Agenda Item 9A
February 14,2017
Action
MEMORANDUM
February 10,2017
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
Glenn Orlin, Deputy Council Administrator
G\
fItJ-d
SUBJECT:
Action:
Expedited Bill 51-16, Taxation - Development Impact Tax - Local Area
Transportation Review Mitigation Payment - Established
Expedited Bill 51-16, Taxation - Development Impact Tax - Local Area Transportation
Review Mitigation Payment - Established, sponsored by Lead Sponsor Council President Berliner,
was introduced on December 13, 2016. A public hearing was held on January 17 and a joint
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy
(GO)/Planning,
Housing and Economic Development
(PHED) Committee worksession was held on January 26. A PHED worksession was held on
February 7.
Bill 51-16 would:
• establish a local area transportation review mitigation payment;
• authorize the Council to set the rates by resolution after a public hearing; and
• amend the law concerning the development impact
tax
for transportation
improvements.
Background
When the Council replaced Policy Area Transportation Review (TP AR) payments in the
2016-2020 Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP) with a higher transportation impact tax, it
concurrently deleted the Transportation Mitigation Payment section of the transportation impact
tax law in Bill 37-16, believing it was no longer needed. However, Council staff now
acknowledges that this assumption was incorrect: a Transportation Mitigation Payment section is
still needed in the Code to continue to give authority for Local Area Transportation Review
(LATR) payments, including the White Oak Local Area Transportation Improvements Program
(LATIP) and rate recently proposed by the Department of Transportation, and for the rates to be
set in the future for the Urban Mobility Programs (UMPs) in other areas.
Enacting this bill would provide the legal authority to impose these LATR payments. It is
an expedited bill so that it could take effect on March I, 2017, when Bill 37-16 takes effect. The
LATR mitigation payments due in each local area would be established by the Council by
resolution after a public hearing. The Office of the County Attorney found the Bill to be
constitutional. See ©4.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Public Hearing
Raquel Montenegro, representing the Maryland Building Industry Association (©10-11),
testified that a local area review transportation mitigation payment is reasonable and that,
consequently, they do not oppose the Bill. Richard D. Wilder, representing Citizens to Save South
Valley Park and Whetstone Run (© 12) and Margaret Schoap, representing the Transit Alternatives
to the Mid-County Highway Extended (TAME), expressed concern about a planned County road
project known as M-83 without taking a position on the Bill.
GOIPHED Worksession - January 26
Deputy Council Administrator Glenn Orlin and Senior Legislative Attorney Robert
Drummer represented the Council staff. The Committees recommended (4-0, Leventhal absent)
approval of Bill 51-16 as introduced.
PHED Worksession - February 7
The PHED Committee reviewed the Resolution to approve the White Oak Local Area
Transportation Improvements Program (White Oak UMP) on February 7. Draft Bill-E 5 at ©13­
16 includes the amendments approved by the PHED Committee. The Committee approved the
following changes to Bill 51-16:
I. authorize the Department to grant a credit against the local area review mitigation payment
for the cost of a project in an Urban Mobility Program (UMP) or the White Oak Local Area
Transportation Improvement Program (White Oak UMP) up to the listed cost of the
improvement in that program (see lines 47-52 of Bill-E 5 at ©15);
2. clarify that the cost of a project (up to the listed cost of the improvement) in an UMP or
the White Oak UMP cannot be used to receive a credit against the development impact tax
in order to avoid a double credit for the same improvement (See lines 18-20 ofBill-E 5 at
©14);
3. authorize a credit for the cost of a project in an UMP or the White Oak UMP that exceeds
the listed cost ofthe improvement against the development impact tax, even if the project
is in a State right-of-way (See lines 7-10 and 26-29 of Bill-E 5 at ©14-15); and
4. require the applicant to pay the local area transportation review mitigation payment even
ifthe project is exempted from the development impact tax (See lines 32-33 ofBill-E 5 at
©15).
Issues
1.
Should the Bill be amended to authorize a credit for an applicant's construction of a local
transportation improvement?
