AGENDA ITEM #26
May 26, 2011
Action
MEMORANDUM
May 24, 2011
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Analys~
Vivian Yao, Legislative Analyst
~
Action:
Bill 3-11, Community Use of Public Facilities - Reorganization
SUBJECT:
Education Committee recommendation (3-0):
do not enact Bill 3-11.
Bill 3-11, Community Use of Public Facilities - Reorganization, sponsored by the
Council President on recommendation of the Organizational Reform Commission, was
introduced on March 8, 201 L A public hearing was held on March 29. The Education
Committee held a worksession on Bill 3-11 on April 25.
Background
Bill 3-11 would:
• eliminate the Office of the Community Use of Public Facilities (CUPF) and re-assign
its functions;
• eliminate the Interagency Coordinating Board for Community Use of Public Facilities
and re-assign its functions;
• require the Department of General Services to administer and implement the School
Facilities Utilization Act;
• require the Department to schedule and make available the community use of school
and public facilities; and
• generally amend County law regarding community use of schools and other public
facilities.
In its report to the Council dated January 31, 2011, ORC recommended the consolidation
and reorganization of several boards, committees and commissions including the Interagency
Coordinating Board for Community Use of Public Facilities (see Recommendation #5):
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The ORC recommends a major modernization of the property management system for
Community Use ofPublic Facilities. We also believe it
is
appropriate that the functions of the
Office and Board move to the Department of General Services.
Since CUPF is an enterprise fund, no taxpayer savings would be generated by these
refonns, but
it
is highly likely that the efficiencies resulting from the moves could reduce costs to
users or assist in improving services, thereby allocating a portion of its $9.3 million budget to
more effective uses.
Bill 3-11 would partially implement the ORC recommendation as it relates to CUPF.
In addition, the ORC also recommended that the County consolidate its real estate and
facilities functions so that these assets can be managed in a centralized manner. (See
Recommendation #14 at ©14a) The recommendation suggested that any consolidation should
include CUPF. The GO Committee recommended further review of this recommendation and
requested the CARS Space Use Subcommittee detennine whether benefits of consolidation can
reasonably be expected to exceed the costs. The Council agreed with the GO Committee that
further review is needed.
Summary of Testimony/Correspondence
The Council received testimony and correspondence from individuals urging the Council
not to move CUPF in the Department of General Services (DGS). See select testimony and
correspondence beginning on ©20. Community feedback suggests that: (1) savings would not be
realized from reduction in CUPF managerial staff, who perfonn critical functions for the agency;
(2) CUPF and DGS have different missions with almost no overlap of functionality; (3) CUPF
focuses on meeting short-tenn and intennittent space needs of its customers -- it does not
purchase, sell, manage, clean, or maintain any buildings; (4) merger of CUPF into DGS would
hinder community use of space to the detriment of users; and (5) CUPF and the ICB have
effectively balanced the community'S need for space with the primary tenant's concerns.
County Executive. In a February 21 memorandum, the Executive opposed shifting CUPF's
functions to DGS because it would not provide any cost savings or measurable efficiencies.
Additionally, the Executive stated that there is not much overlap in the CUPF and DGS missions
and little opportunity to combine staff activities (©15).
Regarding the recommendation to modernize CUPPs property management system, the
Executive notes that CUPF does not manage property, which is a function perfonned by DGS
and MCPS facility management. CUPF is heavily invested in technology for scheduling and
managing financial transactions and uses CLASS software, identified as the overwhelmingly
preferred software for private and public recreation operations nationally. This system interfaces
with the new ERP system to manage revenue and other financial transactions.
Planning Board. In a February 28 memorandum, Planning Board Francoise Carrier, on behalf
of the Planning Board, opposed this recommendation. Chair Carrier argued that the Board has a
collaborative relationship with CUPF and recently transferred the pennitting of the Board's
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
athletic fields to CUPF to streamline the field permitting process for users. Ms. Carrier noted
that CUPF is self-supporting and does not require any tax dollars to operate (©20).
Montgomery County Public Schools.
In a February 23 memorandum to Board of Education
members, Superintendent Weast summarized this ORC recommendation and argued that CUPF
is under the direction of an independent board which "safeguards protection of school buildings
from uses that might interfere with the primary instructional mission of schools." Dr. Weast
argued that moving CUPF to DOS could compromise the original purpose ofCUPF (©21).
Fiscal Impact Statement.
The fiscal impact statement prepared by the Office of Management
and Budget indicates that Bill 3-11 would not have a fiscal impact. The statement indicates that
shifting functions from CUPF to DOS would provide the same service at about the same cost
because existing staff and other resources would be retained. The statement indicates that
incidental costs could be incurred, such as business cards, letter head, etc.
Council staff analysis
The central question the Committee discussed was whether to eliminate CUPF and the
Interagency Coordinating Board for CUPF and reassign the functions to DOS. Although the
ORC found it "highly likely that the efficiencies resulting from [moving the CUPF and ICB
functions to DOS] could reduce costs to users or assist in improving services," the Council has
received no description or evidence of any efficiencies or savings that would accrue. Likewise,
it is unclear what deficiency needs to be addressed through a "major modernization of the
property management system" of CUPF. Council staff understands that CUPF does not manage
properties in the same manner as DOS and that the functions of DOS and CUPF do not overlap
for the most part.
Based on the responses from the Executive, outside agencies including M-NCPPC and
MCPS, ICB members, and users of community space, CUPF is performing its role in scheduling
and managing the needs of community space users effectively and a change to the current
structure would hinder the mission of the ICB to encourage fair and equal access to public space.
Committee recommendation (3-0): do not enact
Bill 3-11.
This packet contains:
Bill 3-11
Legislative Request Report
Excerpt of Organizational Reform Commission Report
Excerpt of Executive response to ORC Report
Fiscal Impact Statement
Select written correspondenceltestimony
Excerpt of Planning Board memorandum
Excerpt of Jerry Weast memorandum
Henry Lee
Denise Oorham
Sylvia McPherson
F:\LAW\BILLS\! \03 CUPF\Action Memo.doc
Circle #
1
13
14
15
18
20
21
22
26
27
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
3-11
Concerning: Community Use of Public
Facilities - Reorganization
Revised:
3/1/2011
Draft No. _1_
Introduced:
March 8, 2011
Expires:
September 8,2012
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co, _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President on the recommendation of the Organizational Reform Commission
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
eliminate the Office of the Community Use of Public Facilities and re-assign its
functions;
eliminate the Interagency Coordinating Board for Community Use of Public
Facilities and re-assign its functions;
require the Department of General Services to administer and implement the School
Facilities Utilization Act;
require the Department to schedule and make available the community use of school
and public facilities; and
generally amend County law regarding community use of schools and other public
facilities,
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter lA, Structure of County Government
Section IA-203
Chapter 2, Administration
Section 2-30
Chapter 32, Offenses -
Victim
Advocate
Section 32-19C
Chapter 41, Recreation and Recreation Facilities
Section 41-21
Chapter 44, Schools and Camps
Section
44-1.44-3.
and
44-5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 3-11
By repealing
Chapter 2, Administration
Division 19, Office of Community Use of Public Facilities
Section 2-64M
Chapter 44, Schools and Camps
Section 44-4
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:
f:\lawlbills\1103 cupf\biIl1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL NO. 3-11
1
Sec.
