Agenda Item 5A
March
5,
2013
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
~
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Action:
Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment
Health and Human Services CommitteelEducation Committee recommendation:
enact with amendments (Councilmember Rice dissenting).
Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment, sponsored by
Councilmembers Riemer, Floreen, and Andrews, Council President Navarro, Councilmember
Ervin, Council Vice-President Rice, and Councilmember Berliner, was introduced on December
4, 2012. At the public hearing, held on January 22, no speakers appeared. A joint Health and
Human Services Committee/Education Committee worksession was held on January 31.
Bill 38-12 would require the Office of Management and Budget to submit child care
facilities impact statements with certain capital projects in the Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) and authorize the Council to require other County departments and agencies to supplement
the impact statements furnished by the Office of Management and Budget. The impact statement
must analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility in the project.
Purpose
The demand for good child care facilities exceeds supply in the County. The
potential for including child care facilities in each County Capital Improvements Program
projects is not routinely assessed. The purpose of the Bill is to assure that the County takes
advantage of all opportunities to include child care facilities in County capital projects.
The County Department of Health and Human Services performs a similar evaluation
when it considers whether to recommend child care facilities in schools undergoing major
renovation or construction as a part of the Child Care in Schools CIP project. This CIP project
encourages child care providers to offer high quality child care in communities where they might
not otherwise be financially able, due to high numbers of subsidy and low-income parents.
Factors the Department reviews include
(1)
poverty rates (as measured by students eligible for
Free and Reduced-Price Meals Service); (2) mobility rates; (3) English for Speakers of Other
Language rates; and (4) the availability of quality (credentialed or accredited) child care in the
community. The analysis required by this Bill could use these or similar criteria, along with
other information that substantiates the need for child care space and services.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Committee Amendments
1) Local need and impact
Councilmember Riemer, lead sponsor, noted at introduction
that the Bill should expressly require an assessment of the local area need for child care in the
area of each capital project. The County Commission on Child Care suggested similar
amendments (see Commission letter, ©9). To do this, the Committees recommended the
amendment on ©2, line 12. The Committees also recommended in principle an amendment by
Councilmember Navarro that would direct the Executive branch to assign highest priority to the
provision of child care in areas with large numbers of low-income parents. That amendment,
drafted after the Committee worksession, is on ©2, lines 15-19.
2) Timing
The Committees recommended inserting after Program, on ©2, line 4: during
facility planning. This will more clearly direct OMB when this analysis fits in the CIP
development process. Similarly, the Committees recommended inserting moposed before
building on ©2, line 21.
3) Exemptions
The County Attorney (see memo, ©10-11) raised questions about the
provision on lines 27-30, which as originally drafted would let the Council by resolution exempt
from the assessment requirement "a category of capital projects which by their nature do not
require child care analysis". The County Attorney concluded that any exemption must be done
by legislation, rather than Council resolution not signed by the Executive, despite a similar
provision in County Code §31-68(d) (enacted in Bill 8-07, bicycle and pedestrian impact
analysis) having been passed without Executive branch objection. While Council staff did not
completely accept the County Attorney's legal analysis, we suggested that this issue be easily
resolved by adopting a version of the amendment the County Attorney proposed, which would
let the Executive exempt classes of projects by a Method 1 regulation that would be subject to
Council approval and also let the Council do so in the capital budget resolution, which goes to
the Executive for approval. The Committees recommended the amendment on lines 27-30.
Councilmember Riemer amendments
Councilmember Riemer recommends 2 further amendments to clarify the Bill's intent:
• insert
and
demand for after on line 12;
• insert £gpital projector after
f!
on line 29.
This packet contains:
Bill 38-12 with Committee amendments
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Commission on Child Care letter
County Attorney memo
F:\LAW\B1LLS\ 1238 CIP - Child Care Assessment\Action Memo.Doc
Circle
#
1
3
4
9
10
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
38-12
Concerning: Capital
Improvements
Program -Child Care Assessment
Revised: 2-19-13
Draft No.
~
Introduced:
December 4,2012
Expires:
June 4, 2014
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Riemer, Floreen, and Andrews, Council President Navarro, Council member
Ervin, Council Vice-President Rice, and Councilmember Berliner
AN
ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
require the Office of Management and Budget to submit child care facilities impact
statements with certain capital projects in the Capital Improvements Program;
authorize the Council to require other County departments and agencies to
supplement the impact statements furnished by the Office of Management and
Budget; and
generally amend County law regarding the analysis of capital projects.
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 27, Human Rights and Civil Liberties
Section 27-62A, Child care facilities impact statements
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* *
*
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 38-12
1
2
Sec.
I.
Section 27-62A is added as follows:
27-62A.
Child
~
facilities impact statements.
