PHEDIMFP 1
&
2
October 28, 2010
Worksession
Committee members should bring any testimony from the October 26 public hearing that
you
will
refer to. Hearing testimony is not reprinted in this packet.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee
Management and Fiscal Policy Committee
FROM:
SUBJECT:
~
ichael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Glenn Orlin, Deputy Council Staff Director
arlene Michaelson, Senior Legislative Analyst
Worksession:
Bill 50-10,
Special Taxing District - White Flint - Creation
Resolution
to approve White Flint Development Tax District transportation
infrastructure improvements
This is the first of
3
scheduled joint Management and Fiscal Policy
Committee/Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee worksessions on Bill
SO­
10 and the associated infrastructure list/tax policy resolution. Other joint worksessions are
scheduled for November 9 and 16 at 9:30 a.m. The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and
Environment Committee completed its work on the Capital Improvements Program amendment
and appropriation request on October
21.
Council action on the entire White Flint financing
package is tentatively scheduled for November 23.
Schedule
Executive package
On October
5
the Council President introduced on behalf of the
County Executive a package of legislation and appropriations to finance the infrastructure
necessary for the development authorized in the adopted White Flint sector plan. This White
Flint infrastructure financing program consists of:
• Bill 50-10, Special Taxing District White Flint - Creation (see ©8-17);
• a Capital Improvements Program amendment and appropriation request (see ©29-33);
and
• a resolution accompanying Bill 50-10 (see © 18-19) to approve a list of transportation
infrastructure improvements to be funded by a White Flint Special Taxing District.
This resolution also would articulate non-binding County goals regarding the tax rates
to be applied in the district.
Bill 50-10 would establish a White Flint Special Taxing District. The Bill would also
authorize the levy of an additional ad valorem property tax to fund transportation infrastructure
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
improvements that are specified in an implementing resolution and authorize the issuance of a
certain type of bond to finance those transportation infrastructure improvements. Council staff
added more general language to the Bill's long title (purpose clause) to give the Council added
leeway to restructure the financing mechanism or otherwise amend the Bill as it sees necessary.
The Executive's detailed memo on ©1-7 explains the background of and reasons for the
proposals in this Bill and the related resolution and appropriation request.
State legislation
Bill 50-10 is based on recent state law amendments (2010 Maryland
Laws, Chapter 617, reprinted on ©24-28). County bond counsel had questioned whether added
state authority was needed to assure that the County can use special obligation bonds, which
don't count against County debt capacity, to pay debt service other than in a development district
created under County Code Chapter 14. This new state law answers that question, at least with
respect to transportation facilities.
It
also exempts any tax used to fund a special taxing district
created to pay for certain transportation improvements from the County Charter's limit on
property tax revenue.
"Buckets"
The most recent list of proposed infrastructure items in the White Flint Sector
Plan area, to be funded respectively by the White Flint special taxing district, the County itself,
and the developers as necessary to move their projects forward, are shown on ©20-22. These
lists are commonly called the White Flint "buckets". The numbers in these tables are highly
preliminary cost estimates and cannot be relied on for anything more than order-of-magnitude
projections.
As projected, the special taxing district "bucket" (see ©20) is estimated at $208 million,
or about 23% of the overall White Flint infrastructure needed. The County/State "bucket" (see
©21) is estimated at about $414 million, about 47% of the total. Many observers would not
count its biggest item, the replacement bus depot ($130.5 million) in the White Flint
infrastructure package. Eliminating
it
would lower the County/State "bucket" to about $283
million, closer in size to the district "bucket". However, the County "bucket" includes a
placeholder line, without a cost estimate, for the "CLATR intersections outside of district"; these
costs cannot be estimated yet because the Planning Board has not done the required CLATR
(comprehensive local area transportation review) analysis that will define which intersections
will be most affected by development in the Sector and require some capacity-adding
improvements. Finally, the developer "bucket" (items each developer must provide to receive its
Planning Board approvals) is estimated at $403 million, or just under 30% of the unrevised totaL
The challenge: balancing the risks
Broadly defined, the challenge facing the County in
adopting a White Flint financing plan is how to balance the costs and risks among the various
stakeholders: County government and its taxpayers; property owners in the White Flint area,
including those who expect to redevelop their property and those who may not do so; and
residents of the area.
The costs and risks that will need to be balanced are:
• the
overall share of costs
assumed by each "bucket";
• the
projected funding gap
in the special taxing district "bucket" between the
estimates of infrastructure costs and property tax add-on revenues; and
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
the extent of cost overruns in each bucket.
Issues/Questions
Council staff recommends that the Committees use this worksession to develop
questions, raised at the October 26 public hearing or otherwise, that you would like Council,
Executive, or Planning staff, or White Flint stakeholders to answer at or before the November 9
joint Committee worksession. Below are questions that Council staff have developed for outside
input and Committee consideration. Council staff does not propose that the Committees adopt
any recommendations at this worksession.
1) What is the proposed balance of costs between the special taxing district and
County government?
Assuming that the 3 "buckets" combined total 100% of the foreseeable White Flint
infrastructure costs, under the Executive proposal what percentage would each participant bear?
The "buckets" as calculated by Executive staff break down this way, calculated with and without
the County replacement bus depot (which Council staff agrees should not be listed in the County
"bucket") :
With County bus depot:
County/state funding (general taxpayers)
Developer self-funding
Special taxing district (aU property owners)
Without County bus depot:
County/state funding (general taxpayers)
Developer self-funding
Special taxing district (all property owners)
47%
30%
23%
38%
35%
27%
However, once the CLATR intersection improvements are identified and costed out, that cost
will raise the County/state (general taxpayer) percentage and lower the developer self-funding
and special taxing district percentages.
2) Has the Executive placed the infrastructure projects in the right buckets?
Should any
be
moved to another bucket, removed altogether, or added?
3)
How large is the gap between the total cost of all recommended infrastructure
and the amount for which the Executive identified funding?
Everyone concurs that the cost estimates for each infrastructure item in all 3 "buckets"
are gross estimates, subject to huge changes. However, they are what we have to work with right
now. Executive staff could discuss the difference between the Executive estimate and White
Flint Partnership estimate.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4) Is it necessary for the Council to determine now how the gap will be closed?
Is deciding the exact amount of any gap not only impossible but unnecessary at this point
in the process? Should the Council postpone this issue until after facility planning is completed
and we have further information regarding the cost of each item, including the necessary rights­
of-way? How should we differentiate between the short term gap and the longer term gap? Is
the only gap we need to worry about now the one that will not allow projects planned for the
near term (e.g. the next 6 years) to go forward? Or, to adopt a financing program, is it only
important to assign cost shares to each participant based on an overall policy decision on what
percentage is equitable for each set of participants?
5)
If
a short-term funding gap needs to be closed, what options are worth further
consideration?
Options to close a short-term funding gap, listed in the Planning Board testimony,
include:
• a higher special taxing district tax rate, so that the district can fund more items
assigned to it;
• the County forward-funding some infrastructure items, with the district repaying the
County when its tax base is adequate; or
• shifting some infrastructure items from the district to the County "bucket" - i.e.
adding to the costs paid by all County taxpayers;
• a "complementary source of financing", which could include tax increment financing
(TIF) which diverts district property taxes from the General Fund, or another tax
entirely (e.g. transportation impact tax, parking excise) paid from the district or
certain elements of the district.
Some of these options would effectively keep the costs where the Executive originally assigned
them --- i.e. White Flint property owners continue to pay for the items in their "bucket". Others
shift costs or risks, directly or indirectly, to others, mainly County taxpayers. For example,
setting a maximum tax rate in the special taxing district would effectively shift any cost overruns
in district "bucket" items to the County.
6) What role would potential impact tax credits play in funding each "bucket"?
Would the use of impact tax credits reallocate costs?