The availability of a credit against the local area transportation review mitigation payment
(Mitigation Payment) is a reasonable method of encouraging applicants to build the transportation
improvement projects that are necessary for development of the local area.
An
applicant who
builds a required improvement project should receive a credit against the Mitigation Payment
because the Mitigation Payment is a
pro rata
share of the funds necessary for the County to
·2 .
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
construct the improvement. In order to set the rate for the Mitigation Payment in a local area, the
County must estimate the cost to construct each transportation improvement. Providing the
applicant with a credit up to the cost listed in that program is reasonable.
PHED
Committee
recommendation (3-0): amend the Bill to authorize a credit against the Mitigation Payment for
the cost of the improvement constructed by the applicant up to the cost listed in the program. See
lines 47-52 of Bill-E 5 at ©15.
2. Should the cost to construct a local area transportation improvement provide a credit
against the development impact tax?
An
applicant should not receive a credit against both the Mitigation Payment and the
impact tax for the same costs. However, providing a credit against the development impact tax for
the cost of a local area transportation impact tax to the extent the applicant's costs exceed the cost
of the improvement listed in the program would not be giving the applicant two credits for the
same costs because the costs incurred above the cost listed in the program cannot be used as a
credit against the Mitigation Payment.
PHED
Committee recommendation (3-0): prohibit the
credit against the impact tax up to the cost listed in that program, but permit the credit for cost
exceeding the cost listed in the program. See lines 7-10 and 26-29 of Bill-E 5 at ©14-15.
3. Should the applicant receive a credit for the cost of an improvement in excess of the cost
listed in that program if the work is in a State right-of-way?
Current law does not permit an applicant to receive credit against the transportation impact
tax for constructing an improvement in a State right-of-way unless it is a transit program included
in a memorandum between the County and either Gaithersburg or Rockville. However, the PHED
Committee recommended amending the Bill to permit a credit for cost in excess of the cost listed
in that program even if the work is done to improve a State right-of-way.
PHED
Committee
recommendation (3-0): amend the Bill to permit a credit against the impact tax for the cost of a
project that exceeds the cost listed in that program. See lines 7-10 and 26-29 of Bill-E 5 at ©14­
15.
4. Should the applicant pay the local area transportation review mitigation payment even
if the project is exempt from the development impact tax?
The Bill, as introduced, would carry over an applicant's exemption from the development
impact tax to the Mitigation Payment. The PHED Committee approved requiring a Mitigation
Payment even if the project is exempt from the development impact tax for transportation.
PHED
Committee recommendation (3-0): amend the Bill to require a Mitigation payment even if the
project is exempt from the development impact transportation tax. See lines 32-33 ofBill-E 5 at
©15.
5.
Should the Bill be enacted?
A local area transportation mitigation payment would require property owners to pay a pro­
rata share of the costs of transportation improvements necessary because of development on their
property.
It
is a reasonable method of imposing these costs on the people benefitting the most by
these improvements.
It
becomes a cost of doing business that may be passed on to the fmal
purchasers of the property after development. Bill 37-16 mistakenly omitted the authority to
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
impose these costs. Bill 51-16 would reinstate this authority.
It
is also reasonable to provide a
credit against this Mitigation Payment for the cost incurred to construct an improvement required
by the local area transportation program, at least up to the cost listed in the local area program.
PHED Committee recommendation (3-0):
approve the Bill with the amendments described
above and shown in Bill-E 5 at ©13-16.
This packet contains:
Expedited Bill 51-16
Legislative Request Report
County Attorney Bill Review Memorandum
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Public Hearing Testimony
RaquelMontenegro
Richard D. Wilder
Bill-E 5
Circle #
1
3
4
5
10
12
13
F:\LAw\BILLS\1651 Local Area Transportation Review Mitigation Payment\Action Memo.Docx
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill No.