1.
Sections 1A-203, 2-30, 32-19C, 41-21, 44-2, 44-3, 44-5 are amended
and Sections 2-64M and 44-4 are repealed as follows:
1A-203. Establishing other offices•
(a)
Executive Branch.
These are the offices of the Executive Branch that are
not part of a department or principal office:
2
3
. 4
5
6
*
*
2-30. Department of General Services -
*
*'
*
*
7
·8
9
10
[Office of Community Use of Public Facilities [section 44-4]]
Division 5. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES.
Functions.
11
12
13
14 .
15
The Department of General Services must:
*
(h)
(i)
*
*
plan and implement the use of space in County buildings; [and]
operatemail.printing. duplication, and archiving
services[.]~
administer and implement the School Facilities Utilization Act (Chapter
44, Article
I1.
and
ill
!k1
16
17
18
19
20
schedule and make available to the community the use of
ill
ill
school facilities; and
other public facilities designated
Officer under standards
methodQ1
2Y
the Chief Administrative
established
2Y
regulation issued under
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
All user fees and other payments to the County for the community
yg:
of
f!
public facility under subsection (kX2) must be administered
through the enterprise fund established
2Y
Section 44-SA.
Division 19. [Office of Community Use of Public Facilities] Reserved.
[2-64M. Functions and Duties.]
I(a)
Generanv.
The Office
ofCoIT'.J11unity
Use
of
Public Facilities:
o
f:lJaw\bills\
1103
cupf\bHi 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 3-11
28
29
30
(1)
administers and implements the School Facilities Utilization Act
(Chapter
44,
Article
I);
and
(2)
schedules and makes available to the community the use of
(A)
school facilities; and
other
public
facilities
designated
by
the
Chief
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
(B)
Administrative Officer under standards established by
regulation issued under method (2).
(b)
Duties of the Director.
The Director of Community Use of Public
Facilities must carry out the functions described in this Section and
Section
44-4.]
32-19C. Disruptive Behavior-Public Facilities
(a)
In
this Section, the following terms have the following meanings unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise:
*
(2)
(A)
*
*
Enforcement agent means:
a Department Director;
a police officer, deputy sheriff, or County security officer;
or
(C)
an assistant director, division chief, service chief, or other
person in charge of a facility, who is designated by a.
Department Director[; or].:.
[(D) a designee of the Director of Community Use of Public
Facilities.]
43
44
(B)
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
(3)
Public facility means any building, grounds, or transit vehicle
owned, leased, or used by the County[,] or the Revenue
Authority[, or the Director of Community Use of Public
.,....
'1"
r aCllltles
1
j.
f:\law'bills\
1103
cupt\biIl1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
..
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
44-2. Definitions.
41-21. Recreation board.
BILL
No.
3-11
*
*
(c)
*
*
*
*
*
*
The ex officio, nonvoting members of the Board are:
*
(4)
a representative of the [Office of Community Use of Public
Facilities] Department of General Services;
*
*
*
F or the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases have the
meanings indicated:
[Board.
The Interagency Coordinating Board established by Section 44-3.]
Committee[.
The] means the advisory committee established by Section 44-5.
Director[.
The] means the Director of [Community Use of Public Facilities]
General Services or the Director's designee.
Schools[.
Buildings and] means any building or grounds, playing [fields]
field, [gymnasia and] gymnasium, or associated educational [facilities and]
facility or equipment under the ownership and operating control of the
1-10ntgomery County [board of education] Board of Education, including [but
not limited to] those schools currently or in the future designated as
II
community schools. "
The] means the superintendent of 1-10ntgomery County
Superintendent[.
[public schools] Public Schools.
Community school counciI[.
An] means an existing body created to provide
information and advice on community needs, program development, facility
use.1 and related matters at designated "community schools" or a body [as may
f:\Iaw\bills\ 1103 cupf\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
81
82
may be] created in the future to perfonn similar functions regarding other
schools or groups of schools.
44-3. [Interagency Coordinating Board] Director of General Services : Duties.
83
84
[(a)
Establishment and responsibilities.
The Interagency Coordinating Board for
85
Community Use of Public Facilities must review and coordinate the activities
conducted under this Article.] The [Board] Director must:
[(1)
review budget requests of the Director and make recommendations
about the requests to the Chief Administrative Officer, County
Executive and County Council];
[(2)]
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
ill
recommend fee schedules that the Council may adopt by resolution
after receiving the recommendations of the Executive;
[(3)]
(Q)
review and propose modifications in major contracts and grants
negotiated between the County and Montgomery County Public
Schools under this Article;
[(4)]
(£l
provide periodic evaluations, advice, and recommendations, and an
annual report hy March 1 of each year, to [the Director,] the Board of
Education, the Executive, and the Council about implementation of this
Article;
[(5)]
@
adopt regulations necessary to implement this Article; [and]
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
[(6)]
~
recommend how to resolve any interagency differences and problems
in implementing this Article to the Executive, the Board of Education,
.
the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission,
Montgomery College, or the Council, as appropriate, including
recommendations to
promote
coordination between programs and
activities conducted under this Article and related services and activities
financed by the County government
tIJawlbills\1103 cupt\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
3-11
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
ill
(g)
administer and coordinate the programs and activities necessary to
£ruIY
out the purposes of this Article;
administer appropriated funds and explore the possibility of obtaining
additional funds from non-County sources; ,
fh}
provide information and guidance to any community group, municipal
government, County agency, and any other user'of g school facility as to
ways in which such facility use could be made more cost effective;
ill
employ and train community school coordinators and other necessary
personnel, with the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer;
116
117
118
ill
directly with an individual school or through g community school
coordinator (or other intermediate personnel), maintain effective liaison
and consultation with any school principal, community school council,
or other community organization and user group in order to:
119
120
121
122
123
124
ill
ill
ill
encourage and assist the formation of g community school
council;
schedule the use ofg school facility;
under an arrangements with school principals, assure general and
proper supervision of non-school use of any building or other
facility,
including the engagement of appropriate on-site
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
personnel;
ill
generally coordinate logistical, financial and related aspects of
the after-school, evening, weekend and vacation period, and other
non-school use of any school facility, as may be provided in
contractual or other arrangement between the County government
and the Board of Education;
f:\Iaw\bills\1103 cupf\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
132
ill
survey community needs and develop outreach and other
programs to meet those needs through optimal use of school
facilities; and
133
134
135
(Ql
assume responsibility for needed .repair or replacement of
property resulting from community use; and
136
137
138
ill
promote cooperation among any activity under this Article, community
program or activity carried on in
~
former school subsequently taken
over
Qy
the County, or multipurpose community center operated bv the
County.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
[(b)
Membership.
