ED COMMITTEE #1
April 25, 2011
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
April 21, 2011
TO:
FROM:
Education Committee
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Analys~
Vivian Yao, Legislative Analyst
~
Worksession: Bill 3-11, Community Use of Public Facilities - Reorganization
SUBJECT:
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 8,2011. A public hearing was held on March 29.
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 or several boards, committees and commissions including the Interagency
Coordinating Board for Community Use of Public Facilities (see Recommendation #5):
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 ofthe
Office and Board move to the Department of General Services.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
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.
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 determine 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 perform critical functions for the agency;
(2) CUPF and DGS have different missions with almost no overlap of functionality; (3) CUPF
focuses on meeting short-term and intermittent 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 dated, 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 CUPF's property management system, the
Executive notes that CUPF does not manage property, which is a function performed 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 permitting of the Board's
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).
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
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 DGS could compromise the original purpose of CUPF (©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 DGS 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 for Committee discussion is whether to eliminate CUPF and the
Interagency Coordinating Board for CUPF and reassign the functions to DGS. Although the
ORC found it "highly likely that the efficiencies resulting from [moving the CUPF and ICB
functions to DGS] 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 DGS and that the functions of DGS 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.
Council staff recommendation: 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 correspondence/testimony
Excerpt of Planning Board memorandum
Excerpt of Jerry Weast memorandum
Henry Lee
Denise Gorham
Sylvia McPherson
F:\Yao\Ed Comm Orc on CUPF 04251
1.
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
Conceming: 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 Refonn 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 lA-203
Chapter 2, Administration
Section 2-30
Chapter 32, Offenses - Victim Advocate
Section 32-l9C
Chapter 41, Recreation and Recreation Facilities
Section 41-21
Chapter 44, Schools and Camps
Section 44-2, 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 bracketsD
* * *
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:\Iaw\bills\1103 cupf\biIl1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
1
2
3
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
4
5
not part of a department or principal office:
6
7
*
*
*
*
*
[Office of Community Use of Public Facilities [section 44-4]]
8
9
10
*
Division 5. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES.
2-30. Department of General Services - Functions.
The Department of General Services must:
11
12
*
(i)
*
*
13
(h) plan and implement the use of space
in
County buildings; [and]
operate mail, printing, duplication, and archiving
services[.]~
administer and implement the School Facilities Utilization Act (Chapter
~
14
15
16
17
ill
Article
It
and
(k)
schedule and make available to the community the use of
18
19
20
21
22
ill
ill
school facilities; and
other public facilities designated
Qy
the Chief Administrative
Officer under standards established
Qy
regulation issued under
method@
All user fees and other payments to the County for the community use
of
~
23
public facility under subsection (k)(2) must be administered
24
25
through the enterprise fund established
Qy
Section 44-SA.
Division 19. [Office of Community Use of Public Facilities] Reserved.
[2-64M. Functions and Duties.]
[(a)
Generally.
The Office of Community Use of Public Facilities:
26
27
o
f:\law\bills\11 03 cupt\bUI1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
(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
(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.]
37
38
39
40
32-19C. Disruptive Behavior-Public Facilities
(a)
In this Section, the following terms have the following meanings unless
the context clearly indicates otherwise:
41
42
43
44
*
(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].!
(B)
45
46
47
48
49
[CD)
a designee of the Director of Community Use of Public
Facilities. ]
(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
Facilities].
50
51
52
53
54
f:\law\bills\ 1103 cupt\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
55
56
57
58
59
*
41-21. Recreation board.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(c)
The ex officio, nonvoting members of the Board are:
*
(4)
60
61
a representative of the [Office of Community Use of Public
Facilities] Department of General Services;
62
63
64
*
44-2. Definitions.
*
*
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]
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
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
Montgomery County [board of education] Board of Education, including [but
not limited to] those schools currently or in the future designated as
"community schools."
Superintendent[.
72
73
74
75
76
77
The] means the superintendent of Montgomery County
[public schools] Public Schools.
Community school council[.
An]
means an existing body created to provide
78
79
information and advice on community needs, program development, facility
use~
80
and related matters at designated "community schools" or a body [as may
tllaw\bills\1103 cupf\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
3-11
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
may be] created in the future to perform similar functions regarding other
schools or groups of schools.
44-3. [Interagency Coordinating Board] Director of General Services: Duties.
[(a)
Establishment and responsibilities.