3
4
ill
F or each applicable capital project in the Capital Improvements
Program during facility planning, the Office of Management and
Budget must include in or transmit with the CIP an analysis of:
5
6
7
ill
ill
the feasibility of including child care facilities in the project; and
what capital or operating budget modifications, if any, would be
needed to include child care facilities in the project.
8
9
W
The child care analysis submitted
Qy
OMB should discuss at least the
following issues related to the capital project:
10
11
12
ill
£2)
compatibility of child care with the underlying project;
lo<;al availabilitv of child carein the area ofthe project; and
13
[[ill]]
ill
conformity of child care facilities to applicable zoning and
14
15
16
land use plans.
W
Each child care analysis under this Section . should aSSIgn highest
priority to the provision of high gualitychild care in areas where the
provision of child care may not otherwise be financially feasible due to
large numbers of low-income parents and the resulting need for
significant subsidies.
17
18
19
20
21
22
[[{£}]]
UU
As used in this section,
applicable capital project
means any
proposed building project administered
Qy
the Department of General
Services or the Parking Management Division of the Department of
Transportation.
23
24
[[@]]
W
In performing its analysis, OMB should consult the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Planning Board, and any other County
department or agency with expertise in child care.
25
26
@F:\lAw\BILLS\1238CIP - Child Care Assessment\1238 Bill 2 HHS-ED.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 38-12
27
28
29
[[w]1
ill
The Council may
[[Qy11
in the capital budget resolution$ and the
County Executive may by Method 1 regulation, exempt from this
Section
f1
category of capital projects which
Qy
their nature do not
require child care analysis.
Approved:
30
31
32
Nancy Navarro, President, County Council
Date
33
Approved:
34
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
35
36
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
@
- 3
-F:\LAW\BILLS\1238 CIP - Child Care Assessment\1238 BW2 HHS-ED.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 38-12
Capital Improvements Program
DESCRIPTION:
Child Care Assessment
Requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit a child
care facilities impact statement with certain capital projects proposed
in
the County Capital Improvements Program. The impact statement
must analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility in the
project.
The demand for good child care facilities exceeds supply in the
County. The potential for including child care facilities in each
County Capital Improvements Program projeCts is not routinely
assessed.
To include more child care facilities in County CIP projects where
feasible.
Office of Management and Budget, Department of Housing and
Community Affairs, Department of Transportation, Planning Board,
and the Department of Health and Human Services.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7905
Applies only to County Capital Improvements Program.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIEN CE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Not applicable
f:\law\bills\1238 cip - child care assessment\legislative request report.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment
1. Legislative Summary.
The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit a child care facilities
impact statement with celtain capital projects proposed in the County Capital Improvements
Program. The impact statement must analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility
in the project and specify what capital or operating budget modifications would be needed to
include a child care facility.
2.
An
estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
No additional revenue is expected to be generated from this bill. This bill would result in
a three step process: (1) an initial assessment of projects; (2) those projects identified in
the initial screening process will move forward into the facility planning phase where a
more detailed assessment of the programmatic feasibility of including a child care facility
will be conducted; and (3) an assessment of the financial feasibility for inclusion of a
child care facility as a component of the project.
Expenditures would relate to the staff time required by each department involved in the
analysis, including Department of General Services (DGS), Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Department of Transportation, and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). Expenditures would also include an increase in resources available
to the Capital Budget for facility planning to accommodate feasibility assessments. The
following chart depicts the estimated costs:
Table 1: Estimated Costs of Child Care Facility Assessment
Department Activity
Assumptions
Estimated Cost
I.
Costs related to analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility in the project
DGS staff review of
the feasibility ofa
child care facility
• Work with MRS and OMB to provide an
initial assessment of candidate projects for
.inclusion ofa child care facility.
• Facility Planning activities:
Development of
Program of Requirements (POR), feasibility
study to include a test fit, traffic study, and
parking study
• Coordinate with consultant and monitor
consultant activities.
• Development of preliminary cost estimates
used by HHS to determine likely gap
financing needs.
The $50,000 estimate in the
Facility PlaIll1ing project includes
both DGS staff and consultant
costs.
Facility Planninz elP:
• Assuming an average of five projects in
facility planning per year (based on likely
candidate proiects cUlTently in the Facility
I
$\0.000
per project;
total
of an
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Planning PDF).
I
additional $50,000 in the Facility
, Planning PDF for each of the six
I
years. (currently $260,000; would
increase to $310,000 per year)
HHS staff review and
assessment of public
facilities for child care
Initial Review Phase:
• Obtain and review information from
DGSIDOT regarding the proposed project to
assess the feasibility and desirability of a
child care facility on the project site.
• Neighborhood and site visit for overall
feasibility.
• Obtain and evaluate neighborhood
demographic information to determine if the
location is an area of need for child care
facilities.