The Board consists of voting members and nonvoting, ex .
officio members.
(1)
The voting members are:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
the Chief Administrative Officer;
The Superintendent of Schools;
the President of Montgomery College;
a member of the Maryland-National Capital Park and
Planning Commission
desi~nated
by the Montgomery
County members of the Commission;
(E)
a Councilmember or the staff director or a senior staff
member of the County Council who represents the
Council;
(F)
one citizen appointed by the Superintendent and confirmed
by the Board of Education; and
(G)
three citizens appointed by the Executive and confirmed
by the Council.
156
f:\Iawlbills\1103 cupf\biil 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 3-11
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
The Advisory Committee may recommend individuals to the
Executive and the Superintendent for appointment as citizen
members of the Board.
(2)
The nonvoting, ex officio members ofthe board are:
(A)
a mem.ber of the Board of Education designated by the
Board ofEducation;
(B)
a
person
designated by
the
Montgomery
County
Association of Secondary School Principals and confirmed
by the Council;
(C)
a
person
designated
by
the
Elementary
School
Administrators Association and confirmed by the Council.
( c)
Officers.
The Board must elect a Chair and Vice Chair to serve for a
one-year term, and may reelect either or both officers.
(d)
Terms.
Members of the Board appointed under subsections (b)(l)(F)
and (G) and (2)(B) and (C) must serve staggered four-year terms
beginning on July 1 of the year when the term of the member's
predecessor is scheduled to expire. A member continues to serve until
the member's successor is appointed.
(e)
(f)
Compensation.
Members of the Board serve without compensation.
Meetings.
The Board must meet at least once every three months. The
Board may be convened at any time, with appropriate advance notice, at
the call of the chair or upon the request of the Chief Administrative
Officer or the Superintendent.
(g)
Attendance.
Section 2-148(c) applies only to citizen members of the
Board.]
44-4. [Director of Community Use
of Public
Facilities] Resenred.
[The Director must:
f:lJaw\bills\1103 cupf\biU 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL NO. 3-11
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
(a)
Administer the programs and activities necessary to carry out the
purposes of this article;
(b)
Administer appropriated funds and explore the possibility of obtaining
additional funds from non-county sources;
(c)
Provide information and guidance to community groups, municipal
governments, county agencies and other users of school facilities as to
ways in which such facility use could be made more cost effective;
191
192
(d)
In consultation with the board and with the approval of the chief
administrative officer, employ and train community school coordinators
and other necessary personnel;
193
194
(e)
Directly with individual schools or through community school
coordinators (or other intermediate personnel), maintain effective
liaison and consultation with school principals, community school
councils and other community organizations and user groups in order to
fulfill the following responsibilities, among others:
(1)
Encourage and assist in the formation of community school
councils;
(2)
(3)
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
Schedule use of school facilities;
Under arrangements with school principals, assure general and
proper supervision of non-school use of buildings and other
facilities, including the engagement of appropriate on-site
personnel;
204
205
206
207
(4)
Generally coordinate logistical, financial and related aspects of
the after-school, evening, weekend and vacation period and other
non-school use of school facilities, as may be provided in
contractual
govemmen~
...
208
209
210
or
1.1
other
arrangements
between
the
county
.
ana. tne
h
d
or
e
ucatlOn;
uoar,
"d
@
f:\law\biIlS\
1103
cupf\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
(5)
Survey community needs and develop outreach and other
programs to meet those needs through optimal use of school
facilities; and
(6)
Assume responsibility for needed· repair or replacement of
property resulting from community use;
(t)
Effect cooperation among activities under this article, community
programs and activities carried on in former schools subsequently taken
over by the county government and multipurpose community centers
operated by the county government;
(g)
(h)
Serve as executive secretary to the board; and
Perform such other related duties as may be required.]
44-5. Advisory committee.
(a)
There is [hereby established] an advisory committee to advise the
(board and director as to programs and activities] Director on any
program or activity conducted (pursuant to] under this (article; the
committee shall bring] Article. The Committee must submit to the
[board and director] Director a broad spectrum of ideas and
recommendations [as to] for community use of school
on the following SUbjects]:
facilities~
including[. The committee shall submit recommendations to the board
ill
ill
ways [by which] to mcrease school facility use [may be
increased] by public agencies and community groups;
ways [in which] to improve information and other outreach
efforts [may be approved];
ill
ways [in which] to make facility utilization (may be made] more
cost effective; and[,]
f:\law\bills\1103 cupf\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
237
238
239
ill
(b)
ways [by which] that procedural changes may result in a more
effective operation.
The Executive must appoint members [Members] of the [committee]
Committee [shall be appointed by the' board or designated by
organizations under arrangements specified by the board] and [shall]
must be representative of various county and community groups with an
[interests] interest
in
school facility use. Committee members [shall]
must serve without compensation. The [director shall) Director must
provide necessary staff support for the [committee] Committee.
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
Approved:
247
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
Date
248
249
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
250
251
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
Linda
Nt
Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
f:\law\bills\1103 cupt\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
BilI 3-11
Community Use ofPublic Facilities
-
Reorganization
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 3-11 would eliminate the Office of the Community Use of Public
Facilities and re-assign its functions; eliminate. the Interagency
Coordinating Board for Community Use of Public Facilities and re­
assign its functions; require the Department of General Services to
administer and implement the School Facilities Utilization Act;
require the Department to schedule and make available the
'
community use of school and public facilities
The Organizational Reform Commission recommended that the
functions of the Community Use of Public Facilities and the
Interagency Coordinating Board be moved to the Department of
General Services.
Although CUPF is an enterprise fund and no taxpayer savings would
be generated, efficiencies resulting from this reorganization could
reduce costs to users or assist in improving services.
Community Use of Public Facilities, Department of General Services
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Organizational Reform Commission Report.
Amanda Mihill, Legislative Analyst, 240-777-7815
Not applicable.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
'WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
None.
F:\LAW\B1LLS\II03 CUPF\Legislative Request Report.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission
j
This change would result in saving a substantial portion of the $1.7 million .
currently budgeted for the HRC. We propose that the HRC and Committee on
HateNiolence be combined to make their efforts more concentrated and provide a
singular focal point for research and dissemination of information. This new
combined cortunission can be aligned with the Office of Community Partnerships
or anotl?er suitable entity, as determined by the Council and Executive. Finally,
the activities of the Interagency Fair Housing Coordinating Group - currently
supported by the Human Rights Office - should be returned to the Department of
Housing and Community Affairs, from which it was removed in 1996.
