizens' Association· Luxmanor Citizens Association
Parkwood Residents Association . The Sterling Condo HOA
Timberlawn Homeowners Association . Wickford Community Association
l!.J
10\
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
resources to provide the mode share monitoring of other planning areas to ensure that balance in
White Flint is provided.
Cost: We believe that the funding for this position should be part of the financial
planning for the Master/Sector Plan infrastructure. We have seen no cost estimates for the
proposed new position and recognize the fiscal constraints facing this County.
We believe that all ofour comments should apply to both Sec. L which amends Section 2-25 and
to Sec. 2. which amends Section 14-16. We hope that the Council will give this bill serious
consideration.
Thank:
you for the opportunity to voice our concerns.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of 1
Faden,
Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
susan or max [sumax@verizon.net]
Friday, February
OS,
2010 11 :58 AM
Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office,
Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Eirich's Office, Council member; Knapp's
Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Council member; Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Ervin's
Office, Councilmember
Faden, Michael; Ike Leggett
Cc:
Subject: Bill 1-10 Development Coordination/Oversight
February 5, 2010
Dear Councilmembers:
After reading the draft of Bill 1-10 I feel that certain portions need more clarity and offer the
following suggestions and comments.
Instead of having newly revised master or sector plans being a prerequisite for designation of a
coordinator, it will be much more effective if a numerical value referring to the number of
dwelling units as well as square feet of commercial space proposed serves as a trigger. Very
large developments needing oversight can be planned for existing master/sector plans.
Along with this principle, use of words like "intensive" (line 8) leaves too much room for
dis~greement
as to the word's meaning between affected parties, so again it is suggested that
a numerical value be used as the basis for use of a coordinator. Too often legislation has
been fashioned with imprecise language which has led to unnecessary litigation which is costly
in time and money.
Another item that needs to be included is teeth. By that we suggest that there be meaningful
penalties for non-compliance and an ability to stop construction until compliance occurs plus
language that deals with insuring that infrastructure is provided in accordance with the APFO.
On line 35 there is reference to financing in a development district. Does that section mean
that paying for the infrastructure there depends in any degree on tax collections from that
development district? The answer should be clearly stated in the bill.
Additionally, we feel there should be provision for staff for each coordinator as it appears that
the scope of dealing with large developments would be overwhelming for one person.
Sincerely,
Max Bronstein
@
2/512010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
THE WHITE FLINT COMMUNITY COALITION
Representing the wishes of the people of the White Flint area
March 31. 2010
The Honorable Mike Knapp, Chairman
Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Cmte.
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Ave., Rockville, MD 20850
Dear Councilmembers Knapp, Floreen, Eirich, and Trachtenberg:
The White Flint Community Coalition supports Bill No. 1-10, concerning Development
Coordination and Oversight, which the PHED Committee will consider on April 5. We
suggest an addition to that bill, which accompanies this letter. We propose that the
Development Coordinator ("Coordinator") specified in the bill carry out several clear­
inghouse' functions, by collecting and distributing information at a few key pOints in the
implementation of development plans.
First, we recommend that the Coordinator compile and transmit data on mode share
goals for areas outside a plan - if the related mode share assumptions were used to
achieve a traffic mobility standard for that plan. This information does not seem to be
centrally located or publicly available. It is vitally important that the Planning Board and
advisory committee have it, to gauge progress on these goals for plans - like White
Flint's - where traffic mobility is important to developers and residents alike.
Second, we recommend that the Coordinator collect and distribute certain monitoring
information to the general public. This is critical information for measuring the success
of a plan's implementation. As a matter of good governance, the public should have it.
Finally, we ask that the Coordinator submit any comments on Planning Board staff
recommendations to transition to later phases of plans. The Coordinator will bring
additional expertise and perspective to matters relating to these transitions, and the
Planning Board should have any comments from the Coordinator when making the
important related decisions.
These duties should not add Significantly to the costs of the Development Coordinator
office. The first 2 functions would be carried out only as often as plan monitoring occurs,
and involve existing data. The last responsibility would occur only a few times in the life
of a plan. We think the duties will greatly enhance development coordination and
oversight, especially for the White Flint plan.
Combining the strength of community bodies representing more than
3,200 households and 8,500 residents in or near the White Flint Sector
Crest of Wickford Condominium Association . Garrett Park Citizens Association
Garrett Pork Estates- White Flint Park Citizens' Association . Luxmanor CitiZens Association
Parkwood Residents Association . The Sterling
Condo
HOA
Timberlawn Homeowners Association . Wickford Community Associatjon
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Thank you for considering our opinions.