T
$1,587 per project ($39.67 per
hour @ 40 hours per project) ­
Cost assumptions are based on a
Program Manager I position,
Grade 23 @$82,511.
i
• Internal HHS discussions and drafting
recommendations.
OMB staff review the
assessment conducted
by DGS and HHS
This requires :
• Development of a review process
• Coordination of participating departments or
agencies
• Review and analysis of assessments and
assumptions
• Program of requirements (POR) development
and review to include the child care facility
components.
1 FT Management and Budget
Specialist ($126,930
=:
IFTE;
including estimate for retirement,
FICAfMedicare, life insurance,
and health insurance); $1,768
hours per year, $126,930 @85%
$107,891.
_
• Analysis ofthe complex financing
components that fund child care facility.
...
DOT, Parking
Management Division
The re-development ofParking Lot District
property does not typically follow the process
explained in paragraph 2 above. Typically a
property is identified as appropriate for re-
development and an RFP is advertised to obtain
private development proposals. The RFP could
contain the requirement to construction child
care facilities within the private development
but I do not believe the developer can guarantee
that any entity will want to lease the space and
operate such a facility. This legislation does
not make it clear if the County would then
guarantee themselves as the facility operator or
what compensation would be paid to the private
developer. If the development included a
County owned parking garage, the construction
and operation of a child care facility within the
garage could not be paid with Parking Lot
District funds.
No specific MCDOT funding
required. MCDOT will include
coordination with HHS in the
preparation of any property
development RFP. MCDOT
would expect HHS to program
any General Fund funding of any
child care facility to be
constructed. MCDOT would
further expect HHS to justify the
decision to include or not include
a child care facility in any CIP
that may result from the
execution of a General
Development Agreement with a
developer.
SQurces: Department ofGeneral Services, Department ofHealth and Human Services, and Office ofManagement and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Not applicable. There is not enough specific information to provide real cost estimates.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would
affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the bill authorizes
future spending.
This Bill does not authorize future spending.
6. An estimate of the staff time needed to implement the bill.
• DOS staff time: 32 hours per project; 1.2% of 1 PTE
• HHS activities and staff time for a typical project: 40 hours; .10 of 1 FTE
• OMB stafftime: 1,768 hours; 85% of1 PTE (to encompass all likely candidate CIP
projects)
• DOT staff time: No additional staff required.
7. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
Per project staff time estimated
in
#6 above needs to be multiplied by the number of
projects annually submitted for funding to determine the full extent of staff time required.
If additional staffing is not provided for this function, other work will need to
reprioritized.
8. An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
See items #2 and 3 above.
9. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
The costs for providing the requested analysis will vary based on the number ofprojects
considered along with the level of complexity in each project. Some data are easier to
obtain while others may require longer time and cost more.
10. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
11. If a bill is li1{ely to have no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Not applicable.
12. Other imcal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
13. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis!
Barbara Andrews} Early Childhood Services, HHS
Patricia Brennan} Legislative Officer, HHS
Lisa Stafford, Budget Team, HHS
Greg Ossont, Deputy Director, Planning and Development, DGS
Angela Dizelos, Central Services Division, DGS
Rick Siebert, Parking Management Division, DOT
AI Roshdieh, Parking Management Division, DOT
Mary Beck, Office of Management and Budget
Pofen Salem} Office of Management and Budget
Date'
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Council Bill 38-12, Housing - Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment
Background:
Council Bill 38-12 requires the Office of Management and Budget to child care
facilities impact statements for projects administered by the Department of
General Services or the Parking Management Division of the Department of
TranspOltation. The purpose of the bill is to advise the County Council about
which projects should include child care facilities.
1. The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Not applicable. The subject legislation requires that the Executive branch advise the
Council on the suitability of including child care facilities in certain County projects.
2. A description of any variable that could affect economic impact statements.
See #3 below.
3. The bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, saving,
investment, incomes, and property value in the County.
Not applicable. The subject legislation does not have an economic impact because it only
requires that the Executive branch advise the Council on the suitability of including child
care facilities in certain County projects.
4.
If
a bill is likely to have no economic impact, why is that the case?
See #3 above.
5. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: David Platt and Mike
Coveyou, Finance.
Date
r
I
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
COMMISSION ON CHILD CARE
January 24,2013
The Honorable Nancy Navarro
President, Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Council President Navarro,
The Commission on Child Care is wntmg concerning County Council Bill 38-12 - Capital
Improvement Program - Child Care Assessment. The Commission thanks the County Council for
its continued efforts to improve child care in this County.
The Commission reviewed the proposed legislation and suggests the following additions to Sec. 1.