I
i
f
I
c) Interagency Coordinating Board for Community Use of Public Facilities
(CUPF) -
Current Budget -
$9,325,840.
~
I
I
I
I
I
t
The ORC recommends a major modernization of the property management system
for Community Use of Public Facilities. We also believe it is appropriate that the
functions ofthe Office and Board move to the Department of General Services.
Since CUPF is an enterprise fund, no taxpayer savings would be generated by
these reforms, but it is highly likely that the efficiencies resulting from the moves
could reduce costs to users or assist in improving services, thereby allocating a
portion of its $9.3 million budget to more effective uses.
d)
Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission (CJCC) -
Current Budget
$158,000 -
The CJCC performs an important function in helping to coordinate the
programs and activities of the County's various criminal justice agencies.
However, it meets only four times a year, does not require an annual report, and
in
other ways has had its duties modified
in
recent years.
In
the past, it has been
staffed by County personnel who also had other duties, rather than by a dedicated
.
staff of its own.
I
$
~
The
ORC believes that staff support for the CJCC does not require an executive
director post that is now staffed
by
a high-level appointee. We recommend
elimination of this position. We also recommend that the CJCC be housed· in the
Police Department, which would provide for its part-time staffsupPo.rt
I
I
I
~
.,
j,
j
I
-14 ­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission
Real Estate and Facilities Management
Statement ofthe Issue
The County is experiencing inefficiencies in real estate and facilities management, often
because of competing agency priorities. At this time, the tools to properly manage these
assets do not seem sufficient.
Discussion ofthe Issue and Recommendations
The ORC
interview~d
department directors and staff from County government and MCPS to
discuss how their real estate, office space and facilities operations - including the
Co:rnm'unity Use of Public Facilities (CUPF) office - are managed. We also reviewed a .
significant amount of background information from CARS, to provide further context. We
focused on the potential for managing these assets in a centralized manner, while continuing
to meet the programmatic needs of the different organizations.
Currently, a combination of organization culture/structure and a lack of tools and systems is
problematic. We were advised that the County government's facility and property resources
are managed primarily through the institutional memory and informal tracking tools (paper
records, spreadsheets, etc.) of one or two employees. Also, according to CARS research,
" ... not all the agencies have a central real estate function for their entire organization.
In
those organizations real estate transactions/planning take place in multiple
departments/divisions..."
The CARS recommendation on this issue is to hold quarterly meetings to coordinate and
identify potential opportunities to collaborate across multiple agencies. We believe that this
approach is insufficient to effectively drive sustainable savings. Given the potential
fot
competing priorities, we believe this is more likely to lead to decisions that are not in the
County's best interest.
It
should be noted that there is work ongoing that would create a
single Request for Proposal process for real estate services. This would benefit multiple
agencies and we believe it isa useful improvement that should be advanced.
Another player in managing the use of the County's various real estate assets is CUPF. Any
recommendation should include CUPF, in order to extend the same functionality and reduce
the level of effort currently needed to perform its tasks.
~
We
recommend that the County consolidate its real estate andfacilitiesfunctions so
that these assets can be managed in a centralized manner.
We believe that the County's new Enterprise Resource Planning System should be developed
with a central structure in mind and with workflow capability that can accommodate the
needs of CUPF. All County agency property, facilities, and office space should be managed
through a central database, under a well-defmed set of business rules. All space and property
assets should be considered for central management. Management should be to a level of
granularity (office, conference room or cubicle) that move m2.Ilagement (management of
- 26­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission
office space) is also streamlined. We believe this change should be phased in and at this time
we have not determined the best form of governance for this operation. We support
eliminating silos, but we caution against an excessive role for anyone programmatic need.
- 27­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
County Government to address important community needs and ultimately to
build stronger, more inclusive, and self sufficient communities.
3.
Reorganize
the
Commission for Women and eliminate
the
office.
County Executive's Position: Support
with Conditions
1
support the ORC recommendation regarding the reorganization of the
Commission for Women. My
FY12
Recommended Operating Budget will
address the reorganization of this Commission, but
in
order to maintain the
excellent work of the Commission for Women
J
\Yill
recommend a reduction, but
not the elimination of all staff support. This recommendation requires
implementing legislation which
1
will forward to the CounciL
4.
Reorganize thc Human Rights Commission and eliminate the office.
County Executive' s Position: Support with Conditions
I
support the ORC recommendations regarding the reorganization of the Human
Rights Commission. My FY 12 Recommended Operating Budget
will
address this
reorganization, but in order to retain the unique and vital work that this
Commission provides,
it
will be necessary to retain some staffing for the
Commission. This recommendation requires implementing legislation which I
will
forward to the CounciL
5.
Modernize Community Use of Public Facilities
by
moving
it
to the
Department
of
General
Services.
County Executive's Position:
Oppose
with Explanation
ORC recommends "a major modernization of the property management system"
for Community Use of Public Facilities (CUPF). implying a significant deficiency
in its technology background to efficiently perform its function. As addressed in
greater detail below, CUPF is in fact heavily invested in technology and is
deploying new web-based tools now and more in the near future.
ORC also recommends that CUPF is better situated as a function of the
Department of General Services (DGS). While
it
is possible that integration with
DGS' property management responsibilities may create certain synergies,
it
would not provide
any
cost savings or measurable efficiencies. Therefore, I do
not believe the expense in time and effort to implement a consolidation of these
functions would be justified. In addition, there is little overlap in the missions of
these two functions, or opportunity to combine
statT
activities arolUld scheduling
operations or the planning, evaluation or supervision of such activities.
CUPF and technology: CUPF allocates and manages the use of more than 550 .
public facilities by approximately 6,000 individuals and groups scheduling more
than
750,000 hours in and around
nonna)
school or government business
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
operations. To do so in the most efficient way, CUPF has automated a significant
part of the scheduling process and continually seeks to expand its use of
technology.
CUPF is heavily invested In the use of technology for scheduling and managing
financial transactions, using the CLASS software also used by the Department of
Recreation for its very significant registration and financial accounting operation
in recreation program enrollment. CLASS is the overwhelmingly preferred
software for private and public recreation operations nationally. CUPF uses this
software in conjunction with online application/permit tracking, credit card
payments, and reports.
The system also interfaces with the new
ERP
system to manage revenue and other
financial transactions. Through integration with ICBweb (a custom application
that provides real-time infonnation on what
is
scheduled, where and when),
customer reports are generated and used extensively by Montgomery County
Public Schools (MCPS) and the County for assignment of staff support,
management of utility and overtime costs, and are also used
by
County Security.