If, as the Executive proposed, the County transportation impact tax remains in effect in
the White Flint special taxing district and is limited to funding infrastructure in that district, this
impact tax revenue will pay for some portion of the County "bucket". However, some portion of
the developer-paid "bucket" will be capacity-adding improvements that qualify for impact tax
credits. In addition, as attorney Steve Elmendorf noted at the public hearing, if the special taxing
district pays for infrastructure items that developers would otherwise pay for to meet their
PAMR and LATR obligations, developers would lose some impact tax credits that they
otherwise would be eligible for. How do these cross-cutting effects redistribute the funding
burden?
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
7) To what extent does White Flint deserve different treatment than other
redevelopable areas of the County?
Should the prospect of higher revenues lead the Council to commit resources to White
Flint that
it
would not commit elsewhere? If the County focuses on revenues, would it put more
resources in the most affluent areas of the County and the areas most likely to succeed, rather
than putting resources in the areas that most need help? Should the Council balance many policy
objectives, or should the prospect of return on investment be the sole or most important
objective?
8) How much certainty can the County provide for developers?
certainty can the County provide for the community?
How much
Increased certainty for development will provide incentives to redevelop, but the County
cannot provide 100% certainty on the costs of infrastructure and the expected taxes or developer
contributions. Should the County provide complete certainty for White Flint developers but
none for others? Once adopted, the financing plan will eliminate all uncertainty related to
adequate public facilities approval.
By the same token, how much certainty is the surrounding community entitled to? They
currently have no certainty regarding how CLATR improvements will be funded, which would
be made even less certain if the transportation impact tax is not collected in this area.
9) What level of taxation would reduce property owners' return on development
enough to make redevelopment no longer feasible? Does the Executive proposal reach that
limit?
How does the entire package of proposed taxes and other exactions in White Flint
compare to those facing developers in other areas of the County?
10) Is it appropriate to continue the transportation impact tax in the special taxing
district?
If
so, should any credits be allowed for special taxing district taxes?
Or should the impact tax be continued but made payable over a longer period, as the
Executive proposed - say, 10 or 20 years?
11) Should specific properties (e.g., LCOR) that have recently spent a significant
amount on infrastructure be exempt from the special district or otherwise have their
circumstances recognized?
For example, should their projects be included in the district so that they can be
reimbursed?
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This packet contains Circle
Memo from County Executive
BillSO-l0
Infrastructure list/tax policy resolution
Infrastructure lists with cost estimates ("buckets")
District "bucket"
County/State "bucket"
Developer "bucket"
County special taxing district tax rates
New state special taxing district enabling law (2010 SB 828)
CIP amendment and appropriation request
F:\LAW\B ILLS\ 1050 White Flint - Creation\PHED-MFP )0-28-10. Doc
1
8
18
20
21
22
23
24
29
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Isiah Leggett
ROCKVlLLE. MARYLAND 20850
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
September 27,2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Isiah
Leggett,
County
ExecutiVe---f
~
~
White Flint Development Tax District:
Legislation; Legislative Report Fonn; Fiscal Impact Analysis
Amendment ($9.835
M)
to the FY11-16 Capital Improvements Program and
Special Appropriation #4-EI1-CMCG-3 to the FYII Capital Budget
Montgomery County Government
Department ofTransportation
White Flint District West: Transportation (No. 501116), $385,000
I am pleased to transmit for introduction a package oflegislative items necessary
for the County to commence implementation of the transfonnational White Flint Sector Plan.
This sector plan, a model for smart growth, will be a platform for exciting new redevelopments
that will make the White Flint area more pedestrian and bicycle friendly as well as inviting for
residents and businesses.
Enclosed for introduction is legislation creating the new White Flint Development
Tax District which will implement the financing vehicle envisioned by the recently adopted
White Flint Sector Plan. If implemented this district will help fund some of the extensive public
infrastructure called for in the Sector Plan. A resolution accompanies the draft legislation. The
resolution identifies the specific list of transportation infrastructure to be funded by the White
Flint Development Tax District and includes a district funding and rate setting policy statement.
With the legislation and the resolution, I am transmitting an amendment to the
FYl1-16 Capital Improvements Program and a supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$385,000 to the FY 11 Capital Budget for the new
White
Flint District West: Transportation
project (No. 501116) to enable design to begin on infrastructure to be paid for from White Flint
Development Tax District funds. This work is critically important to refine the assumptions
relative to the district for roadway improvements in the first stage of the recently approved White
Flint Sector Plan. This project is needed
to
accelerate the preliminary engineering for one new,
one relocated and three existing roads, and one new bikeway, so that more accurate designs and
cost estimates can be established. Funds
to
pay for analysis and studies necessary to implement
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
September 27, 2010
Page 2
the district are also included. The recommended amendment is consistent with the criteria for
amending the CIP in that this project supports significant economic development initiatives,
which in turn will strengthen the long tenn fiscal capacity of the County government. The new
growth planned for the White Flint area in accordance with the recently approved Sector Plan
will revitalize the region and strengthen the County as a whole. These road and bikeway
improvements will greatly aid and expedite the planned development for the area
Other specific Capital Improvements Projects for development district
infrastructure will be transmitted with the FY12 amendments in January. To address
transportation impact taxes in White Flint, I intend to send a second bill to the Council that will
modify the transportation impact tax as it relates to the White Flint Sector Plan Area. The
modifications that I will be recommending are
to
retain the 50 percent metro station policy area
rate that applies throughout the district, but require that the tax be applied only for infrastructure
within or related to the development within the White Flint Sector Plan. This would include
intersections identified through the comprehensive local area transportation review that require
improvement due to development within the district. I believe that the opportunity to pay this
tax over time rather than as a lump sum payment up front should be available provided that
property owners who are benefitting provide a first lien to the County.
The packet that is transmitted with this memorandum reflects many months of
meeting with stakeholders and interested parties. Executive staffhas held a series ofmeetings
with developer and resident stakeholders, along with Planning Board and County Council staff,
to develop the list of improvements that will be funded by the special district tax and the key
elements ofthe district enabling legislation. While the attached draft legislation does not
necessarily reflect a consensus of the stakeholders, it does reflect significant input from
all
ofthe
interests represented.
To assist the Council in its deliberations and to facilitate the public discussion
regarding this package, I am providing the Council with some of the key considerations that went
into the funding plan that is reflected in the attached package.
The Special Tax District
One of the underpinnings of the White Flint Sector Plan is that there be a new funding
mechanism to pay for some of the significant transportation infrastructure that is called for in the
plan, including the creation ofworkarounds, street grids, streetscaping and bike lanes. With the
limitations of Charter Section 305, it is important that the new
tax
be structured so that it does
not use up fiscal capacity within that limitation and thus preclude the availability of these funds
for other important projects in the County.
The development
tax
district is simple, straightforward and can be easily implemented
- all important considerations for the timely realization ofthe redevelopment ofWhite Flint
The development tax district also proVides for certainty ofrevenues and spreads the burden
equally over the entire plan area - except for existing residential which is to be outside of the
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
September 27,2010
Page 3
district. The legislation, which is to be adopted under recently enacted Senate Bill 828, gives
bond counsel, and the bond market greater certainty in the County's authority to implement the
district and impose an ad valorem tax on all properties except for existing developed residential.
In
addition, under this special authority, the bonds can be issued as special obligation bonds, the
debt service ofwhich will not compete for capacity with other County debt. The development
district tax is intended to be implemented in time for the FY12 tax bill.
The development district tax provides substantial benefits to property owners within
the plan area while protecting the County taxpayer from the greater fiscal burden. The County
has historically required that development pay for itself. With development density doubling
throughout the sector plan area, the special tax district provides a means of assessing properties
to ensure the government's lower rate of financing for infrastructure that would historically have
been required of developers to meet transportation capacity requirements. The County's
financing rates are less than rates that the private sector could obtain.