Section 27-62A (b):
• (3) demand for child care in proximity to the underlying project
• (4) impact to the existing child care programs in proximity to the underlying project
The purpose of these additions is to ensure that the community need for child care and the impact
to existing child care programs in the area of a proposed new development are considered in the
decision to add additional child care in public space. We are happy to provide additional input into
the Child Care Assessment process as this bill moves fonvard and is put into practice.
Thank you, again, for your work to provide quality, accessible and affordable child care to
Montgomery County families.
~4 /~/P/JO,
LeJt<J"G
Mindy
Thiel,
PhD.,
LCSW-C
Chair
.
Sincerely,
.
cc:
Members, Montgomery County Council
The Honorable Isiah Leggett, Montgomery County Executive
Vma Ahluwalia, Director, Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
Kate Garvey, Chief, Children, Youth and Family Services, HHS
(f)
np"n"..'hnpo't
of Health and Human Services
7300 Calhoun Place, Suite 700 • Rockville, Maryland 20855 • 240-777-4659, TlY 240-777-1009, FAX 240-777.1342
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Isiah
Leggett
County Executive
Marc P. Hal1sen
County Attorney
MEMORANDUM
December 28,2012
TO:
Mary Beck
Office of Management and Budget
Marc P. Hansen
VIA:
County Attorney
,
~
. J
FR
0
M: Karen
L.
Federman Henry
(j((1-.'\(.L<.
Ii .
'J
t
Chief, Division of Finance and Procurement
'"
{t(
A"
~¢...ai
</4('
f.-V~()'v/'
!,
/
f
RE:
Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program
Child Care
The
County
Executive's
Office
has
requested
our comments on Bill 38-12.
memorandum identifies the legal concerns that we see in the Bill.
This
Background
Bill 38-12 proposes toan1cnd Chapter 27 ("Human Rights and
Civil
Libelties") by
adding § 27-62A. The new section requires the Office of Management and Budget to transmit
with the CIP
an
analysis of the feasibility of including child care
facilities
in applicable capital
projects, along\vith what capital or operating budget modifications would be needed
to
include
child care facilities
il1
the project. An "applicable capital project" means "any building project
administered by the Department
of
General Services or the Parking Management Division of the
Department of Transportation." The
Bm
would authorize the County Council
to
exempt a
category of capital projects from the provision
by
resolution when the analysis is not necessary.
JJiscussion
The substantive legal concern derives from Article XI-A of the
Maryland
Constitution,
which
"authorizes counties
to
adopt home rule charters \vhich ... function as 'constitutions' for
the counties adopting them."
.A4ontgomery County, Maryland
v.
Anchor Inn Seafood
Rest(Ji.{rant,
374 Md. 327, 331 (2003). As described
by
the Court of Appeals, a charter "is the organic, the
101 Monroe Street,
240-777-67()(J·
(fax)
240-77·6706· karcll.Iederman-henrY(f!imonlgomcrymullt"md,gov
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mary Beck, OMB
December 28. 2012
Page 2
fundamental law, establishing basic principles governing relationships bet\veen the govemment
and thepeoplc, and among the various governmental branches and
bodies:~
Cheeks
v,
Cedlair,
287 Md. 595, 607 (1980). The Charter is the local equivalent of a constitution.
The County Charter vests legislative power in the County CouncH (§ 101), and
it
vests
executive power in the County Executive
201). Legislative enactments are subject to
§
208 of
the Chal1er, which provides that any legislative enactment of the Counci! must be "deLivered" to
the County Executive "who, .. shall approve or disapprove it." A legislative enactment makes
law or prescribes policy.
See Scull v. Montgomery Citizens League,
249
I\lld.
271, 282 (1968);
AlcQuf!lin, A1unicipal Corporations,
§
10:6. A resolution differs from
a
legislative enactment,
because it "denotes something less solemn or formal ... [and] generally speaking, is simply an
expression of opinion or mind cOllcerningsome particular item of business coming within the
legislative body's otlicial cognizance ...."
Inlet Associates v. Assateague House Condominium
ASSOciation,
313 Md. 413, 428 (1988).
The Bill permits the CounciL
by
resolution, to exempt certain undefined projects
ii'om
the Bill's requirements. Determining the scope of a law is a legislative act. Under the Charter, a
legislative act must be effected through the enactment of legislation under
§
208 of the Charter.
The Bill circumvents the legislative process
by
efTectively
allowing the Council to amend the
law
by
resolution. The Bill thus
violates
§
208
of
the Charter. This
legalintinnity
may he
remedied, however,
by
amending the Bill to authorize the Executive to exempt classes of
projects that are
llot
suitable for a child care facility from the ambit ofthe Bill
by
a Method (1) or
(2) regulation.
Please contact us
if
you would like
to
discuss our comments.
cc:
Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chicf Administrative Officer
Michael
Fuden, Senior Legislative
Attomey
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Agenda Item 5A
March
5,
2013
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
~
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Action:
Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment
Health and Human Services CommitteelEducation Committee recommendation:
enact with amendments (Councilmember Rice dissenting).
Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment, sponsored by
Councilmembers Riemer, Floreen, and Andrews, Council President Navarro, Councilmember
Ervin, Council Vice-President Rice, and Councilmember Berliner, was introduced on December
4, 2012. At the public hearing, held on January 22, no speakers appeared. A joint Health and
Human Services Committee/Education Committee worksession was held on January 31.
Bill 38-12 would require the Office of Management and Budget to submit child care
facilities impact statements with certain capital projects in the Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) and authorize the Council to require other County departments and agencies to supplement
the impact statements furnished by the Office of Management and Budget. The impact statement
must analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility in the project.
Purpose
The demand for good child care facilities exceeds supply in the County. The
potential for including child care facilities in each County Capital Improvements Program
projects is not routinely assessed. The purpose of the Bill is to assure that the County takes
advantage of all opportunities to include child care facilities in County capital projects.
The County Department of Health and Human Services performs a similar evaluation
when it considers whether to recommend child care facilities in schools undergoing major
renovation or construction as a part of the Child Care in Schools CIP project. This CIP project
encourages child care providers to offer high quality child care in communities where they might
not otherwise be financially able, due to high numbers of subsidy and low-income parents.
Factors the Department reviews include
(1)
poverty rates (as measured by students eligible for
Free and Reduced-Price Meals Service); (2) mobility rates; (3) English for Speakers of Other
Language rates; and (4) the availability of quality (credentialed or accredited) child care in the
community. The analysis required by this Bill could use these or similar criteria, along with
other information that substantiates the need for child care space and services.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Committee Amendments
1) Local need and impact
Councilmember Riemer, lead sponsor, noted at introduction
that the Bill should expressly require an assessment of the local area need for child care in the
area of each capital project. The County Commission on Child Care suggested similar
amendments (see Commission letter, ©9). To do this, the Committees recommended the
amendment on ©2, line 12. The Committees also recommended in principle an amendment by
Councilmember Navarro that would direct the Executive branch to assign highest priority to the
provision of child care in areas with large numbers of low-income parents. That amendment,
drafted after the Committee worksession, is on ©2, lines 15-19.
2) Timing
The Committees recommended inserting after Program, on ©2, line 4: during
facility planning. This will more clearly direct OMB when this analysis fits in the CIP
development process. Similarly, the Committees recommended inserting moposed before
building on ©2, line 21.
3) Exemptions
The County Attorney (see memo, ©10-11) raised questions about the
provision on lines 27-30, which as originally drafted would let the Council by resolution exempt
from the assessment requirement "a category of capital projects which by their nature do not
require child care analysis". The County Attorney concluded that any exemption must be done
by legislation, rather than Council resolution not signed by the Executive, despite a similar
provision in County Code §31-68(d) (enacted in Bill 8-07, bicycle and pedestrian impact
analysis) having been passed without Executive branch objection. While Council staff did not
completely accept the County Attorney's legal analysis, we suggested that this issue be easily
resolved by adopting a version of the amendment the County Attorney proposed, which would
let the Executive exempt classes of projects by a Method 1 regulation that would be subject to
Council approval and also let the Council do so in the capital budget resolution, which goes to
the Executive for approval. The Committees recommended the amendment on lines 27-30.
Councilmember Riemer amendments
Councilmember Riemer recommends 2 further amendments to clarify the Bill's intent:
• insert
and
demand for after on line 12;
• insert £gpital projector after
f!
on line 29.
This packet contains:
Bill 38-12 with Committee amendments
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Commission on Child Care letter
County Attorney memo
F:\LAW\B1LLS\ 1238 CIP - Child Care Assessment\Action Memo.Doc
Circle
#
1
3
4
9
10
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
38-12
Concerning: Capital
Improvements
Program -Child Care Assessment
Revised: 2-19-13
Draft No.
~
Introduced:
December 4,2012
Expires:
June 4, 2014
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Riemer, Floreen, and Andrews, Council President Navarro, Council member
Ervin, Council Vice-President Rice, and Councilmember Berliner
AN
ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
require the Office of Management and Budget to submit child care facilities impact
statements with certain capital projects in the Capital Improvements Program;
authorize the Council to require other County departments and agencies to
supplement the impact statements furnished by the Office of Management and
Budget; and
generally amend County law regarding the analysis of capital projects.
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 27, Human Rights and Civil Liberties
Section 27-62A, Child care facilities impact statements
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* *
*
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 38-12
1
2
Sec.
I.
Section 27-62A is added as follows:
27-62A.
Child
~
facilities impact statements.