During the past year, CUPF created a paperless Request
for
Proposal process on
its website for the selection of child care providers, which created efficiencies and
customer service improvements that were recognized by MCPS,
as
well
as the
County Department of Health and Human Services and DGS' Office of Real
Estate. Similarly,
its
paperless MCPS staff overtime approval process
has
been
well received. Beyond the potential technology enhancements
as
a result of the
Recreation and Parks permitting consolidation, CUPF is working toward
the
creation
a
bosted cbeck payment server option for online customers and
iIllplementation of an imaging system to replace the current paper forms, and also
employ check tracking
and
filing systems. Plans also include an online space
availability checking feature. All of these indicate a function that
is
fully intent on
exploiting technology to improve its service delivery.
Property management: ClJ""PF does not manage property; this
is
General Services'
function. However, CUPF
must
perform its work in coordination with DGS
as
well as MCPS facility
management. The CUPF's greatest challenge
is
in
negotiating and managing relationships, since
it
was created to prevent inequities
that can result from an unmanaged "ftIst-come, first-served" approach. In fact,
CUPF 'vas created over 30 years ago
in
response to county residents' concerns
about fair and equal access to use of schools after hours because each school was
making independent, often biased, decisions about who had access and what rate
was to be charged.
Under the purview oftbe policy·making Interagency Coordinating Board (lCB),
comprised of top-level decision makers from all major County agencies (Board of
Education, MCPS, M-NCPPC, County Government, Montgomery College, and
County Council), CUPF
is
able to respond quickly across agency lines to meet the
needs of the school system, the County and its residents.
This
includes
2417
on­
eall coverage and inclement weather
closings.
As
the
only independent office of
its
kind
in the nation, CUPF is
truly
a model of effective cross-agency
/~
3
!
\..:....:/.
I
to )
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
collaboration. The operation of CUPF is intertwined closely with MCPS, and its
success today is the result of many years of relationship building.
Financial impact:
A.~
noted above, no savings would be generated by moving
CUPF, an Enterprise Fund, under DOS. It should also be noted that Section 44­
5A of the County Charter requires reimbursing MCPS for the costs of supporting
community use, which mean more than 70% of CUPF' s budget
is
returned to
MCPS to cover
staff~
utility, custodial, and maintenance costs, with the remaining
30% covering operations to include funds returned to the General Fund.
Another observation made by ORC was that with efficiencies, perhaps fees could
be reduced. The rCB has continually worked to keep rates affordable to ensure
access to public space by community groups (98% of which are non-profits) while
at the same time meeting its own flnancial obligations. Without any
tax
dollar
support, CUPF's fees remain among the most competitive in the area.
6,
Reorganize the Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission and elinlinate the
Executive Director
position.
County Executive Position:
Oppose
with
Explanation
The Executive Director is part of the County Executive's Office and staff. I have
already reduced my Office's direct support over the past few years with a 25%
reduction in FY 2011 and an additional 15% recommended in.my FY 2012
budget. The additional loss of another position would further compromise my
staffs ability to fulfill the mission of the County Executive's Office. Placement
of the Executive Director position as a collateral duty for an individual in another
agency would compromise the ability to implement the work ofthe Commission.
The Executive Director position must be a high-level, appointed position, directly
representing the County Executive in order to integrate the Executive's priorities
and work with the other hIgh-level appointees on the Commission. In addition,
placing the position or duties of the Executive Director in one department would
create [he appearance of either favoritism or a particular direction which would
undermine the rationale of the Commission. Further, adding the duties to an
aIready existing position would minimize the ability to coordinate inter-agency
activities.
The Executive Director, as either a representative of me or as an ex-officio
attends the following Board, Committee or Commission or agency meetings: the
Disproportionate Minority Comact Committee of the Collaboration Council, the
Juvenile Justice Commission, the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, the
Domestic Violence Fatality B-eview Team, the Commission on Veterans Affairs,
the Criminal Justice Behavioral Health Initiative, and the Department of
Correction and Rehabilitation's Re-Entry Program. Time constraints and the need
for overall coordination would not permit that to continue if the Executive
Director position were eliminated. regardless of whether those memberships are
distributed among several individuals or one person.
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Joseph F. Beach
Director
MEMORANDUM
Aprill,2011
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Joseph F. Beach,
Council BiI13-1
ty Council
mmunity Use of Public Facilities - Reorganization
The purpose of
this
memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SIJMMARY
This bill was submitted by the Council President on behalfofthe Organizational Refonn
Commission. It proposes to:
• eliminate the Office of the Community Use of Public Facilities (CUPF) and reassign its functions;
• eliminate the Interagency Coordinating Board (ICB) for CUPF and reassign its functions;
• require the Department of General Services (008) to administer and implement the School Facilities
Utilization Act;
• require DGS to schedule and make available the community use ofschool and public facilities; and
• generally amend County law regarding these issues.
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY
This proposed legislation is not expected to have a fiscal impact. The proposed language
essentially transfers the function and responsibilities ofthe ICB and CUPF to DGS. The proposed new
governing and administrative entity would provide the same service at approxlinately the same cost; no
significant difference in cost is expected with the reassignment because existing staffand other resources
in CUPF and DOS would be retained in such a reassignment. There would be no need to co-locate the
offices, though some incidental costs related to CUPF materials (letterhead, business cards, etc.) may be
incurred.
Approximately two-thirds ofCUPF's $9.6 million annual budget is devoted to
reimbursing the Montgomery County Public Schools for the use of their facilities and utilities when these
facilities are utilized for non-school events. Twenty-five percent ofCUPF's budget is for salaries. Total
expenditures in FY12 are expected to bring its fund balance to approximately 9 percent, below the
recommended 10 percent oftotal revenue. In FYll, the anticipated fund balance
is
11 percent, an
indication that the agency is not increasing its revenue beyond the level necessary to provide current
services.
Office of the Director
101 Monroe Street, 14th Floor·
M31yland208.50 • 240-777-2800
www.montgomerycountymd.goy
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
April 1, 2011
Page
2
This legislation
will
have no economic impact on the County as it is internally focused on
County Government departments.
The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: Michael Coveyou,
Department ofFinance; Elizabeth Habermann, Community Use of Public Facilities; and Lori O'Brien,
Office of Management and Budget.
JFB:lob
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Jennifer Barrett, Director, Department of Finance
Ginny Gong, Director, Community Use ofPublic Facilities
Michael Coveyou, Department ofFinance
Elizabeth Habermann, Community Use ofPublic Facilities
Lori O'Brien, Office ofManagement and Budget
John Cuff, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
JF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF
11iE
CHAIR..ldA.~
-";"
-\,.