The Interagency Coordinating Board for
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)]
W
recommend fee schedules that the Council may adopt by resolution
after receiving the recommendations of the Executive;
92
93
94
95
96
[(3)]
lhl
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 by 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]
[(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
fmanced by the County government
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
tllaw\bills\1103 cupf\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No.
3-11
107
108
109
ill
(g}
administer and coordinate the programs and activities necessary to
f.illIY
out the purposes ofthis Article;
administer appropriated funds and explore the possibility of obtaining
additional
funds
from non-County sources;
110
III
(hl
provide information and guidance to any community group, municipal
government, County agency, and any other user-of
f!
school facility as to
ways in which such facility use could be made more cost effective;
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
ill
ill
employ and train community school coordinators and other necessary
personnel, with the approval ofthe Chief Administrative Officer;
directly with an individual school or through
f!
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:
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
ill
ill
ill
encourage and assist the formation of
f!
community school
council;
schedule the use of
f!
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
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;
128
129
130
131
f:\law\bil1s\11 03 cupf\biIl1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 3-11
132
133
ill
survey community needs and develop outreach and other
programs to meet those needs through optimal use of school
facilities; and
134
135
136
137
138
(§)
assume responsibility for needed repaIr or replacement of
property resulting from community use; and
ill
promote cooperation among any activity' under this Article, community
program or activity carried on in g fOImer school subsequently taken
over
Qy
the County, or multipurpose community center operated
Qy
the
County.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
[(b)
Membership.
The Board consists of votingmembers 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~ated
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 confinned
by the Board of Education; and
(G)
three citizens appointed by the Executive and confinned
by the CounciL
151
152
153
154
155
156
f:\law\bills\
1103
cupf\bill 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
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 of the board are:
(A)
a member of the Board of Education designated by the
Board of Education;
(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 ofthe 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
181
182
183
Board.]
44-4. [Director of Community Use
of Public
Facilities] Resenred.
[The
Director must:
tlJaw\bills\1103 cup'l\bill 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
3-11
184
185
(a)
Administer the programs and activities necessary to carry out the
purposes of this article;
186
187
188
(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;
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
(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;
(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)
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
Schedule use ofschool 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
208
209
210
(4)
Generally coordinate logistical, fmancial 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
or
other
arrangements
between
the
county
government and the board of education;
®
f:llaw\bills\1103 cupf\biU 1.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;
(f)
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
facilities~
inc1uding[. The committee shall submit recommendations to the board
on the following subjects]:
ill
ill
ways [by which] to Increase 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:\lawlbills\1103 cupf\bi1l1.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
248
249
Date
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
250
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
Date
251
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
f:\Iaw\bills\
1103
cupt\biIl1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 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:
PENAL TIES:
None.
F;\LAW\BILLS\11 03 CUPF\Legislative Request Report.Doc
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission
.,
i
,
I
I
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 commission can be aligned with the Office of Community Partnerships
or another suitable entity, as determined by the Council and Executive. Finally,
the activities of the Interagency Fair Housing Coordinating Group - currently
supporte~
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
c) Interagency Coordinating Board for Community Use of Public Facilities
(CUPF) -
Current Budget -
$9,325,840.
);-
The ORC recommends a major modernization ofthe 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
re~ulting
from the moves
could reduce costs to users or assist in improving services, thereby allocating a
portion ofits $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 arid 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.
);-
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 staffsupport
I
J
I
i
I
I
I
~
f
t
d
l
!
-14 ­
I
I
 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 o(the 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
Comm'unity Use of Public Facilities (CUPF) office - are managed. We also reviewed a
significant amount of background infonnation 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 infonnal 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
10
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 for
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 is a 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 perfonn its tasks.
)p>
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·defined 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 management (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 deteffi1ined the best fOffi1 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
I
support
the
ORC recommendation regarding the reorganization of the
Commission for Women. My FY12 Recommended Operating Budget
\vill
address the reorganization of this Commission, but in order to maintain the
excellent work of the Commission for Women
J
will
recommend a reduction, but
not the elimination of all staff support. This recommendation requires
implementing legislation which
I
will forward to the CounciL
4. Reorganize the Human Rights Commission and eliminate tbe office.
County Executive's Position:
Support
with
Conditions
I
support the ORC recommendations regarding
the
reorganization of the Human
Rights Commission. My FY12 Recommended Operating Budget will address this
reorganization, but in order to retain the unique and vital work that this
Commission provides, it
\\';11
be necessary to
reiain
some staffing for the
Commission. This recommendation requires implementing legislation which
I
wi\]
forward to the Council.
s.