3
4
ill
F or each applicable capital project in the Capital Improvements
Program during facility planning, the Office of Management and
Budget must include in or transmit with the CIP an analysis of:
5
6
7
ill
ill
the feasibility of including child care facilities in the project; and
what capital or operating budget modifications, if any, would be
needed to include child care facilities in the project.
8
9
W
The child care analysis submitted
Qy
OMB should discuss at least the
following issues related to the capital project:
10
11
12
ill
£2)
compatibility of child care with the underlying project;
lo<;al availabilitv of child carein the area ofthe project; and
13
[[ill]]
ill
conformity of child care facilities to applicable zoning and
14
15
16
land use plans.
W
Each child care analysis under this Section . should aSSIgn highest
priority to the provision of high gualitychild care in areas where the
provision of child care may not otherwise be financially feasible due to
large numbers of low-income parents and the resulting need for
significant subsidies.
17
18
19
20
21
22
[[{£}]]
UU
As used in this section,
applicable capital project
means any
proposed building project administered
Qy
the Department of General
Services or the Parking Management Division of the Department of
Transportation.
23
24
[[@]]
W
In performing its analysis, OMB should consult the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Planning Board, and any other County
department or agency with expertise in child care.
25
26
@F:\lAw\BILLS\1238CIP - Child Care Assessment\1238 Bill 2 HHS-ED.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 38-12
27
28
29
[[w]1
ill
The Council may
[[Qy11
in the capital budget resolution$ and the
County Executive may by Method 1 regulation, exempt from this
Section
f1
category of capital projects which
Qy
their nature do not
require child care analysis.
Approved:
30
31
32
Nancy Navarro, President, County Council
Date
33
Approved:
34
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
35
36
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
@
- 3
-F:\LAW\BILLS\1238 CIP - Child Care Assessment\1238 BW2 HHS-ED.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 38-12
Capital Improvements Program
DESCRIPTION:
Child Care Assessment
Requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit a child
care facilities impact statement with certain capital projects proposed
in
the County Capital Improvements Program. The impact statement
must analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility in the
project.
The demand for good child care facilities exceeds supply in the
County. The potential for including child care facilities in each
County Capital Improvements Program projeCts is not routinely
assessed.
To include more child care facilities in County CIP projects where
feasible.
Office of Management and Budget, Department of Housing and
Community Affairs, Department of Transportation, Planning Board,
and the Department of Health and Human Services.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7905
Applies only to County Capital Improvements Program.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIEN CE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Not applicable
f:\law\bills\1238 cip - child care assessment\legislative request report.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment
1. Legislative Summary.
The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit a child care facilities
impact statement with celtain capital projects proposed in the County Capital Improvements
Program. The impact statement must analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility
in the project and specify what capital or operating budget modifications would be needed to
include a child care facility.
2.
An
estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
No additional revenue is expected to be generated from this bill. This bill would result in
a three step process: (1) an initial assessment of projects; (2) those projects identified in
the initial screening process will move forward into the facility planning phase where a
more detailed assessment of the programmatic feasibility of including a child care facility
will be conducted; and (3) an assessment of the financial feasibility for inclusion of a
child care facility as a component of the project.
Expenditures would relate to the staff time required by each department involved in the
analysis, including Department of General Services (DGS), Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Department of Transportation, and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). Expenditures would also include an increase in resources available
to the Capital Budget for facility planning to accommodate feasibility assessments. The
following chart depicts the estimated costs:
Table 1: Estimated Costs of Child Care Facility Assessment
Department Activity
Assumptions
Estimated Cost
I.
Costs related to analyze the feasibility of including a child care facility in the project
DGS staff review of
the feasibility ofa
child care facility
• Work with MRS and OMB to provide an
initial assessment of candidate projects for
.inclusion ofa child care facility.
• Facility Planning activities:
Development of
Program of Requirements (POR), feasibility
study to include a test fit, traffic study, and
parking study
• Coordinate with consultant and monitor
consultant activities.
• Development of preliminary cost estimates
used by HHS to determine likely gap
financing needs.
The $50,000 estimate in the
Facility PlaIll1ing project includes
both DGS staff and consultant
costs.
Facility Planninz elP:
• Assuming an average of five projects in
facility planning per year (based on likely
candidate proiects cUlTently in the Facility
I
$\0.000
per project;
total
of an
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Planning PDF).
I
additional $50,000 in the Facility
, Planning PDF for each of the six
I
years. (currently $260,000; would
increase to $310,000 per year)
HHS staff review and
assessment of public
facilities for child care
Initial Review Phase:
• Obtain and review information from
DGSIDOT regarding the proposed project to
assess the feasibility and desirability of a
child care facility on the project site.
• Neighborhood and site visit for overall
feasibility.
• Obtain and evaluate neighborhood
demographic information to determine if the
location is an area of need for child care
facilities.