In
addition to the near
doubling of development density, the
quidpro quo
for this additional tax is that properties that
are being redeveloped will not be required to go through the transportation capacity reviews that
are generally required to satisfy adequate public facilities review. With the steady flow of tax
revenues, there is better certainty that the district roads will be built rather than relying on
piecemeal development to drive the delivery of needed improvements and capacity. This
certainty benefits the property owners as well as the residents
and
businesses of Montgomery
County who must navigate the area. Another benefit ofthe special district tax is that it is simply
fairer. The entire sector plan area picks up the expenses rather than those that are first-in with a
development application being charged disproportionately.
Other tax mechanisms were considered but
all
in all, for the certainty, reliability, ease
of implementation and fairness, the special tax district is the better way to go for the White Flint
Sector Plan area. Some of the other revenue raising mechanisms that were evaluated but rejected
in favor of the recommended funding plan included:
Tax Increment Financing
(I1F).
This was an approach that had been initially
suggested by some in the development community and was discussed by Planning Board staff.
This mechanism has been rejected for a number of reasons.
As
a funding source it has issues of
reliability, constraints on fiscal management and equity concerns. Tax increment financing
pledges increases in tax revenues to pay for infrastructure. As evidenced by recent history, the
development cycle and reliability ofprojections can be difficult to predict and sometimes wrong.
TIFs are dependent upon development moving forward on a predictable schedule. If
redevelopment does not occur, the remainder of the County - and in this case the general fund­
would have to pick up the
fiscal
obligations ofthe debt. This particular funding approach is
more typically used in blighted areas and is better suited to large tracts ofland that will be
redeveloped rather than piecemeal property ownerships reflected in the White Flint Sector Plan
area The lack of assurance of a critical mass ofredevelopment occurring is challenging for the
issuance of debt, particularly
in
the context of the sector plan where improvements and capacity
are critical to the implementation and staging ofthe plan.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
September 27, 2010
Page 4
It
is also worth pointing out that a TIF would use
tax
revenues that are subject to
Charter Section 305 limits and would therefore force the funding for these roads to compete with
schools, libraries, fire stations, community centers, etc. throughout the County. A TIF also raises
fundamental equity issues. Developers would be paying increased taxes based on increases in
assessments if they redevelop. They would not be paying for infrastructure as has been
historically and is currently required throughout the County. This would be a departure from the
general and longstanding policy that development must pay for itself. Wbile the rest of the
county would bear the overall total expenses from redevelopment and the risk of carrying up
to
the full load of that funding if development did not take place as represented, there would be
little risk to the development community and their revenues would be pledged to bettering Wbite
Flint only, rather than other areas of the County_ Further, the County would lose significant
flexibility as it manages through difficult :fiscal years. Pledging revenues right off the top, while
retaining the burden of providing the infrastructure is ill-advised, particularly given recent
experiences with our economy.
Some within the development community have proposed
both
a TIF and a special
tax
district with the special tax district being a back up only if the taxable base for the TIF fails to
increase as projected when the debt is issued. For a number of reasons, such an approach is
unworkable and impractical and will create financial uncertainty. Implicit in the suggestion is
the fact that the TIF is in itself risky. The district tax would by necessity have to be higher up
front because it would be bailing out a failed TIF pursuant to which debt had already been
incurred. This would be a significant hardship for the residents and businesses that moved to
Wbite Flint under the expectation of a TIF only and then find themselves facing a district
tax
that
would need to be set high enough to bailout the failed TIF. The simplicity of the straight
development district tax that I am recommending is a far better approach as it can be set at the
outset before new development proceeds in Wbite Flint and revenues can begin to be generated
before any debt
is
issued.
It
provides greater stability and certainty to the County taxpayer, the
residents and property owners.
Special Assessments:
This was rejected because under current law it is based upon
front footage and would be an extremely inequitable way of funding the needed infrastructure.
Chapter
14
Development District:
This fonn of district funding is more cumbersome
and requires multiple council actions.
It
inherently has points following creation where
controversy can arise and create uncertainty.
It
is dependent upon the votes of participants and
by design would capture less
than
the entire district, reducing the equity of the district and
increasing the likelihood ofthe rate increasing to ensure the revenues to be generated.
In
sum, it
would be more difficult to put in place, and is better suited to large tracts ofland that will be
redeveloped rather than piecemeal property ownersbips reflected in the White Flint Sector Plan
area.
It
will also be sigillficantly more time consuming to implement, calling into question
timelines that are assumed or necessary to begin implementation of the Wbite Flint Sector Plan.
History calls into question whether the district would ever be realized.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
September 27, 2010
Page 5
Excise Tax:
Excise taxes were also evaluated. It was concluded that an excise tax
would be more difficult to implement as the targeted stakeholders may have concerns about
fairness oftaxation and the bond markets would need to understand the nuances of a newly
developed excise tax. Additionally, the taxing of an activity that would occur in other locations
within the County could generate interest and concerns on the part of similar enterprises. The
County's recent experience with a proposed tax on surface parking lots illustrates the concern.
Issues Discussed
Seven primary areas of concerns were raised by the stakeholders in worksessions: 1)
the tax is to be spent only
in
the White Flint Sector Plan area; 2) the
tax
is to be for a defined list
of infrastructure; 3) the period of time during which the tax is to be collected is to be finite; 4)
the tax should not exceed 10 percent of the current rate; 5) existing residential should not be
charged; 6) the tax should replace transportation impact taxes; and 7) ifthe tax is insufficient to
fund all of the infrastructure
in
the list during any stage of the plan, the County should commit to
funding the difference.
I am not recommending everything that was raised by all of the stakeholders; I am
however recommending much of what was raised. I very much appreciate the commitment,
level of effort,
and
forthright and informed discussions and support provided by developers,
residents, and staffs of the Planning Board, the Council and the Executive Branch throughout the
stakeholder worksessions over the spring and summer. These efforts have resulted in a funding
plan that can be readily implemented and have helped to focus the issues that will likely be
raised for discussion at the County Council.
The bill that I am sending to you requires that the tax be spent only in the White Flint
Sector Plan and only for the list ofinfrastructure in the accompanying resolution.
It
is also for a
finite period of time and will expire when sufficient revenues have been raised to pay for all of
the infrastructure items on the list. The boundaries ofthe district have been set to exclude
existing residential properties. I am not recommending a cap on the tax rate in the bill, but I
have recommended a stated policy in the resolution that the
tax
rate should not exceed
10
percent
of the total tax rate not including the development tax. The reason I have not included a cap in
the legislation
is
that I am concerned that doing so will result in a less favorable rating on any
bonds that are issued, which in
tum
would result in a higher interest rate on the bonds. This
would make the infrastructure more expensive to the tax payers. I believe that concerns over the
level ofthe tax rate can be addressed through the implementation process and adherence to a 10
percent policy goal.
The two areas I am not prepared to recommend at this time are that the transportation
impact
tax
not apply and that the County commit to fund any gap if the district revenues are not
adequate to cover the projected costs for the development tax district infrastructure. The cost
projections that are identified for the district infrastructure are estimates. The County's estimates
and the White Flint Partnership's (a group of White Flint developers) are fairly consistent, and
both include many assumptions which ifnot borne out will result in changes to the projected
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
Sep~ber27,2010
Page 6
costs for the infrastructure. One key area where this can occur is in the area ofthe costs of right­
of-way for the many roads provided for in the plan. These roads carve through properties and
the White Flint Sector Plan is predicated on an optimistic assumption that the grid of roads as
they cut through properties will result in new blocks ofproperties that can serve as the basis for
exchanges oflands.