51-16
Conceming: Taxation - Development
Impact
Tax
Local
Area
Transportation Review Mitigation
Payment - Established
Revised: December 8,2016 Draft No.1
Introduced:
December 13,2016
Expires:
June 13, 2018
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective:
March 1, 2017
Sunset Date: _N:....:.o:::..:n.!!:e'--_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President Berliner
AN EXPEDITED ACT
to:
(1)
establish a local area transportation review mitigation payment;
(2)
authorize the Council to set the rates by resolution after a public hearing; and
(3)
amend the law concerning the development impact
tax
for transportation
improvements,
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 52, Taxation
Section 52-51
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
EXPEDITED BILL
No. 51-16
1
Sec. 1. Section 52-51 is amended as follows:
52-51. [Reserved] Local Area Transportation Review Mitigation Payment.
(ill
In addition to the tax due under this Article, an applicant for
~
2
3
building
4
pennit for any building on which an impact tax is imposed under this
Article must
~
to the Department of Finance
~
Mitigation Payment if
this payment is required for
~
building included in
~
preliminary plan of
subdivision that was approved under the Local Area Transportation
Review provisions in the County Subdivision Staging Policy.
{hl
The Council,
by
resolution after
~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
public hearing advertised at least
12
days in advance, must establish the rates for the Mitigation Payment
required in this Section.
12
13
14
15
16
(£}
The Payment must be paid at the same time and in the same manner as
the
tax
under this Article, and is subject to all provisions of this Article
for administering and collecting the tax.
@
The Department ofFinance must retain funds collected under this Section
in an account to be appropriated for transportation improvements that
result in added transportation capacity or improved mobility in the area
where the development for which the funds were paid is located.
17
18
19
20
Sec. 2.
Expedited Effective Date.
IS
The Council declares that this legislation
necessary for the immediate
21
protection of the public interest. This Act takes effect on March
1,2017.
Approved:
22
23
Roger Berliner, President, County Council
Date
f:\law\bi~1
local area transportation review mitigation payment\bill-e 3.docx
t;J
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Expedited Bill 51-16
Taxation
-
Development Impact Tax
-
Local Area Transportation Review Mitigation Payment ­
Established
DESCRIPTION:
The Bill would establish a local area transportation review mitigation
payment and authorize the Council to set the rates by resolution after
a public hearing.
Bill 37-16 deleted the Transportation Mitigation Payment section of
the transportation impact tax law, but a version of that section is
needed to provide the authority for Local Area Transportation Review
(LATR) mitigation payments, including for the White Oak Local Area
Transportation Improvements Program and future Urban Mobility
Programs.
To establish a local area transportation review mitigation payment, and
to authorize the Council to set the rates by resolution after a public
hearing.
Departments of Permitting Services, Finance, County Attorney,
Transportation
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Glenn Orlin, Montgomery County Council staff
To be researched.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
None
F:\LAW\BILLS\1651 Local Area Transportation Review Mitigation Payrnent\LRR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
QFFICE OF
TH~
COl,)NTY
ATI0:RNEY
lsiah
Leggett
CoUilly;Ex~cil1ive
Marc' P·;Hansen
Cq1l1
z
tyAttqriunt
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chris
Conkl~
.Deputy.·Director
ofTranspottation.PoUcy
I)cP<lltln
eIlt
Oftranspotati~'O~~1
FROM:
VIA:
Offi~
ScottR. Foncannon
....
AssoclateCowity.
Attotnc, . .'
Edward
B.
Lattner. Chief
~"­
Division ofGovernment Operatloru}
December
16.2016
.
~.'
J
,':7)J
DATE:
Expedited
Bil151-16~
Taxation -
Development
Impact
Tax''--'- L<>Cal Area
Transportation Review Mitigation Payment -
:Es~lished
I ha,ve
reyi~we4
ExptXlited
Bill
51-16,
Taxation - DevelQpment Impa<:tTax -,-. Local Area
Transportation Review
MitigationPayrnent -
Established.
This
bi11re~estab1ish~a
local
area
transportation review
mitigation
paymentwhich wasde(eteQ.l?Y
11ill
37;..