'0
9
r-'
-_.7"
MEMORANDUM
060865
February 28, 2011
TO:
FROM:
Montgomery County Council
Fran~oise
M. Carrier
·?~.>:n
'-l(':;)rl
',Y'
~:::o
Gi
­
, ::''''M
:;0­
,.::;-«
('")fI1
::.:t'~
ClU
c
~:
Chair, Montgomery Coun
Vice Chair, Maryland-National Capital Park
&
Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Response to the County Executive's Organizational Reform Commission
Recommendations
This memorandum provides our response to the County Executive's February 21 proposal based on the
Organizational Reform Commission {ORC)'s final report and recommendations. We recognize the,
difficulty of the decisions facing the County government as it finalizes the budget for fiscal year 2012,
and are aware some tough decisions will have to be made. The ORC's task was a challenging one, and
we applaud their efforts to find opportunities for cost-savings, efficiencies, and improved customer
service. We remain in favor of streamlining functions and pursuing savings and efficiencies, and
welcome continued dialogue with the Council on all possible opportunities. We support several of the
recommendations contained with the ORC report and the County Executive's February 21 memo, and
would like to share our concerns about a few others. Our thoughts on these are outlined below.
Preserving the Office of Community Use of Public Facilities
We wholeheartedly agree with the County Executive's recommendation to preserve the Office of
Community Use of Public Facilities (CUPF) as an independent entity. We have enjoyed a highly
collaborative relationship with this office over the years, and have recently transferred the permitting of
7'
our athletic fields to them in order to streamline the field permitting process for all users. Like our
Enterprise Fund, CUPF is self-supporting and requires no tax dollars to operate. It makes'little'sense. to,
transfer a successful, self-sustaining business operation when the impact of the management transfer is
unknown and could have detrimental impacts on its operations and fiscal integrity.
8787 Georgia ,Aver:ue, Silver Spring,
20910
P!1one: 301.495.4605
Fa."c: 301.495,1320
100% recycled paper
www.MCParkandPlanning.org
E-Mail: mcp-chairman@mncppc.crg
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Members of th.e Board of Education
5
February
2011
The commission also proposes to consolidate major IT platfonTIs across agencies starting
in Fiscal Year 2012, with projected savings between
$]
&
million and $36 million
annually (Page 32). This recommendation
the source of most of
the
total savIngs
identitied by the commission.
011e
member, Mr. Scott Fosler, filed a
resctvatiCm
on this
point, arguing that
the
central
role of
technolQgy makes
it
imperative to
first
review
the
overall
governmental
structure of the
varioLls· agencies before committing
to a
new
technology gove11ling structure
(page
31). This recommendation is \vildly optimistic and.
not grounded
in
evidence
or
cost-effective
strategy.
For
example, the suggestion
that
there will be
signiticantcost
savings from consolidating data
c~nters
assmnes
redundancies among
agency
data centers that
do not presently exist.
The report significantly underestimates the complexity of the mission and operational
functioning of each
agency.
A
centralized
CIO will increase the opportunities
to
stifle
innovation and reduce the
agility
to respond to key agency priorities
and
customer needs.
Inclirect Impact
OthcJ.' recommendations of the ORC report do
not
directly affect MCPS, hut may have an
indirect
effect.
The following is a brief summary of these recommendations:
9.
Modemize the property management system of the Community Us.c of
Public
Facilities
(CUPF)
and move the office to the cOlmty's Department of General Services
(Page
14).
The report
proposes
to eliminate the independent depm1ment that manages the use of
public space,
including the
use of school facilities. CUPF is under the
direction
of an
independent board
1
including the
superiut~ndel1t
of schools and other MCPS staff. This
diverse representation safeguards protection of school buildings from llses that might
interfere with the pril11my instmctional mission of schools. Placing the office uuder the
direction
of the county's
Department
of
General
Services,
even with an advisory board,
would compromise the oliginal purpose of CUPF. Additionally, because CUPF is
all
enterprise
fund
supported
by
uscr fees,
reQrganization
would
not
directly result
in tax­
sUPPQrted
savings
to
the
Op(:rating
Budget.
10. Reorganize the Ci"iminal
Justice
Coordinating
Council
(CJCC)
so that
it
is housed and
staffed within the
Montgomery
County
Police
Department
(Page 14).
The
Clee
is an
independent
commission that
includes
representation.ofrnany
county
agencies,
including
MCPS.
If the
CJCC
were
moved
to
the Montgomery
County
Depart111ent
of
Police,
it
is
not clear whether its intct'agency character would continue. ElimInation of its entire staff
support
would
save
$l58,000.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
I
Testimony Council Bi113-11
March 29,2011
Henry Lee
Good Evening President Erving and Members of the County Council.
I am testifying this evening on Council Bill 3-11.
This bill is the result of the report presented by the Organizational Reform Commission seeking
to decrease costs, streamline and increase the efficiency of County Services. This bill will seeks
to eliminate Office of the Community Use of Public Facilities and the Interagency Coordinating
Board for CUPF and reassign its functions to the Department of General Services.
This bill does not take into account the rationale for the creation of the Community use of Public
Facilities and takes a very shortsighted view of future efficiencies and costs.
As part of the O.R.C. presentation to the County Council,:tv1r. Wegman indicated
possible savings by eliminating CUPP's director position. I'd like to point out that this is a Merit
System position and the director has been in place for more than 12 years. Ms. Gong has served
the County and the community in an outstanding manner as the office implemented full
centralized scheduling of all schools, added County buildings to the facilities available for
community use, and oversaw a number of technology enhancements, including a completely
paperless childcare vendor solicitation and selection process. Because community use is
essentially a
2417
job, the director makes weather-related cancellation decisions on weekends
and evenings (impacting thousands of citizens and students) as well as being "on-call" in the
event of power loss, water main breaks, or other emergencies. CUPF's management team is
comprised ofthe director and two other grade 25 managers. Given that CUPF's program has
such a direct impact on residents, as well as hundreds of employees and facilities, it is critical
that a high-level, experienced director be at the helm. The ICB has often publicly recognized the
director for on-going efforts meeting the
day~to-day
challenges of balancing multiple competing
priorities and conflicting community interests and has especially recognized the great strides Ms .
.Gong has accomplished with relations with MCPS.
Most people are not aware that CUPF returns 70% of user fees to MCPS to cover worker
salaries, maintenance, utilities and custodial supplies. Funds are also returned to libraries and
Regional Service Centers. The remainder of the budget is dedicated to the cost of managing the
program, including $500,000 for County overhead. In the near future, CLTPF is slated to move
into County space, thereby increasing its contribution to the General Fund by another $200,000.
The ICB has continually worked to keep user fees affordable to ensure access by community
groups (98% of which are non-profits) and, at the same time, meet our financial
obligations. Other organizations that the ICB benchmarks actually subsidize operations with tax
dollars. ClTPF rates remain among the most competitive in the area vvithout any tax dollar
support.