It
is also assumed that there will be extensive dedications of rights-of-way for these
roads. If these assumptions are wrong, the risk of potential gaps in cost versus revenue
generation will be greatly increase and the County could be at risk for a substantial sum of
money. Likewise. these assumptions reflect current construction prices. which may be more
favorable than in a recovered economy. Another area that impacts costs is how the Planning
Board views the state of some of the existing roads. As part of the stakeholder worksessions
Planning Board staff. a representative of the White Flint Partnership and representatives from the
Department of Transportation and the Department of General Services walked some of the
existing Sector Plan roads to get a sense ofwhat is needed to complete streetscaping along these
roads for purposes of authorizing moving from one stage of the plan to the next. This
collaborative effort resulted
in
conclusions that some roads are satisfactorily completed for that
purpose and the costs could therefore be removed from the development tax district.
Significant staff and stakeholder effort was spent developing an understanding of the
above described assumptions and any potential gap between the costs ofthe infrastructure and
the revenues projected to be generated by the district.
It
has been suggested that the County
commit up front to cover any "gap." Among other problems, this request is for an as yet
undefined amount ofmoney in an as yet undefined CIP budget. I cannot commit an undisclosed
amount ofmoney for future years, nor can the Council. I also believe that it would be ill advised
to commit to fund an amount of money that mayor may not be needed - particularly given the
many important needs throughout the County that must compete for that same money.
.As
for the transportation impact tax, I weigh the fact that development density in the
White Flint Sector Plan area was just doubled or nearly doubled for a majority ofproperties; that
development is relieved ofthe need for transportation capacity review; and that the entire plan
area is a Metro station policy area which translates into an already reduced rate of SO percent of
the transportation impact tax rate. I believe that, at least at this point in time, it would be
imprudent to recommend elimination of the tax. However, I am recommending that those
tax
revenues be committed to being spent within the White Flint Sector Plan area or for
improvements needed due to the increased development recently authorized for this area. I
recognize that we are in the throes of - and hopefully emerging from - a significant recession
and
that the private financing realm will be different - particularly at the outset. Therefore, I do
think
that it makes sense to allow developers the opportunity to pay the tax over a period oftime
(perhaps 10 years to get to project stabilization) if they are able to provide the County with a first
lien to assure the payment of the deferred transportation impact tax.
I recommend that the County Council approve the legislation, resolution and
amendment to the FYll-16 Capital Improvements Program and special appropriation in the
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
September 27, 2010
Page 7
amount of $385,000 and specify the source of funds as Current Revenue General with repayment
in
FY12
from White Flint Development District tax funds. These efforts will allow
us
to
implement the White Flint Sector Plan which, as
I
mentioned at the outset,
will
be
transformational, smart growth of which we can all be extremely proud.
I
appreciate your prompt consideration of these actions.
IL:ad
Attachments: Legislation to create the White Flint Development Tax; Infrastructure and Policy
Resolution; Amendment to the FY11-16 Capital Improvements Program and
Special Appropriation #4-EII-CMCG-3; Fiscal Impact Analysis
cc:
Jennifer Barrett, Director, Department ofFinance
Joe Beach, Director, Department of Management and Budget
Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Mike Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, County Council
Marc Hansen, Acting County Attorney
Ken Hartman, Director, BeC Regional Service Center
Art
Holmes, Director, Department ofTransportation
Diane Schwartz Jones, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
50-10
Concerning: Special Taxing District ­
White Flint - Creation
Revised: 10-1-10
Draft No. 2
Introduced:
October 5, 2010
Expires:
April 5, 2012
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _--:-:_ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
--,-,-No=n~e_--::-
_ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request ofthe County Executive
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
establish a White Flint Special Taxing District;
authorize the levy of an
ad valorem
property tax to fund certain
transportation infrastructure improvements;
authorize the issuance of a certain type of bond to finance certain
transportation infrastructure improvements;
generally authorize a White Flint Special Taxing District; and
generally amend or supplement the laws governing the use of
infrastructure financing districts and similar funding mechanisms.
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 68C, White Flint Special Taxing District
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. 50-10
Sec
1.
Chapter 68C is added as follows:
2
Chapter 68C. White Flint Special Taxing District.
Definitions.
4
For purposes of this Chapter, the following tenns have the meanings indicated:
Bond
means a special obligation or revenue bond, note or other similar
5
6
7
instrument issued by the County that will be repaid from revenue
generated by ad valorem taxes levied under this Chapter.
Cost
means the cost of:
8
9
10
11
12
13
ill
the
construction,
reconstruction,
and
renovation
of any
the
transportation
infrastructure
improvement,
including
acquisition of any land, structure, real or personal property,
~
right-of-way, franchise, or easement, to provide
f!
transportation
infrastructure improvement for the District;
14
ill
ill
all machinery and equipment needed to expand or enhance
f!
transportation infrastructure improvement for the District;
financing charges and debt service related to
f!
transportation
infrastructure improvement for the District, whether the charge or
debt service is incurred before, during, or after construction of the
transportation infrastructure improvement, including the cost of
issuance, redemption premium
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ill
ID!Y1
and replenishment of
debt service reserve funds for any bond that finances a
transportation infrastructure improvement for the District;
22
23
24
ill
reserves for principal and interest, the cost of bond insurance, and
any other
~
of financial guarantee, including any credit or
25
liquidity enhancement, related to
f!
transportation infrastructure
improvement for the District;
26
-2 -
F:\LAW\B1LLSIIOSO 'Wbite Flint· Creationl1050 Bill 2 introDOC
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
50-10
27
28
ill
architectural, engineering, financial, and legal services related to
providing
f!
transportation infrastructure improvement for the
District;
29
30
31
®
any plan, specification, study, survey, or estimate of costs and
revenues related to providing
f!
transportation infrastructure
improvement for the District;
32
33
ill
any administrative expense incurred
.Qy
the County necessary or
incident to determining whether to fmance or implement a
transportation infrastructure improvement for the District; and
34
35
36
37
38
39
lID
any other expense incurred
.Qy
the County necessary or incident
to building, acquiring, or financing
f!
transportation infrastructure
improvement for the District.
District
means the White Flint Special Taxing District created under
40
41
Section 68C-2.
Transportation infrastructure improvement
means:
42
43
44
45
ill
the construction, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of
f!
road, street,
or highway that serves the District, including any:
CA)
ill.)
right--of-way;
roadway surface;
roadway subgrade or shoulder;
median divider;
drainage facility or structure, including any related
stormwater management facility or structure;
46
47
48
49
50
51
(Q
.em
ill)
ill
(ill
(ill
roadway cut or fill;
guardrail;
bridge;
highway grade separation structure;
-3-
F:\LAW\BILLS\1050 White Flint - Creation\!050 Bill 2 Intro.DOC
52
53
ill
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 50-10
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
68C-2.
ill
CK)
tunnel;
overpass, underpass, or interchange;
entrance plaza, approach, or other structure that is an
integral part ofg street, road, or highway;
aJ
CM)
ill)
bicycle or walking path;
designated bus lane;
sidewalk or pedestrian plaza;
streetscaping and related infrastructure; including placing
utilities underground; and
ill.)
®
(Q)
other property acquired to construct, operate, or use g road,
street, or highway; and
ill
g transit facility that serves the needs of the District, including
any:
CA)
ill)
(g
ill)
track;
right-of-way;
bridge;
tunnel;
subway;
rolling stock;
station or tenninal;
parking area;
related equipment, fixture, building, structure, or other real
or personal property; and
ilil
(E)
(ill
CH)
ill
ill
service intended for use in connection with the operation
of g transit facility, including rail, bus, motor vehicle, or
other mode of transportation.
Creation; Boundaries.
-4-
F:\LAw\BILLS\J050 White Flint· Creation\1050 BiII2lntro.OCX::
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 50-10
81
82
!ill
(Q)
The White Flint Special Taxing District is cotenninous with the
approved and adopted White Flint Sector Plan area.