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
DOS' 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 staff activities around 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 normal 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 automaied a significant
part of the scheduling process and continually seeks to expand its use of
technology.
CUPF is heavny invested in the use of technology for schedu1ing 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 tor 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 information on what
is
scheduled, where and when),
customer reports are generated and used extensively by Montgomery County
Public Scho01s (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 DOS' Office of Real
Estate. Similarly, its paperless MCPS staff overtime approval process has been
well received. Beyond the potential technology enhancements
as
a resu1t of the
Recreation and Parks permitting consolidation, CUPF is working toward the
creation a hosted check payment server option for online customers and
implementation 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 technoJogy to improve its service delivery.
Property management: CUPF does not manage property; this
is
General Services'
function. However, CUPF must perform
its
work in coordination with DOS 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 "'flrst-come, first-served" approach. In fact,
CUPF was 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 ofthe policy-making interagency Coordinating Board (feB),
comprised of top-leve] 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
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
collaboration. The operation of CUPF is intertwined closeJy 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 DGS. It should also be noted that Section 44­
5A of the County Charter requires reimbursing MCPS for the costs ofsupporting
community use, which mean more than
70%
of CUPF's budget
is
returned to
MCPS to cover stan: utility, custodial, and maintenance costs, with the rcmaining
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 ICB has continually wockedto 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 fmancial obligations. Without any
tax
doUar
support, CUPF's fees remain among the most competitive
in
the area.
6. Reorganize the Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission and eliminate 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 20 II and an additional 15% recommended in.my FY 2012
budget. The additional loss of another position would further compromise my
staff's 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 of the 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 the appearance of either favoritism or a particular direction which would
undermine the rationale of the Commission. Further, adding the duties to an
already 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 Contact 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:
ty Council
Joseph F. Beach,
Council Bill 3-11
mmunity Use ofPublic Facilities - Reorganization
The purpose ofthis memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
This bill was submitted by the Council President on behalfofthe Organizational Refonn
Commission. It proposes to:
• eliminate the Office of the Community Use ofPublic Facilities (CUPF) and reassign its functions;
• eliminate the Interagency Coordinating Board (lCB) for CUPF and reassign its functions;
• require the Department ofGeneral Services (OGS) 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.
~
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 approximately the same cost; no
significant difference in cost is expected with the reassignment because existing staff and other resources
in CUFF and DGS 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 of CUPF'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 of total revenue. In FYI 1, 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 •
Rockville,
Malyland 20850
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Valerie Ervin, President, COlmty 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 Coveyoll,
Department of Finance; Elizabeth Habermann, Community Use ofPublic Facilities; and Lori
O'Bri~
Office ofManagement and Budget.
JFB:lob
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices ofthe County Executive
Jennifer Barrett, Director, Department of Finance
Ginny Gong, Director, Community Use ofPublic Facilities
Michael Coveyoll, Department of Finance
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
-
=er-
.JF
c:.c.
L-L­
rnrn
!..-Pm
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
vy
OFFICE
OF
THE
MEMORANDUM
CHAIRMAN
060865
February 28, 2011
TO:
FROM:
Montgomery County Council
Fran,oise M. Carrier
Chair, Montgomery Coun
Vice Chair, Maryland-National Capital Park
&
Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Response to the County Executive's Organizational Reform Commission
Recommendations
/
l...
--.-~
....
...J
/1
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
.
.,.
our athletic fields to them in order to streamline the field permitting process for all users. Uke our
Enterprise Fund, CUPF is self-supporting and requires no tax dollars to operate. It ma'kes'littlesense 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 Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Phone: 301.495.4605
Fax: 301.495.1320
100% re<:yded paper
www.MCParkandPlanning.org
E-Mail: mcp-chairman@mDcppc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Members of the Board of Education
5
February 23, 2011
The
commission
also proposes to consolidate major IT
platforms
across agencies
stat1ing
in Fiscal
Year
2012,
with
projected savings
between
$]
8 million and $36 million
annually (Page
32). This
recommendation
is
the source of most of the total savings
identified by the commissjon. One mcmber,Mr. Scott Fosler, filed a
re..~crvation
on this
point, arguing that the central role of technology makes it imperative to tlrst review the
overall governmental structure of the various agencies before committing to a neW
technology goveming
structure
(Page 31). This recommendation is wildly optimistic and
not grounded in evidence or cost-effective strategy. For example, the suggestion that
there will be significant cost savings
frOI11
consolidating data centers assumes
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
ero
wiII increase the oppol1unities to stifle
innovation and reduce the agility to respond to
key
agency priorities and customer needs.