Sincerely,
John King
On behalf of the White Flint Community Coalition
cc: Councilmember Roger Berliner
Michael Faden
2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
White Flint Community Coalition Proposed Language for
Bill 1-10
On page 2, in section 2-25(c) of the County Code­
1)
2)
3)
redesignate paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);
in paragraph (3), strike "and" at the end; and
insert the following after paragraph (3):
(4){A) compile current measurements of the non-auto-driver mode share (NADMS), for
all policy. sector, or master plan areas where NADMS assumptions for those
areas were used to achieve a traffic mobility standard for a master or sector plan,
and distribute those measurements to the Planning Board and advisory
committee for review during the same period as monitoring for that plan;
(B)
collect all raw data and methodology used for, and the results of. the monitoring
of a master or sector plan, and make the collected information publicly available;
and
prepare any comments in response to a Planning Board staff recommendation to
transition to a later phase of a master or sector plan, which comments will be
submitted to the Planning Board. County Council, and general public not later
than 3 days before the Planning Board conducts its public hearing on the
transition; and
(C)
Amendments to section 14-16(d) of the County Code may also be necessary.
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
D
Marin, Sandra
From:
Sent:
To:
Floreen's Office, Councilmember
Tuesday, February 09,201012:27 PM
Montgomery County Council
\
..
o
,
Page 1 of 1
Subject: FW: Tuesday's Public Hearing on Bill 1-10 Development - Coordination, Oversight - Item 11
054:169
-----Original Message----­
From: Perry Berman [mailto:perryplanning@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, February 08,201012:56 PM
To: Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember; George Leventhal; Eirich's Office, Council member;
Knapp's Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office,
Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember
Subject: Tuesday's Public Hearing on Bill 1-10 Development - Coordination, Oversight - Item 11
Council President Nancy Floreen,
On behalf of Jack Fitzgerald, I wish to state my strong support for Bill 1-10 Development - Coordination, Oversight. This proposed
legislation is essential to the success of the White Flint Plan. Silver Spring's redevelopment could not have been as successful
without a development coordinator office. In the coming years, White Flint Plan's implementation program will need a focused
effort from all branches of government, but the biggest responsibility will lie with County Government. White Flint needs strong
leadership to carry out the plan's vision. This office is needed now.
Please place my letter in your hearing record.
Perry Berman
Office 301-854-2098
Cell
240-888-6166
Fax
410-799-0517
7910 Briarglen Drive
Elkridge, Maryland 21075
..0
I
2/912010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(9
B\LL.
\-rD
Page 1 of2
(3)
,,\~
\D/;W/fJ'\
~~
W\\t\~
FLltS'r
SP
~Mf
Guthrie,
Lynn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
__________
~
__________
~
__ ..... _._
~
_._"'_,__.________
- =_ _ _ _ _ _ _
'~.m.'_.
..= ..........
.. ..
c-c...
M~
Jim Humphrey [theelms518@earthlink.net]
Monday, April 19, 2010 2:44 PM
",>-
:
Knapp's Office. Council member; Floreen's Office, Council member; Eirich's Office,Councilmember
Faden, Michael; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember;Montgomery County Council
Subject:
Civic Federation support for Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversight
056081
April 19, 2010
Montgomery County Council members
100 Maryland Ave. - 6th floor
Rockville, MD 20850
SUBJECT: Support for Bill 1-10, Development - Coordination, Oversight
Dear County Council members,
The members of the Executive Committee of the Montgomery County Civic Federation support Council
approval of Bill 1-10, legislation to add the duties of "development coordinator" to staff in the Office of
the County Executive or Chief Administrative Officer. We do, however, urge two key amendments be
made to the legislation prior to its passage. These amendments were recommended by the White Flint
Community Coalition, and Council Senior Legislative Attorney Michael Faden proposed language for
these amendments in his memo in the staff packet he prepared for the April 5 PRED Committee
worksession on Bil11-10 (which was postponed until April 22).
Monitoring and reporting.
We support expanding the coordinator's duties to include taking the lead on
acquiring and disseminating Planning Board reports and information on plan monitoring, including
intersection analyses and measurements of transportation mode share. The following language is from
bottom ofpg.2 of the Faden memo-­
Add a new paragraph (4) on line 21 and renumber the current (4):
ill
Acquire and distribute mode share measurements and other relevant data, methodology, and
.
results for monitoring of a master or sector plan, and make that information publicly available; and,
.
Point of contact.