The following properties, identified
Qy
street address, are not included
in the District: 11700 Old Georgetown Road, 11701 Old Georgetown
Road, 11750 Old Georgetown Road, 11800 Old Georgetown Road,
11801 Rockville Pike, 5800 Nicholson Lane, 5802 Nicholson Lane,
5809 Nicholson Lane, 5440 Marinelli Road, 5503 Edson Lane, 5505
Edson Lane, 5507 Edson Lane, 5509 Edson Lane, 11201 Woodglen
Drive, 11203 Woodglen Drive, 11205 Woodglen Drive, 11207
Woodglen Drive, 11209 Woodglen Drive, 11200-11219 Edson Park
Place, 11222 Edson Park Place, 11224 Edson Park Place, 11226 Edson
Park Place, 11228 Edson Park Place, 11230 Edson Park Place, 11232
Edson Park Place, 11234 Edson Park Place, 11236 Edson Park Place,
11238 Edson Park Place, and 11240 Edson Park Place.
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
68C-3.
Levy
of
Tax;
Limits.
Each tax year the County Council may
!ill
kYY
against all the
~
assessable
real and personal property in the District
sum on each $100 of
98
99
assessable property that does not exceed an amount sufficient to cover
the costs of transportation infrastructure improvements that have been
identified in
~
Council resolution approved under Section 68C-4.
(Q)
100
101
Under Section 9-1302 of Article 24, Maryland Code, the limit in
Charter Section 305 on levies of ad valorem taxes on real property to
finance County budgets does not
illm.lY
to revenue from any tax imposed
under this Chapter.
102
103
104
105
106
W
The tax imposed under this Chapter must be levied and collected as
other County property taxes are levied and collected.
- 5-
F:\LAw\BILLS\1050 White Flint - Crealion\1050 Bill 2 Inlro.DOC
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
50-10
107
108
109
110
@
The tax imposed under this Chapter has the same priority, bears the
same interest and penalties, and in every respect must be treated the
same as other County property taxes.
68C-4.
{ill
Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Resolution.
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
After holding
§;
public hearing, the Council may approve
§;
resolution
that lists each transportation infrastructure improvement that would be
entirely or partly paid for
Qy
§;
tax imposed under Section 68C-3.
(hl
The resolution must indicate the estimated cost, including
§;
contingency
amount, for each listed improvement.
ill
@
The Council may amend the resolution after holding
§;
public hearing.
The Council must present the resolution and each amended resolution to
the Executive for approval or disapproval. If the Executive disapproves
§;
resolution within 10 days after it is transmitted to the Executive and
120
121
122
123
the Council readopts the resolution
Qy
§;
vote of
§
Councilmembers, or if
the Executive does not act within 10 days after the resolution is
transmitted, the resolution takes effect.
W
Before the Council holds
§;
public hearing under subsection
{ill
or
(£1
124
125
126
the Executive should transmit to the Council:
ill
§;
list of recommended transportation infrastructure improvements
§;
to be entirely or partly paid for
Qy
68C-3;
tax imposed under Section
127
128
129
ill
ill
the estimated cost, including
listed improvement; and
§;
contingency amount, for each
130
131
an estimated tax rate for each tax to be imposed under Section
68C-3.
-6-
F:\LAW\BILLS\1050 White Flint - Creation\1050 BiII2lntro.DOC
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No.
50-10
132
133
68C-S.
(ill
District Fund.
The Director of Finance must establish
~
separate fund for the proceeds
collected from any tax imposed under this Chapter. The proceeds of
any tax imposed under this Chapter must be pledged to and paid into
this fund.
134
135
136
137
138
(Q)
The Director of Finance must use this fund only to
lli!Y
the cost of any
transportation infrastructure improvement related to the District.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
W
If in any fiscal year
§:
balance remains in the fund, the Director of
Finance may use the balance to:
ill
ill
ill
ill
lli!Y
the cost of any transportation infrastructure improvement for
the District;
create
~
reserve to
lli!Y
the future costs of any transportation
infrastructure improvement for the District;
lli!Y
bond-related obligations or retire bonds then outstanding; or
lli!Y
into
§:
sinking fund required
Qy
the terms of bonds which
finance the cost of any transportation infrastructure improvement
for the District that may be incurred or accrue in later years.
68C-6.
(ill
Issuing Bonds.
Before the County issues any bond payable from ad valorem taxes
levied under Section 68C-3, the Council must adopt
§:
resolution
authorizing the issuance of bonds that meets the requirements of this
Section.
153
154
155
(Q)
Each resolution under this Section must:
ill
ill
describe the
~
of transportation infrastructure improvements
156
157
and related costs to be financed; and
specify the maximum principal amount of bonds to be issued.
-7-
F:\LAw\BfLLS\1050 White Flint - Creation\I050 Bill 2 Intro.DOC
(jj)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
50-10
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
(£)
Each resolution may specify, or authorize the Executive
Qy
executive
order to specify:
ill
ill
ill
@
the actual principal amount of bonds to be issued;
the actual rate or rates of interest for the bonds;
how and on what terms the bonds must be sold;
how, when, and where principal
must be paid;
m:
and interest on, the bonds
ill
®
ill
®
(2)
when the bonds may be executed, issued, and delivered;
the form and tenor of the bonds, and the denominations in which
the bonds may be issued;
how any or all of the bonds may be called for redemption before
their stated maturity dates;
the nature and size of any debt service reserve fund;
the pledge of other assets in and revenues from the District to
!mY
the principal of and interest on the bonds;
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
.QQ}
any bond insurance or any other financial guaranty or credit or
liquidity enhancement of the bonds; and
{ill
any other provision consistent with law that is necessary or
desirable
to
finance
any
transportation
infrastructure
improvement that has been identified in
£!
Council resolution
approved under Section 68C-4.
@
ill
The County covenants to
kIT
ad valorem taxes against all
assessable real and personal property in the District at
£!
rate and
amount sufficient in each year when any bonds are outstanding
to:
®
provide for the payment of the principal
m:
interest on, and
@
redemption premium if any.. on the bonds;
-8-
F:\LA W\BILLS\lOSO "\lhite Flint - Creation\IOS0 Bill 2Intro.DOC
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 50-10
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
tID
(Q
replenish any debt service reserve fund established with
respect to the bonds; and
provide for any other purpose related to the ongomg
expenses of and security for the bonds.
(2)
The County further covenants, when any bond is outstanding, to
enforce the collection of all ad valorem taxes under this Chapter
as provided by applicable law.
W
All proceeds received from any issuance of bonds must be applied
solely towards costs of the transportation infrastructure improvements
listed in the resolution adopted under Section 68C-4, including the cost
of issuing bonds and payment of the principal
interest on, and
redemption premium if any, on the bonds.
ill
The bonds issued under this Chapter:
ill
are special obligations of the County and do not constitute
!!
general obligation debt of the County or
!!
pledge of the County's
full faith and credit or the County's general taxing power;
201
202
203
(2)
may be sold in any manner, either at public or private sale, and on
terms as the Executive approves;
ill
(1)
are not subject to Sections 10 and
Code; and
11
of Article 31, Maryland
204
205
must be treated as securities to the same extent as bonds issued
under Section 9-1301 of Article 24, Maryland Code.
206
207
{g}
To the extent provided by law, the bonds. their transfer, the interest
payable on them, and any income derived from them, including any
profit realized on their sale or exchange, must be exempt at all times
from every kind and nature oftaxation by the State ofMaryland and any
county or municipality in Maryland.
-9-
F:\LAW\BILLS\1050 White Flint - Creation\1050 Bill 2 Intro.DOC
208
209
210
211
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 50-10
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
(h}
The bonds must be payable from the fund required under Section 68C-5
and any other asset or revenue of the District pledged toward their
payment. When any bond is outstanding, the monies in the fund are
pledged to
~
the costs of any transportation infrastructure
improvement funded entirely or partly
Qy
the proceeds of the bonds,
including the costs of issuing the bonds and payment of the principal
interest on, and redemption premium if any, on the bonds. In addition
to ad valorem taxes, the bonds may be secured
Qy
any other asset in or
revenue generated in the District.
ill
68C-7.