T
$1,587 per project ($39.67 per
hour @ 40 hours per project) ­
Cost assumptions are based on a
Program Manager I position,
Grade 23 @$82,511.
i
• Internal HHS discussions and drafting
recommendations.
OMB staff review the
assessment conducted
by DGS and HHS
This requires :
• Development of a review process
• Coordination of participating departments or
agencies
• Review and analysis of assessments and
assumptions
• Program of requirements (POR) development
and review to include the child care facility
components.
1 FT Management and Budget
Specialist ($126,930
=:
IFTE;
including estimate for retirement,
FICAfMedicare, life insurance,
and health insurance); $1,768
hours per year, $126,930 @85%
$107,891.
_
• Analysis ofthe complex financing
components that fund child care facility.
...
DOT, Parking
Management Division
The re-development ofParking Lot District
property does not typically follow the process
explained in paragraph 2 above. Typically a
property is identified as appropriate for re-
development and an RFP is advertised to obtain
private development proposals. The RFP could
contain the requirement to construction child
care facilities within the private development
but I do not believe the developer can guarantee
that any entity will want to lease the space and
operate such a facility. This legislation does
not make it clear if the County would then
guarantee themselves as the facility operator or
what compensation would be paid to the private
developer. If the development included a
County owned parking garage, the construction
and operation of a child care facility within the
garage could not be paid with Parking Lot
District funds.
No specific MCDOT funding
required. MCDOT will include
coordination with HHS in the
preparation of any property
development RFP. MCDOT
would expect HHS to program
any General Fund funding of any
child care facility to be
constructed. MCDOT would
further expect HHS to justify the
decision to include or not include
a child care facility in any CIP
that may result from the
execution of a General
Development Agreement with a
developer.
SQurces: Department ofGeneral Services, Department ofHealth and Human Services, and Office ofManagement and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Not applicable. There is not enough specific information to provide real cost estimates.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would
affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the bill authorizes
future spending.
This Bill does not authorize future spending.
6. An estimate of the staff time needed to implement the bill.
• DOS staff time: 32 hours per project; 1.2% of 1 PTE
• HHS activities and staff time for a typical project: 40 hours; .10 of 1 FTE
• OMB stafftime: 1,768 hours; 85% of1 PTE (to encompass all likely candidate CIP
projects)
• DOT staff time: No additional staff required.
7. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
Per project staff time estimated
in
#6 above needs to be multiplied by the number of
projects annually submitted for funding to determine the full extent of staff time required.
If additional staffing is not provided for this function, other work will need to
reprioritized.
8. An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
See items #2 and 3 above.
9. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
The costs for providing the requested analysis will vary based on the number ofprojects
considered along with the level of complexity in each project. Some data are easier to
obtain while others may require longer time and cost more.
10. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
11. If a bill is li1{ely to have no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Not applicable.
12. Other imcal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
13. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis!
Barbara Andrews} Early Childhood Services, HHS
Patricia Brennan} Legislative Officer, HHS
Lisa Stafford, Budget Team, HHS
Greg Ossont, Deputy Director, Planning and Development, DGS
Angela Dizelos, Central Services Division, DGS
Rick Siebert, Parking Management Division, DOT
AI Roshdieh, Parking Management Division, DOT
Mary Beck, Office of Management and Budget
Pofen Salem} Office of Management and Budget
Date'
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Council Bill 38-12, Housing - Capital Improvements Program - Child Care Assessment
Background:
Council Bill 38-12 requires the Office of Management and Budget to child care
facilities impact statements for projects administered by the Department of
General Services or the Parking Management Division of the Department of
TranspOltation. The purpose of the bill is to advise the County Council about
which projects should include child care facilities.
1. The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Not applicable. The subject legislation requires that the Executive branch advise the
Council on the suitability of including child care facilities in certain County projects.
2. A description of any variable that could affect economic impact statements.
See #3 below.
3. The bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, saving,
investment, incomes, and property value in the County.
Not applicable. The subject legislation does not have an economic impact because it only
requires that the Executive branch advise the Council on the suitability of including child
care facilities in certain County projects.
4.
If
a bill is likely to have no economic impact, why is that the case?
See #3 above.
5. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: David Platt and Mike
Coveyou, Finance.
Date
r
I
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
COMMISSION ON CHILD CARE
January 24,2013
The Honorable Nancy Navarro
President, Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Council President Navarro,
The Commission on Child Care is wntmg concerning County Council Bill 38-12 - Capital
Improvement Program - Child Care Assessment. The Commission thanks the County Council for
its continued efforts to improve child care in this County.
The Commission reviewed the proposed legislation and suggests the following additions to Sec. 1.