CUPF does not manage property in the same sense as DGS. CuPF manages use by the
community outside the needs of the primary tenant. The office's role is to allocate and direct the
use of more than 550 public facilities by approximately 6,000 individuals and groups scheduling
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
more than 750,000 hours in and around normal school and business operations. To do so in the
most efficient way, CUPF has automated a significant part of the scheduling process. Users are
able to submit, amend, and cancel requests online and stakeholders are able to access real-time
information as to exactly what is scheduled in their school or government building via a weblink
("rCBweb" is used daily by MCPS to manage utility and overtime costs as well as to make work
assignments for hundreds of MCPS employees supporting community use). CUPF staff is now
working on other features that will enable users to check availability online before submitting a
request.
Of utmost importance is conveying to you that scheduling activities around school or
government needs is not as simple as merely entering an event date on a calendar. Consideration
must first be given to rCB's established priority hierarchy (MCPS has first priority, then the
PTAs, then the County and municipal recreation departments, and then community groups).
Staff must looking at the big picture in scheduling use in a school and check to see if the
requested use is an appropriate match for the facility. Part of the scheduling mix is taking into
account the school system's labor agreements with regard to worker assignments, whether
simultaneous events will impact parking and event support needs, and other impacts such as
looking ahead to see which schools will be closed or have limited use because of summer
construction projects or renovations. And, of course, there are always unforeseen, last-minute
requests for use by MCPS that send staff scrambling to move a community group to an alternate
location.
CUPF and DGS have different missions with almost no overlap of functionality. CUPF's
mission is focused on services to the community and meeting the short-term and intermittent
space needs of its customers (churches, cultural groups, athletic groups, childcare providers, etc.),
requiring a significant level of ongoing customer interaction and conflict resolution between
customer demands and primary tenants' concerns. CUPF does not purchase, sell, manage, clean,
or maintain any buildings. DGS' s mission is to primarily support the infrastructure of the
County and has an internal customer base. DGS's Real Estate Program enters into long-term
contracts, whereas most of CUPF' s customers' use is limited to a few hours a week.
As the only independent office of its kind in the nation, rCB/CUPF is a model for other
jurisdictions. r believe that maintaining autonomy ofrCB/CUPF is in the best interests of both
the County and the community. rCB/CUPF was established over
30
years ago in response to
citizen concerns about fair and equal access to use of schools after-hours because each school
was making its own decisions about who got in, when they got in, and what they were charged.
The operation of CUPF is intertwined closely with MCPS, and it has taken many diligent years
of relationship building to get rCB/CUPF to where we are today. Another major point is the
implementation of a one-stop-shop approach to facility use and consolidation of permitting of
Rec and Parks facilities under CUPF. r believe to merge CUPF into DGS at this time would be
most inopportune.
Thank you.
Henry Lee
7100 Sonnett Court
Derwood, MD 20855
301-963-2409
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
~m71/)lJf
Lee
7
t
00 SONNET COURT
DERWOOD. I'ID 20855
February
7,2011
The Honorable Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Montgomery County Government
101
Monroe Street
Rockville, MD
20850
Dear Mr. Leggett:
I am writing as chairman and as your citizen appointment to the Interagency Coordinating Board
(ICB) for the Community Use of Public Facilities (CUPF), on which
I
have served many years.
1
am
appreciative of the many hours spent by the Organizational Reform Commission and the
thought~ulness
with which they arrived at their recommendations, but would like to take this opportunity to provIde my
thoughts and provide clarification on several points
As part of the presentation last week to the County Council, Mr, Wegman indicated possible
savings by eliminating CUPF's director position. I'd like to point out that this is a Merit System position
and the director has been in place for more than
12
years. Ms. Gong has served the County and the
community In an outstanding manner as the office implemented full centralized scheduling of all schools,
added County buildings to the facilities available for community use, and oversaw a number of
technology enhancements, including a completely paperless childcare vendor solicitation and selection
process. Because community use is essentially a 24l7job, the director makes weather-related cancellation
decisions on weekends and evenings (impacting thousands of citizens and students) as wel! as being "on­
eall"
in the event of power loss, water main breaks, or other emergencies. CUPF's management team is
comprised of the director (the only MLS staff member) and two other grade
25
managers. Given that
CUPF's program has such a direct impact on residents, as well as hundreds of employees and facilities, it
is critical that a high-level, experienced director be at the helm. The ICB has otten publicly recognized
the director for on-going efforts meeting the day-to-day challenges of balancing multiple competing
priorities and conflicting community interests and has especially recognized the great strides Ms. Gong
has accomplished with relations with MCPS.
Most people are not aware that CUPF returns
70%
of user fees to MCPS to cover worker salaries,
maintenance, utilities and custodial supplies. Funds are also returned to libraries and RSCs.
The remainder of the budget is dedicated to the cost of managing the program, including
$500,000
for
County overhead. [n the near future, CUPF is slated to move into County space, thereby increasing its
contribution to the General Fund by another
$200,000.
The ICB has continually worked to keep user fees
affordable to ensure access by community groups
(98%
of which are non-profits) and, at the same time,
meet our financial obligations. Other organizations that the rCB benchmarks actually subsidize
operations with tax dollars. CUPF rates remain among the most competitive in the area without any tax
dollar support.
CUPF does not manage property in the same sense as DGS. CUPF manages use by the
community outside the needs of the primary tenant. The office's role is to allocate and direct the use of
more than
550
public facilities by approximately
6,000
individuals and groups scheduling more than
750,000
hours in and around normal school and business operations. To do soin the most efficient way,
CUPF has automated a significant part of the scheduling process. Users are able to submit, amend, and
cancel requests online
and
stakeholders are able
to access real-time
information as to exactly
what
is
scheduled in
their
schoo;
or
government building via
a weblink ("ICBweb" is
used
daily
by
IvICPS to
~.
(!j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
manage utility and overtime costs as well as to make work assignments for hundreds ofMCPS employees
supporting community use). CUPF staffis now working on other features that will enable users to check
availability online before submitting a request.
Of utmost importance is conveying to you that scheduling activities around school or government
needs is not as simple as merely entering an event date on a calendar. Consideration must first be given
to ICB's established priority hierarchy (MCPS has first priority, then the PTAs, tben the County and
municipal recreation departments, and then community groups). Staff must looking at the big picture in
scheduling use in a school and check to see if the requested use is an appropriate match for the facility.
Part of the scheduling mix is taking into account the school system's labor agreements with regard to
worker assignments, whether simultaneous events
wi!]
impact parking and event support needs, and other
impacts such as looking ahead to see which schools will be closed or have limited use because of summer
construction projects or renovations. And, of course, there are always unforeseen, last-minute requests
for use by MCPS that send staff scrambling to move a community group to an alternate location.