Any ad valorem tax imposed under this Chapter must not be accelerated
because of any bond default.
Expiration of district.
Any special taxing district created under this Chapter expires
Qy
operation of
law 30 days after the cost of all transportation infrastructure improvements identified
in
f!
Council resolution approved under Section 68C-4, including all outstanding
bonds and cash advances made
Qy
the County, have been paid.
Approved:
229
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
230
Date
Approved:
231
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
- 10 -
F:ILAW\BILLS\\o50 White Flint - Creationl1050 Bill 2 Intro.DOC
(jj)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Resolution No._ _ __
Introduced: October5, 2010
Adopted:_ _ _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the request of the County Executive
SUBJECT:
White Flint Development Tax District Transportation Infrastructure
Improvements
Background
1. County Code Chapter 68C establishes the White Flint Special Taxing District, authorizes the
levy of an ad valorem tax to fund transportation infrastructure improvements in the District,
and authorizes the issuance of bonds to finance the transportation infrastructure
improvements.
2. Chapter 68C-4 requires a resolution that lists each transportation infrastructure improvement
that is to be paid for by the District special tax, and the estimated costs of each improvement,
which must include a contingency amount.
Action
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves thefollowing resolution:
I.
The County's goal is that the White Flint Special Taxing District special tax rate must not
exceed 10% of the total tax rate for the District, except that the rate must be sufficient to
pay debt service on any bonds that are already outstanding.
2.
If the revenues from the special tax at the level in the preceding paragraph are not sufficient
to afford additional infrastructure improvements as are necessary and ready for
implementation to execute the White Flint Sector Plan, the County Executive, before
recommending any increase to the tax rate above the level in the preceding paragraph, must
consider alternative approaches, including the timing and scope of each infrastructure item
and the structure of the financing plan to pay for if, and alternative revenue sources.
For the tax year that began on July 1,2010, the total base real property tax rate in the White
Flint Special Taxing District is $1.027 per $100 of assessed value.
For the tax year that begins on July 1, 2011, the rate of the White Flint Special Taxing
District special tax is estimated to be $0.1 03 per $100 of assessed value.
3.
4.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5.
The specific transportation infrastructure improvements that will be financed by the White
Flint Special Taxing District are listed in Exhibit A, along with an estimated cost for each
improvement, including a contingency amount.
This is a correct copy of Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
EXHIBIT A
WHITE FLINT SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
DISTRICT-FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement Description
Old Georgetown Road (MD 187): Nicholson La.lTilden La. to Executive Blvd.
Old Georgetown Road (MD 187): Hoya St. to Rockville Pike (MD 355)
Hoya Street (fonnerly Old Old Georgetown Rd.): Executive Blvd. to Montrose
Pkwy.
Rockville Pike (MD 355): Flanders Ave. to Hubbard Drive
Nicholson Lane: Old Georgetown Rd. (MD 187) to CSX tracks
Nebel Street: Nicholson La. To Randolph Rd.
Executive Blvd. Ext.: Marinelli Rd. to Old Georgetown Rd (MD 187)
Second Entrance to Metro
Main St.lMarket St.: Old Georgetown Rd. (MD 187) to Executive Blvd.
Extended (Bikeway)
Main St.!Market St.: Old Georgetown Rd. (MD 187) to Executive Blvd. Ext.
Main St.lMarket St.: Executive Blvd. to Rockville Pike (MD 355)
Main Street Bridge
Executive Blvd. Ext. (East): Rockville Pike (MD 355) to Nebel St. Ext. (South)
Nebel St. Ext. (South): Nicholson La. to Executive Blvd. Ext. (East)
TOTAL
F:\LAw\BILLS\1050 White Flint· Creation\ White Flint Sector Plan Infrastructure Resolution - 09-27-10 (2).Doc
Estimated Cost
$17,774,000
1,789,000
15,344,000
64,261,000
12,942,000
9,200,000
13,500,000
35,000,000
1,713,000
4,933,000
4,661,000
2,000,000
16,700,000
8,200,000
208,017,000
2
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
White Flint Sector Plan Executive Branch Cost Estimates· Distric1
Assumes Property Dedications
(County Estimates Assume No Property Dedications)
ROW Estimates Based Solely
on
FAR at White Flint Partnership's estimated $50 per FAR foot
N.B. land values are assumptions and not based
on
appraised values
October 13,2010
l17,774,064
25% of Total
000
Pha•• 2: Fund
Main Stre.VMarket Street
Phase 1· Construction
COf\lJa(;l
Main Street (Il-tO Market St)
EastemWork
Around
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
White Flint Sector Plan Executive Branch Cost Estimates - County
Assumes Property Dedications
(County Estimates Assume No Property Dedications)
ROW Estimates Based Solely
on
FAR at White Flint Partnership's estimated $50 per FAR foot
N.B. land values are assumptions and not based
on
appraised values
October 13. 2010
MP'
II.....
$2,200,000
$~,043,158
$0
22
Fire Station with Police
Substation and Urban
Distrid
23
Office
Bus
DepOt
Civic Green
25% 0'
rota'
pt'tase
1: Fund.
Str.et&c.apel
Sidewaf~ays
Phase 2: COnstruct
S/SIB
NOTE F1QUfes cia notmclude Operating Budgetht\fJlillClS.
(g)
Some Projeds not reflected!f\ StagIng. ROWCO$t'$ not tncluded in Staging.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
White Flint Sector Plan Executive Branch Cost Estimates - Developer
Assumes Property Dedications
(County Estimates Assume No Property Dedications)
ROW Estimates Based Solely on FAR at White Flint Partnership's estimated $50 per FAR foot
N.B. land values are assumptions and not based on appraised values
October 13, 2010
r.::-::-.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
FY 2011 Special District Tax Rates
per $100 of Assessed Value
Proposed White Flint Rate
$0.103
Parking Lot District Rates for Commercial Properties
Bethesda
Montgomery Hills
Silver Spring
Wheaton
$0.104
$0.240
$0.317
$0.240
Urban District Rates
Bethesda
Silver Spring
Wheaton
Development District Rates
$0.024
$0.012
$0.030
Kingsview Village
West Germantown
$0.079
$0.163
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Martin O'Malley, Governor
Ch.617
Chapter 617
(Senate Bill 828)
AN ACT concerning
Special Taxing Districts - Transportation Improvements - Exemption from
County Tax Limitations
FOR the purpose of exempting certain taxes imposed only within a special taxing
district for the purpose of financing the cost of transportation improvements
from county tax limitations; authorizing a county to issue, by law, certain bonds
for certain infrastructure improvements; authorizing a county to sell certain
bonds secured by certain revenues; providing that certain bonds may not be
secured by the full faith and credit or taxing authority of a county; providing for
the construction of certain provisions of this Act; defining certain terms; and
generally relating to special taxing districts and county tax limitations.
BY adding to
Article 24 - Political Subdivisions - Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 9-1302 and 9-1303
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2005 Replacement Volume and 2009 Supplement)
SECTION
1.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article 24 - Political Subdivisions - Miscellaneous Provisions
9-1302.
(A)
(1)
IN THIS
MEANINGS INDICATED.
SECTION
THE
FOLLOWING WORDS
HAVE
THE
"COST" HAS THE MEANING STATED IN
~ TRl2~.SPQR'FA'l'IQ)f
l"...R'l'I015E
THIS SUBTITLE.
(2)
§
3
lCH(Q)
§
9-1301
OF
"COUNTY TAX LIMITATION" MEANS A PROVISION OF A
COUNTY CHARTER THAT LIMITS:
(I)
MAY IMPOSE; OR
THE MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX RATE THAT A COUNTY
(3)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch. 617
(II)
REVENUES.