Section 27-62A (b):
• (3) demand for child care in proximity to the underlying project
• (4) impact to the existing child care programs in proximity to the underlying project
The purpose of these additions is to ensure that the community need for child care and the impact
to existing child care programs in the area of a proposed new development are considered in the
decision to add additional child care in public space. We are happy to provide additional input into
the Child Care Assessment process as this bill moves fonvard and is put into practice.
Thank you, again, for your work to provide quality, accessible and affordable child care to
Montgomery County families.
~4 /~/P/JO,
LeJt<J"G
Mindy
Thiel,
PhD.,
LCSW-C
Chair
.
Sincerely,
.
cc:
Members, Montgomery County Council
The Honorable Isiah Leggett, Montgomery County Executive
Vma Ahluwalia, Director, Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
Kate Garvey, Chief, Children, Youth and Family Services, HHS
(f)
np"n"..'hnpo't
of Health and Human Services
7300 Calhoun Place, Suite 700 • Rockville, Maryland 20855 • 240-777-4659, TlY 240-777-1009, FAX 240-777.1342
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Isiah
Leggett
County Executive
Marc P. Hal1sen
County Attorney
MEMORANDUM
December 28,2012
TO:
Mary Beck
Office of Management and Budget
Marc P. Hansen
VIA:
County Attorney
,
~
. J
FR
0
M: Karen
L.
Federman Henry
(j((1-.'\(.L<.
Ii .
'J
t
Chief, Division of Finance and Procurement
'"
{t(
A"
~¢...ai
</4('
f.-V~()'v/'
!,
/
f
RE:
Bill 38-12, Capital Improvements Program
Child Care
The
County
Executive's
Office
has
requested
our comments on Bill 38-12.
memorandum identifies the legal concerns that we see in the Bill.
This
Background
Bill 38-12 proposes toan1cnd Chapter 27 ("Human Rights and
Civil
Libelties") by
adding § 27-62A. The new section requires the Office of Management and Budget to transmit
with the CIP
an
analysis of the feasibility of including child care
facilities
in applicable capital
projects, along\vith what capital or operating budget modifications would be needed
to
include
child care facilities
il1
the project. An "applicable capital project" means "any building project
administered by the Department
of
General Services or the Parking Management Division of the
Department of Transportation." The
Bm
would authorize the County Council
to
exempt a
category of capital projects from the provision
by
resolution when the analysis is not necessary.
JJiscussion
The substantive legal concern derives from Article XI-A of the
Maryland
Constitution,
which
"authorizes counties
to
adopt home rule charters \vhich ... function as 'constitutions' for
the counties adopting them."
.A4ontgomery County, Maryland
v.
Anchor Inn Seafood
Rest(Ji.{rant,
374 Md. 327, 331 (2003). As described
by
the Court of Appeals, a charter "is the organic, the
101 Monroe Street,
240-777-67()(J·
(fax)
240-77·6706· karcll.Iederman-henrY(f!imonlgomcrymullt"md,gov
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mary Beck, OMB
December 28. 2012
Page 2
fundamental law, establishing basic principles governing relationships bet\veen the govemment
and thepeoplc, and among the various governmental branches and
bodies:~
Cheeks
v,
Cedlair,
287 Md. 595, 607 (1980). The Charter is the local equivalent of a constitution.
The County Charter vests legislative power in the County CouncH (§ 101), and
it
vests
executive power in the County Executive
201). Legislative enactments are subject to
§
208 of
the Chal1er, which provides that any legislative enactment of the Counci! must be "deLivered" to
the County Executive "who, .. shall approve or disapprove it." A legislative enactment makes
law or prescribes policy.
See Scull v. Montgomery Citizens League,
249
I\lld.
271, 282 (1968);
AlcQuf!lin, A1unicipal Corporations,
§
10:6. A resolution differs from
a
legislative enactment,
because it "denotes something less solemn or formal ... [and] generally speaking, is simply an
expression of opinion or mind cOllcerningsome particular item of business coming within the
legislative body's otlicial cognizance ...."
Inlet Associates v. Assateague House Condominium
ASSOciation,
313 Md. 413, 428 (1988).
The Bill permits the CounciL
by
resolution, to exempt certain undefined projects
ii'om
the Bill's requirements. Determining the scope of a law is a legislative act. Under the Charter, a
legislative act must be effected through the enactment of legislation under
§
208 of the Charter.
The Bill circumvents the legislative process
by
efTectively
allowing the Council to amend the
law
by
resolution. The Bill thus
violates
§
208
of
the Charter. This
legalintinnity
may he
remedied, however,
by
amending the Bill to authorize the Executive to exempt classes of
projects that are
llot
suitable for a child care facility from the ambit ofthe Bill
by
a Method (1) or
(2) regulation.
Please contact us
if
you would like
to
discuss our comments.
cc:
Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chicf Administrative Officer
Michael
Fuden, Senior Legislative
Attomey