CUPF and DOS have different missions with almost no overlap of functionality. CUPF's mission
is focused on services to the communitv and meeting the short-term and intermittent space needs of its
customers (churches, cultural groups, athletic groups, childcare providers, etc.), requiring a significant
level of ongoing customer interaction and conflict resolution between customer demands and primary
tenants' concerns. CUPF does not purchase, sell, manage, clean, or maintain any buildings. DGS's
mission is to primarily support the infrastructure of tile County and has an internal customer base. DOS's
Real Estate Program enters into long-term contracts, whereas most of CUPF's customers' use is limited to
a few hours a week.
As you know, CUPF is assuming the permitting of Parks and MCRD space. As part ofthis effort,
we anticipate leveraging additional technology and streamlining services. CUPF's paperless childcare
solicitation process has been lauded as resourceful and highly efficient (HHS recently requested that
CUPF share logistics and implementation of the new process).
As the only independent office of its kind in the nation, lCB/CUPF is a model for other
jurisdictions. I believe that maintaining autonomy oflCB/CUFF is in the best interests of both the
County and the community. lCB/CUPF was established over 30 years ago in response to citizen
concerns about fair and equal access to use of schools after-hollrs because each school was making its
own decisions about who got in, when they got in, and what they were charged. The operation of CUPF
is intertwined closely with MCPS, and
it
has taken many diligent years ofrelationship building to get
ICB/CUPF to where we are today. Another major point is the implementation ofa one-stop-shop
approach to facility use and consolidation of permitting of Rec and Parks facilities under CUPF. 1 believe
to merge CUPF into DOS at this time would be most inopportune.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts.
{,~~
Cc:
Montgomery County Council
100
Maryland Avenue
Rockville, fVlD 20850
Sincerely,
Interagency Coordinating Board
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony March 29,2011
Bill3-11 CUPF
Good evening, my name is Denise Gorham. I am the Executive Director of Bethesda
Chevy Chase Baseball also known as BCC Baseball. I represent more than 3200 youth
baseball players and their parents. I am one of the original founders of the league which
started in the fall of 1993. I have directed the operations for the past eighteen years.
I remember the days when CUPF (known then as ICB) was a fledging organization. I
also remember the disparities and confusion of dealing with three entities for field
pennits. (parks, Rec and ICB). I cringe at the memory of the 4:00 AM queue at Parks
door waiting to file requests for pennits. Or worse yet, the mad dash to get to every
school on the first day of pennit requests and submit the archaic multi-page application
praying the school secretary would grant your request.
Many, many improvements have been made over the past eighteen years and I must say
the leader in modifying the system to make things work as smoothly as possible has been
the office ofCUPF. The recent merger ofpennitting staffs from Parks and CUPF seems
to be running smoothly.
It
is a pleasure to work with a staff that is efficient, fair-minded
and personable. I deal with 6000 parents, 280 team managers and their 3200 players.
Assigning game and practice times that accommodate all these needs is a challenge
beyond the realm of computers and technology. CUPF deals with many more customers
than
I.
Scheduling involves human interaction and frequently, conflict resolution,
especially when dealing with limited resources and competing interests. When a field or
school is closed for renovation, an alternative must be sought. There is a domino effect if
one site goes down. This cannot be solved by technology.
It
takes human ingenuity and
concern. Managing all these requests and sites is more about working with people than
technology.
To disrupt this operation by merging it into a much larger bureaucratic agency such as
DGS would not only be counterproductive, it makes no sense financially. CUPF is an
enterprise fund and self sufficient. No government funds are allocated for its operation.
In fact, seventy per cent of the fees collected by CUPF go back to the schools. If this
were to change all the hard work over the years to convince school principals to allow
community use would be for naught. The community users would suffer as a
consequence.
I believe the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is applicable here. Why take a
program that is running smoothly and costs the taxpayers no dollars and change it?
Satisfying the needs of the community for indoor space and athletic fields is a very
challenging job. Merging these specialists into a larger agency would not simplify the
task or provide any efficiencies. In fact, I fear the worst and cannot begin to imagine
returning to the horrors of yesteryear.
On behalf of BCC' s community I ask that you vote down Bill 3-11 as a fiscally irrelevant
and counterproductive proposal.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of 1
r,
\,.,
· .
'belgadO, Annette
--------------------~
.
~
V
l /
From:
Sent:
Ervin's
Office,
Councilmember
Monday. February
07,2011 2:16
PM
Montgomery County Council
To:
Subject:
FW: ORC Report
060465
-----Original Message--·_·
From: Bruce McPherson [mailto:bruce_w_mcpherson@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, February
07, 2011 2;15
PM
To: Ike Leggett; Andrew's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Eirich's Office, Councilmember;
Ervin's Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office,
Councifmember; Rice's Office, Councllmember; Riemer's Office, Councilmember
Subject:
FW: ORC Report
--_
..
__
._--­
,----------------------
,----,,-_
...
From: bruce_w_mcpherson@msn.com
To: timothyJirestone@montgomerycountymd.gov
Subject: ORC Report
Date: Mon, 7 Feb
201118:54:41
+0000
Dear Mr. Firestone,
I hope you will find time to read my comments on the ORC report and its impact on the Community Use of Public
Facilities.
Thank you,
Sylvia McPherson
o
2/7/2011
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Dear Mr. Firestone:
Having just read the section of the ORC report concerning the Community Use of Public
Facilities (lCB) I would like to share some of my concerns with you and the County
Council
I started with Montgomery Soccer Inc (MSI) in 1975-before the ICB was in existence.
Pennitting the schools could be very difficult, often at the whim of the principal of the
school. Some said that community use resulted in "wearing out" the fields and
"disrupting" the classroom settings. When the ICB was established in 1978 things began
to change for community use because now the community had an advocate. Things were
not always smooth sailing as many schoo1s still fought against groups using the building
and disrupting the teachers' space. The ICB walked a fine line between the community
and the schools and they had a difficult role to play.
In
my 23 years as MSI Executive Director and an additional 12 years as Chainnan ofthe
Advisory Committee for the ICB Board I have watched an amazing evolution in the
agency--not only in the advanced technology available to users in permitting space but
also in the way Ginny Gong and her staffhave built relationships of mutual respect and
trust in working with the schools. The staff has always understood that the primary
purpose of the schools was for academics and those needs always had priority.
It
has
been heartening to watch the lCB and the schools work together for the benefit of the
community without the animosity ofpast years. Ginny has never failed, through her own
fonn of diplomacy, to bring about a good result when problems occur. This agency
provides a personal, hands-on approach to community use of all public facilities that goes
far beyond just issuing a pennit for a field or building based on space available.
The Community Use of Public Facilities is an enterprise fund comprised solely of user
fees and as such is mandated to reimburse schools 70% of those fees collected. Other
county agencies are also reimbursed funds to cover wear and tear from community use.
The remaining funds are used to cover administrative costs.
I cannot believe any good could be achieved by combining this agency with another.
lsi
Sylvia S. McPherson