Indirect Impact
Other recommendatjons of the ORC report do not directly affect MCPS, but may have an
indirect
effect.
The
toll
owing is a brief summary of these recommendations:
9. Modernize the property management systenl of the Community Use
pf
Public Facilities
(CUPF) and move the office to the county's Department of General Services (Page 14).
The report proposes to eliminate the independent department that manages the usc of
public space, including the use of school facilities. CUPF is under the direction of an
independent board, including the superintendent of schools and other MCPS staff. This
diverse representation safeguards protection of school buildings from uses that might
interfere with the primary instructional mission of schools. Placing the office under the
direction of the county's Department of General Services, even with an advisory board,
would compromise the original purpose of CUPF. Additional1y, because CUPF is an
enterprise fund supported by user fees, reorganization would not directly result in tax­
supported savings to the Operating Budget.
10. Reorganize the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) so that
it
is housed and
staffed within the Montgomery County Police Department (Page 14). The CJCC is an
independent commission that includes representation of many county agencies, including
MCPS. If the CJCC were movc{L to the Montgomery County Department of Police, it is
not clear whether its interagency character wl.)uld continue. Elimination of its entire staff
suppoti
would save
$
[58,000.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
/
Testimony Council Bill 3-11
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, Mr. Wegman indicated
possible savings by eliminating CUPF's director position. 1'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 oftechnology 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 of the 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, 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 ICB 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
 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 web link
("ICBweb" 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 ICB'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 supp0rt: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, ICB/CUPF is a model for other
jurisdictions. I believe that maintaining autonomy ofICB/CUPF is in the best interests of both
the County and the community. ICB/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 0\\,11 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 ICB/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. I 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
A-ttac})vnen:f
+0
Lee..
+esf7rhDY\l
,:;ffeu'P}/
c~e
7100 SONNET COURT
DERWOOD. !>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. [am
appreciative of the many hours spent by the Organizational Reform Commission and the thoughtfulness
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
2417
job, the director makes weather-related cancellation
decisions on weekends and evenings (impacting thousands of citizens and students) as weIl as being "on­
call" 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 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 RSCs.
The remainder of the budget is dedicated to the cost of managing the program, including
$500,000
for
County overhead. In 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 ICB benchmarks actually subsidize
operations with tax dollars. CUPF rates remain among the most competitive in the area without any tax
dollar support.
CUPF does 110t manage property in the same sense as DOS. 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 nomlal 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 C'ICBweb" is used daily by MCPS to
~
(JfJ
 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 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 ICB'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 DOS 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 you know, CUPF is assuming the permitting of Parks and MCRD space. As part of this effort,
we anticipate leveraging additional technology and streamlining services. CUPPs 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 ofits kind in the nation, ICB/CUPF is a model for other
jurisdictions.
I
believe that maintaining autonomy ofICB/CUPF 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·hours because each school was making its
own decisions about who got in, when they got in, and what they were charged. The operation ofCUPF
is intertwined closely with MCPS, and it has taken many diligent years of relationship building to get
ICB/CUPF
to where we are today. Another major poim
is
the implementation ofa one-stop-shop
approach to facility use and consolidation of permitting ofRec 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.
,
,AcereI Y
H~Chair
Interagency Coordinating Board
Cc:
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockvi1le, MD 20850
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony March 29, 2011
Bill 3-11 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
permits. (Parks, Rec and ICB). I cringe at the memory of the 4:00 AM queue at Parks
door waiting to file requests for permits. Or worse yet, the mad dash to get to every
school on the first day of permit 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 of CUPF. The recent merger of permitting 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 behalfofBCC'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
t
of 1
\
"-,
C"'''DelgadO, Annette
From:
Sent:
---------------"-----"---
- - -
Ervin's
Office.
Councilmember
Monday,
February 07.2011
2:16 PM
------------------------­
"V
L/
~
To:
Montgomery County Council
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, Councilmemberj Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office,
Councilmember; Rice's Office, Councilmemberi Riemer's Office, Councilmember
SUbject:FW:
ORC Report
--------'------------,---------------------------,,"'----.".".,"
From: bruce_w_mcpherson@msn,com
To: timothy.firestone@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
21712011
 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 (ICB) 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.
Permitting 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 saiHng as many schools still fought against groups using the building
and disrupting the teachers' space. The rCB walked a fine line b.etween 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 of the
Advisory Committee for the rCB Board [ 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 staff have 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 ICB and the schools work together for the benefit of the
community without the animosity of past 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