2010 LA.WS OF MARYLAND
THE RATE OF GROWTH OF COUNTY PROPERTY TAX
"HIGHWAY FACILITY" HAS THE MEANING STATED IN
3-101(F) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE.
(4)
§
"SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT" MEANS A DEFINED GEOGRAPHIC
AREA DESIGNATED BY A COUNTY WITHIN WHICH AD VALOREM OR SPECIAL
TAXES ARE IMPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
"TRANSIT FACILITY" HAS THE MEANING STATED IN
§
3-101(K)
OF THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE.
(5)
(6)
TRANSPORTATION
"TRANSPQRW;:'l'IQlhl
STATE
IMPROVEMENTS" INCLUDES HIGHWAY FACILITIES, TRANSIT FACILITIES, AND
RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE.
(7)
ill
"COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS" INCLUDES:
ffi
FOR COUNTY ROADS AND HIGHWAYS:
COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADWAY SURFACES,
ROADWAY SUBGRADES, SHOULDERS, MEDIAN DIVIDERS, DRAINAGE FACILITIES
AND STRUCTURES, RELATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND
STRUCTURES, ROADWAY CUTS, ROADWAY FILLS, GUARDRAILS, BRIDGES,
HIGHWAY GRADE SEPARATION STRUCTURES, TUNNELS, OVERPASSES,
UNDERPASSES, INTERCHANGES, ENTRANCE PLAZAS, APPROACHES, AND OTHER
STRUCTURES FORMING AN INTEGRAL PART OF A STREET, ROAD, OR HIGHWAY,
INCLUDING BICYCLE AND WALKING PATHS, DESIGNATED BUS LANES,
SIDEWALKS,
PEDESTRIAN
PLAZAS,
STREETSCAPING,
AND
RELATED
INFRASTRUCTURE; AND
.1.
2.
ANY
OTHER PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, OR USE OF THE HIGHWAY; AND
FOR COUNTY TRANSIT FACILITIES, ANY ONE OR MORE
OR COMBINATION OF TRACKS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, BRIDGES, TUNNELS, SUBWAYS,
ROLLING STOCK, STATIONS, TERMINALS, PORTS, PARKING AREAS, EQUIPMENT,
FIXTURES, BUILDING STRUCTURES, OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND
SERVICES INCIDENTAL TO OR USEFUL OR DESIGNED FOR USE IN CONNECTION
WITH THE RENDERING OF TRANSIT SERVICE BY ANY MEANS, INCLUDING RAIL,
M
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Martin O'Malley, Governor
Ch.617
BUS, MOTOR VEHICLE, OR OTHER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION BUT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY RAILROAD FACILITY.
(B)
A
COUNTY TAX LIMITATION
9QES
~rQ'F
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE
APPLY TO AD VALOREM OR SPECIAL TAXES IMPOSED ONLY WITHIN A SPECIAL
TAXING DISTRICT DOES NOT APPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST
OF STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS.
9-1303.
IN THIS
MEANINGS INDICATED.
1M
ill
00
SECTION THE
FOLLOWING WORDS
HAVE
THE
"BOND" MEANS A SPECIAL OBLIGATION BOND, NOTE, OR
OTHER SIMILAR INSTRUMENT ISSUED BY A COUNTY UNDER THIS SECTION.
"COSTS" MEANS ANY EXPENSE NECESSARY OR INCIDENT TO
ACQUIRING, BUILDING, OR FINANCING ANY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL LAW AUTHORIZED UNDER SUBSECTION (B)
OF THIS SECTION.
"SPECIAL TAX" MEANS AN AD VALOREM OR SPECIAL
TAX, ASSESSMENT, FEE, OR CHARGE IMPOSED BY A COUNTY WITHIN A SPECIAL
TAXING DISTRICT.
"SPECIAL TAX" DOES NOT INCLUDE AN AD VALOREM OR
SPECIAL TAX, ASSESSMENT, FEE, OR CHARGE LEVIED UNDER CHAPTER
20A
OF
THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY CODE.
"SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT" MEANS A SPECIAL TAXING
DISTRICT,
SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT,
OR
SIMILAR
DEFINED
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WITHIN A COUNTY IN WHICH THE COUNTY IS AUTHORIZED
TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL TAX.
"SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT" DOES NOT INCLUDE A
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CREATED UNDER CHAPTER
20A
OF THE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY CODE.
"TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT"
MEANS A
STATE
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT
OR
A
COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT AS DEFINED IN
§
9-1302
OF THIS SUBTITLE.
00
ill
ill
M
1!il
ill
M
!ill.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.617
2010 LAWS OF MARYLAND
IN ADDITION TO OTHER POWERS A COUNTY MAY HAVE, AND
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER PUBLIC LOCAL LAW,
PUBLIC GENERAL LAW, OR THE COUNTY CHARTER OF A COUNTY THAT HAS
ADOPTED HOME RULE POWERS UNDER ARTICLE XI-A OF THE MARYLAND
CONSTITUTION, A COUNTY MAY ENACT A LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF BONDS TO FINANCE THE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR
WHICH THE PRINCIPAL, INTEREST, AND ANY PREMIUM SHALL BE PAID FROM
AND SECURED BY SPECIAL TAXES COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY IN A SPECIAL
TAXING DISTRICT.
BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION ARE SPECIAL
OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A GENERAL
OBLIGATION DEBT OF THE COUNTY OR A PLEDGE OF THE COUNTY'S FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT OR GENERAL TAXING POWER.
BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE SOLD IN ANY
MANNER, EITHER AT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SALE AND ON TERMS AS THE COUNTY
DEEMS BEST.
BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
ARTICLE
31,
§§
10
AND
11
OF THE CODE.
BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, THEIR TRANSFER, THE
INTEREST PAYABLE ON THEM, AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM THEM,
INCLUDING ANY PROFIT REALIZED ON THEIR SALE OR EXCHANGE, SHALL BE
EXEMPT AT ALL TIMES FROM EVERY KIND AND NATURE OF TAXATION BY THE
STATE, A COUNTY, OR A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE TREATED AS
SECURITIES TO THE SAME EXTENT AS BONDS ISSUED UNDER
§
9-1301
OF THIS
SUBTITLE.
IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIAL TAXES, BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS
SECTION MAY BE SECURED BY OTHER REVENUES GENERATED WITHIN THE
SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT.
THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE REGARDED
AS SUPPLEMENTAL AND ADDITIONAL TO POWERS CONFERRED BY OTHER LAWS,
AND MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS IN DEROGATION OF ANY POWERS NOW
EXISTING, INCLUDING POWERS TO ISSUE SPECIAL OBLIGATION DEBT UNDER
THIS ARTICLE, ARTICLE 25, ARTICLE 25A. OR ARTICLE 25B OF THE CODE.
ill
!£l
ill
ill
00
ill
ill
!ill
00
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Martin O'Malley, Governor
Ch.617
THIS SECTION. BEING NECESSARY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE
STATE AND ITS RESIDENTS, SHALL BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO EFFECT ITS
PURPOSES.
ill
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
October 1, 2010.
Approved
by
the Governor,
May
20, 2010.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Resolution No:._ _ _ _ _ __
Introduced: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Adopted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
SUBJECT:
Amendment ($9.835 M) to the FYll-16 Capital Improvements Program and
Special Appropriation #4-E ll-CMCG-3 to the FY 11 Capital Budget
Montgomery County Government
Department of Transportation
White Flint District West: Transportation (No. 501116), $385,000
Background
I. Section 308 ofthe Montgomery County Charter provides that a special appropriation: (a) may
be made at any time after public notice by news release; (b) must state that the special
appropriation is necessary to meet an unforeseen disaster or other emergency or to act without
delay in the public interest; (c) must specify the revenues necessary to finance it; and (d) must
be approved by no fewer than six members of the Council.
