PHEDITEM#4
February 23,2015
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee
Jeff zYOn&'gislative Attorney
Worksession:
Bill 31-13, Transportation - Review - Record Plats
Staff Recommendation:
Approve Bill 31-13 as introduced.
Background
Bill 31-13, Transportation - Review - Record Plats, sponsored by Councilmember Riemer, then­
Council Vice President Leventhal and Councilmember Floreen, was introduced on December 10,
2013.
Bill 31-13 would repeal the County Department of Transportation's (DOT) authority
to
approve
record plats. The Department would still be able, under more general provisions of County law
(including Code §2-55(b», to review record plats and provide comments to the Planning Board
before it approves them. Bill 31-13 was introduced with SRA 13-03 as an effort by the sponsor to
speed and simplify the process for approving record plats.
Public Hearing Comments
The Council held a public hearing on October 14. The Council heard from the Chair ofthe Planning
Board and the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) Director representing the County
Executive. Neither spoke in opposition to Bill 31-13.
Issues
No issues have been raised. DPS acts on behalf of all County interests on record plats and will
continue to do so.
If
anything, Bill 31-13 eliminates the possibility of conflicting recommendations
by different Departments.
This packet contains:
Bill 31-13
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
F:\LAW\BILLS\1331 DPS, OOT - Record Plats\PHED Merno.Docx
Circle
#
1
3
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
31-13
Concerning: Transportation - Review ­
Record Plats
Revised: 11-4-13
Draft No. 1
Introduced:
December 10. 2013
Expires:
March 10.2015
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: -:----.:-:--_ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
~N~o~n:.:::e
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _ Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
I
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmember Riemer, Council Vice-President Leventhal and Councilmember Floreen
AN
ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
revise the Department of Transportation's authority with respect
to
approval of
record plats; and
generally amend the law governing the Department of Transportation's review of
development plans and related actions.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 2, Administration
Section 2-55
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. 31-13
1
Sec.
1.
Section 2-55 is amended as follows:
2-55. Functions.
The Department of Transportation must:
2
*
(f)
*
*
review and approve transportation elements of development plans,
including storm drainage and paving plans; grade establishment plans;
[record plats;] utility plans; pre-preliminary, preliminary and site plans;
and construction permits for any work in public space;
3
*
Approved:
*
*
4
5
Craig
L.
Rice, President, County Council
6
Approved:
Date
7
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
8
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
Date
9
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
6)
f:\law\bills\1331 dps. dot - record plats\bill dot 1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 31-13
Transportation
-
Review
-
Record Plats
DESCRIPTION:
Repeals the County Department of Transportation's authority to
approve record plats. The Department would still be able, under
more general provisions of County law (including Code §2-55(b», to
review record plats and provide comments to the Planning Board
before
it
approves them.
Duplicative approval processes by the Planning Board and
Department of Transportation results in delays of approved
developments.
To streamline the County development approval process and reduce
duplicative procedures.
Planning Board, Department of Permitting Services, Department of
Transportation
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7905
Applies to all areas where County has subdivision approval authority.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Not applicable
f:\law\bills\1331 dps, dot - record plats\legislative request report. doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCkv[llE. r.1ARYIA;'liD
MEMORANDUM
January
22, 2014
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Craig Rice, President,
Cotmty COlmcil
Jennifer A.
Hugh~:"Di~~(Pffice
of Management and Budget
Joseph F. Beach, Director. Department
Of'~
Council Bill 31-13, Transportation-Review-Record Plats
ViJ.~1f-'
Please find
attached the
tiscal and
economic impact statements for
the
above­
referenced legislation.
JAH:fz
cc:
Bonnie Kirkland .• Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the
County
Executive
Joy Numli, Special Assistant
to
the County Executive
Patrick
Lacefield, Director, Public Information Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
Michael Coveyou, Department ofFinance
Kevin
Myers, Department of
Financ.e
Robert Hagedoom, Department of Finance
Arthur Holmes, Director, Department of Transportation
Brady
Goldsmith, Office of Management and Budget
Alex Espinosa, Office of Management and Budget
Felicia Zhang, Office of Management and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council
Bill 31-13
Transportation -
Review -
Record Plats
1.
Legislative Summary.
Bill 31 13 would repeal the County department of Transportation' s authority
to
approve
record plats. The Department would still be able to review plats and provide comments to
the
Planning Board before it approves them.
w
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.
There are no known fiscal impacts. DOT
will
provide the same level ofreview.
3.
Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at leastthe next
6
fiscal
yeats.
There are no known fiscal impacts
4.
An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would affect
retiree pension or group insurance costs.
NA
5.
Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures
if
the bill authorizes future
spending.
NA
6. An estimate of the staff time needed
to
implement the bilL
NA
7.
An
explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other duties.
NA
8.
An
estimate of costs when
an
additional appropriation is needed.
NA
9. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
NA
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
10. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
NA
11.
If a bill
is
likely
to have no fiscal impact,
why
that is the case.
DOT will provide the same level ofreview on record plats.
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
None
13. 'Ihe follov.ing contributed
to
and concurred with this analysis:
Tony Alexiou, Department of Transportation
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 31-13, TrAnsportation - Review - Record Plats
Background:
Ibis legislation would repeal the County Department of Transportation's (DOT)
authority to approve record plats. The removal does not affect more general provisions
of County law enabling DOT to review record plats and provide comments to the
Planning Board 'before approval.
1.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Not applicable
2.
A
description of any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
Not applicable
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, saving,
investment, incomes, and property values in the County.
The Bill will have no effect on the County's economy because it ,¥ill not cause a
change in employment, spending, savings, investments, incomes, or property values.
4.
If
a BiU
is
likely to have no economic impact, why is that the case?
See paragraph 3.
5. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: David Platt
and
Rob Hagedoom, Finance.
Q
___.. ,'_ ,])
Director
~~--
1-.
F. Beach,
Date
I
Department
of
Finance
Page 1
of
1
(j)