We agree that the coordinator should be the "point of contact" for residents of the
surrounding area as well as those located in the master plan area. The following amendment language is
near the top of pg.3 of the Faden memo-­
insert on line 18, after "in", or near
We trust that you will carefully examine our comments as you consider Bill 1-10. Thank you.
4120/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
THE MARYLf.ND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE
CHAIRMAN
April 15, 2010
The Honorable Mike Knapp, Chair
Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee (PH ED)
Montgomery County Council
Stella B. Werner Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Mr. Knapp:
The Planning Board recommends adoption of Bill 01-10 with amendments to Section 2­
25 that would clarify and narrow its applicability. The Bill is consistent with the on-going
efforts of the Planning Department and other County agencies to coordinate planning,
capital programming, and master plan implementation.
Council staff's analysis of public hearing testimony identified four issues and made
recommendations with respect to each. Our comment on each of these
recommendations follows.
Issue #1: Need for and Role of Coordinator
The Board agrees that the coordinator would function in a management role, and
therefore, supports the recommendation t6 retain the scope of each coordinator as
proposed in Bill 01-10.
We agree with the Executive's testimony that the Planning Department's Master Plan
Status Report could be expanded to include information about development capacity
and development activity within each planning area. However, annual reporting would
provide little additional benefit over the biennial reporting currently included in the
Growth Policy legislation and supplemented by additional analysis as required in the
White Flint Sector Plan. Since plan implementation efforts are largely capital-intensive,
a biennial reporting schedule efficiently supports the County's capital budget cycle.
While we support proposed legislation that would move to a quadrennial growth policy
review as pertains to the mechanics of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, we
also support retention of regular reports on the pace and pattern of growth and its effect
on public facilities. We shall explore the value of these reports further during our
discussions on our operating budget and semi-annual report.
8787
Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Phone: 301.495.4605
Fax: 301.495.1320
100% recycled paper
www.MCParkandPlanning.org
E-Mail: mcp-chairman@mncppc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Honorable Mike Knapp
April 15, 2010
Page 2
Issue #2: Monitoring and Reporting
The Board believes unnecessary Council staff's recommendation to add language that
would require the development coordinator to acquire and distribute mode share
measurements and other relevant data and make that information publicly available.
This language does little more than describe the current division of responsibilities in
existing Transportation Management Districts (TMDs) as outlined in Section 42A-27 of
the Montgomery County Code.
In White Flint, the Planning Board will be required to submit a biennial monitoring report ,
to the Council and the Executive prior to the development of the biennial CIP. In
preparing that report, our staff will receive monitoring data compiled by the North
Bethesda Transportation Management District and analyze it for the Comprehensive
Local Area Transportation Review (CLATR), which will forecast the effects cif additional
approved and pending development and recommend needed jnfrastructure
improvements.
A similar process has been included in the Great Seneca Science Corridor Sector Plan.
Issue
#3:
Point of Contact
The Planning Board fully supports Council staff's recommendation to add language on
line 18 that would extend the coordinator's responsibility to serve as the primary point
of
contact for residents and businesses located or that could potentially locate in
or near
that planning area. We see no conflict with the Planning Department's responsibilities
under existing law, including publication of adopted plans, making Growth Policy
recommendations, providing land use information, or allowing buyers to review master
plans.
Issue #4: Specificity
The words "newly" and "intensive" in Section 2-25 appear intended to limit substantially
the application of the proposed amendments. However, the testimony indicates that the
terms have created confusion about the potential scope of the proposed legislation. To
avoid any confusion about its applicability, we recommend the following change:
Line 7: each planning area for which a ne'Nly revised master or sector plan adopted
after Januarv 13, 2010 that provides for intensive new development or redevelopment in
an area designated as a Transportation Management District and which is located
within a Central Business District. Metro Station Policy Area. Road Code Urban Area.
This modified language is consistent with the objective of the Bill to provide for
development coordination and oversight in a limited number of instances where the
scale and complexity of redevelopment will require coordination and oversight.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Honorable Mike Knapp
April 15, 2010
Page 3
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Planning Board believes that this proposed legislation will provide an
excellent framework for improving the coordination of planning, monitoring, capital
improvements, and budgeting in our most intensive and complex development!
redevelopment areas. We urge the passage of this legislation, with the limited
modification outlined above.
Sincerely,
RH:js:ha
cc:/Michael Faden
The Honorable Duchy Trachtenberg
The Honorable Roger Berliner
The Honorable Phil Andrews
Diane Schwartz-Jones
I