2. Section 302 of the Montgomery County Charter provides that the Council may amend an
approved capital improvements program at any time by an affinnative vote ofno fewer than six
members of the Council.
3. The County Executive recommends the following capital project appropriation increases:
Project
Name
White Flint District
West: Transportation
Project
Number
501116
Cost
Element
Source
of Funds
Current Revenue
General
Amount
$385,000
PDS
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Special Appropriation #4-EII-CMCG-3 and Amendment to the FYII-16 Capital Improvements
Program
Page Two
4. This project is needed to accelerate the preliminary engineering for one new road, one relocated
road, improvements to three existing roads, and one new bikeway in the White Flint
Development Tax District so that more accurate designs and cost estimates can be established.
Funds to pay for the analysis and studies necessary to implement the district are also included.
The recommended amendment is consistent with the criteria for amending the CIP in that this
project supports significant economic development initiatives, which in
turn
will strengthen the
fiscal capacity ofthe County government. The new growth planned for the White Flint area in
accordance with the recently approved Sector Plan will revitalize the region and strengthen the
County as a whole. These roadway and bikeway improvements will greatly aid and expedite
the planned improvements for the area.
5. The County Executive recommends an amendment to the FYII-16 Capital Improvements
Program and a special appropriation in the amount of$385,000 for White Flint District West:
Transportation (No.501116), and specifies that the source of funds will be Current Revenue
General with repayment in FY12 from White Flint Development District tax funds.
6. Notice of public hearing was not given and no public hearing was held.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, approves the following actions:
1. The FYll-16 Capital Improvements Program of the Montgomery County Government is
amended as reflected on the attached project description fonn and a special appropriation is
approved as follows:
Project
Name
White Flint District
West: Transportation
Project
Number
501116
Project
Element
PDS
Cost
Amount
$385,000
Source
ofFunds
Current Revenue
General
2. The County Council declares that this action is necessary to act without delay in the public
interest, and that this appropriation is needed to meet the emergency.
This is a correct copy of Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
White Flint District West: Transportation ..• No. 501116
Category
Subcategory
Administering Agency
Planning Area
Transportation
Roads
Transportation
NoI1h Bethesda-Garrett Park
Date Last Modified
Required Adequate Public Facility
Relocation Impact
Status
September 21, 2010
No
None.
Preliminary Design Stage
Beyond
6
Years
0
0
0
0
0
EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE ($000)
Cost Element
~ng,
Design, and Supervision
~Th,"
Total
8,BOO!
01
FY09
Est.
FY10
~
0
0
0
0
0
Improvements and Utilities
Construction
Other
I
Total
CUrrent Revenue: General
1Development District -White Flint
I
Total
I
Site
u
il:
I
I
01
9,8351
98351
0
0
Iota'
6 Years
8,800
1,000
0
0
35
FY11
FY12
FYi3
0
500
SOO
0
0
0
FY14
2.200
0
0
0
0
FY15
2,200 1
2001
0'
0
0
FYi6
2,300
200
350
0
0
1,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
01
01
0
9,835
0
9, 835
1
385
385
-385
1,6351
125Ql
1,100
0
1,100
z.
0
2,200
400
01
£,4UOI
2.500
0
2.500
2500
0
0
0
FUNDING SCHEDULE ($000)
a
0
0
J!
385
98351
1100
22001
2.4001
0
DESCRIPTION
This project provides for completing preliminary engineering, to 35% plans, for one new road, one relocated road, improvements to three existing roads, and
one new bikeway in the White Flint District area for Stage 1, Various improvements to the roads will include new traffic lanes. shared-use paths.
the
undergrounding of overhead utility lines, other utility relocations and streetscaping.
The
o
o
o
o
o
o
proposed projects are as follows:
,
Main StreellMarl<et Street (8-10) - Old Georgetown Road (MD1a7) to Executive Boulevard Extended - New 2 lane 100 foot roadway.
Executive Boulevard Extended (B-15) - Marinelli Road to Old Georgetown Road (M01a1)· Reconstruct 900 feet of
4
lane roadway.
Old Georgetown Road (MD181) (M-4)· From Nicholson LaneJTilden Lane to Executive Boulevard - Reconstruct 1,SOO feet of Slane roadway.
Haya Street (formerly 'Old' Old Georgetown Road) (M-4A) - From Executive Boulevard to Montrose Parkway - Reconstruct 1,100 feet of
4
lane roadway.
Rockville Pike (MD355) (M-6)· Flanders Avenue to HUbbard Drive - Reconstruct 6,300 feet of 6-8 lane roadway.
Main Street/Market Street (LB-1) - Old Georgetown Road (MD1 81) to Executive Boulevard Extended - Construct 1,250
feel
of
bikeway.
The proposed projects will
be
White Flint Development Tax District funded
and
are located primarily in the western Side of
the
White Flint Development District.
All the roadway segments except for the Rockville Pike are specified for completion in Stage 1
of
the
Wh~e
Flint Sector Plan and will
be
designed in FY 11-13
with land acquisitions in FY13. The Rockville Pike segment will be deSigned in FY14-16 with land acquisitions In FY15-16. The Rockville Pike segment will be
constructed during Stage 3 of the Sector Plan.
This project also provides for consulting fEl$S for the analysis and studies necesary to implement the district. which are programmed in the 'Other" cost
element.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE
Design is expected to commence on all projects except the Rockville Pike section
in
the Spring of 2011(FY11) and to conclude in the Spring of 2013 (FY13).
Some property acquisition may occur in 2012-13 (FY13). Design on the Rockville Pike section will begin in the Fall of 2013 (FY14) and be complete in the
Spring of 2016 (FY16). Some property acquisition may occur on this section
in
2015 (FY15) and 2016 (FY16).
JUSTIFICATION
The vision for the White Flint District is for a more urban core with a walkable street grid. sidewalks, bikeways, trails, paths, public use space, parl<s and
recreational facilities, mixed-use development, and enhanced streetscape to improve
the
areas for pedestrian circulation and transit oriented development
around the Metro station. These road improvements, along with other District roads proposed to be constructed to
be
funded and constructed by developers
will fulfill the strategic program plan
for
a more effective and efficient transportation system. The proposed improvements are in conformance with the White
FUnt Sector Pian Resolution 16·1300 adopted March 23. 2010.
FISCAL NOTE
The funding source for these projects will be White Flint Development District Tax revenues and related bond Issues. Debt service on the bond issues will be
paid soley from White Flint Development District revenues.
The advanced funds (Current Revenue: General) in FY11 will
be
repaid by White Flint Development District Tax funding sources in FY12.
The
project cost estimates are based on FY10 costs and exclude escalation factors. Final construction costs will be determined after the preliminary
APPROPRIATION AND
EXPENDITURE DATA
COORDINATION
FY11
FY11
($000)
MAP
II
Date
First Appropriation
I~
9.835
0
0
1,150
385
0
0
0
ate
FY11
Appropriation Request Est.
FY12
Supplemental Appropriation Request
Transfer
Cumulative Appropriation
Expenditures
I
Encumbrances
Unencumbered Balance
Partial Closeout Thru
New Partial Closeout
Total Partial Clcseout
FY08
fY09
Appropriation Request
M-NCPPC. White Flint Sector Plan
WMATA
City of Rockville
MSHA
Town of Garrett Park
NeighborhOod Civic Associations
Developers
See Map on Next Page
0
0
0
0
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
White Flint District West: Transportation .... No. 501116 (continued)
engineering phase. The total project cost the for Stage 1 west-side White Flint Development Tax District -funded prOjects
is
anticipated to approximate $59
million.
The total project cost for White Flint Development Tax District-funded projects planned for Stages
1,2,
and
3
of the White Flint Sector Plan are estimated at
$208
million
OTHER DISCLOSURES
• A pedestrian impact analysis has been completed for this project.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
WHITE FLINT DISTRICT WEST
TRANSPORTA TION
CIP. NO. 501116