Ui.Thi$
!;Jill
is not
vague,
it
will not increase or deCrease the County's the liability exposure
and
is
consUtutioo!:ll.In
order
to
make ittlear
that
this
is
a'tax 1
recommend
that
the
Bill be
amended
to
add.an
Ullcodi(iedptovision
that
states,
this
Section
is
authorized
by'the
County·sgeb.~altaxmg
authority in Section 52-1Tofthe
County
Code. The
bill
is within the auihOt:ftyofthe
COunty
Council
and
is
legallysufli~ieI1t
..
I have
00
futthercommentS'~>n
this
bilL
CC:.
Bonnie A,.Kirklan4,
Assistant
ChiefAdministrative Officer
Marc P.
Hansen, County
Attomey
.
101 Monroe
street.
Rbcli:vill~
Maryll$il
2Q8*~80
(240)
777-6795TIll(2~)
771-1545 •
FAX (240)
771';('70S.~·sootLfonc~ontg~~;g()Y
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVILLE, MARYL-\ND
MEMORANDUM
January 13,2017
TO;
FROM:
Roger Berliner, President,
C0U11ty
Council
Jennifer A. Hughes, Director, Office
ofManat~
Alexandre A. Espinosa. Director, Departmen
~EIS
for
Bj~1
51-16:
Taxa~i?n
SUBJECT:
-:
Development
~mpa~t
Tax
~al
Area
lransportatton Review MlttgatlOn Payment - EstablJshcd
f¥­
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact slntements for the above­
refe·renced legislations.
JAH:fz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy
Num1i,
Special Assistant
to
the
County
Executive
Patrick
Lacefield,
Director, Public
Infom1ation
Office
AI
Roshdieh,
Director, Department
of
Transportation
David Platt. Department ofFillance
Dennis Hetman, Department of Finance
Naeem Mia, Office of
Management
and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Expedited BillS1-I6, Taxation - Development Impact Tax-:­
Local Area Transportation Review Mitigation Payment - Established
1.
Legislative
Summary
The proposed bill establishes a
local
area transportation review (LATR) mitigation
payment and authorizes the
County Council to set the rates
and fees by resolution after a
public
hearing.
2. An estimate
of
changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless ofwhetber
the revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The proposed bill itself
has
no impact (m County revenues or expenditures. The proposed
bill
authorizes
Council
to adopt
specific
rates;
subsequent resolutions
adopting
these rates
will impact
County
revenues.
3.
Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next
6
fIScal
years.
Not applicable.
4. An
actuarial analysis tbrough the entire amortization period for eacb
bill that
would
affect
retiree pension or group msur".lnte
cost~.
Not applicable.
5. An estimate of expenditures related to County's information technology (IT)
systems, including Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
Not
applicable.
6.
Later actions
that
may affect future reyenue
and
expenditures
if
tbe bill autborizes
future
spending.
The
proposed bill authorizes Council to set the LATR rate
by
resolution after a public
hearing. The rates adopted by Council will affect County revenues.
7.
An estimate of the staff time needed
to
implement the bill.
The Department of Finance and Department of Transportation do not report any
additional
stafftime
needed to
implement
the proposed
bilL
8.
An explanation of how
the
addition of new
staff
responsibilities would affed other
duties.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9.
An
estimate of costs when an additional appropriation
is
needed.
Not applicable.
10. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Revenue estimates are affected by the specific rates adopted by Council as authorized
under the proposed bilL
11.
Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Revenue estimates are
difficult
to project
at
this time without additional information on
the specific rates adopted
by
Council.
12.
If
a bill is
likely
to have no IlSea) impact, why that is the case.
Ine
proposed bill merely authorizes the Council to establish aLATR payment and rate. '
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
None.
14. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Christopher Conklin, Department of Transportation
Dennis Hetman, Department of Finance
Naeem Mia, Oflke of Management and Budget
Jennifer
Office
of
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Expedited llill51-16, Taxation - Development Impact Tax -Local Area Transportation
Review Mitigation Payment - Established
Background:
Expedited Bill 51-16 would:
• establish a local area transportation review mitigation payment;
• authorize the Council
to
set the rates by resolution after a public hearing; and
• amend the law concerning the development impact tax for transportation
improvements.
This bill provides authority tor Local Area Transportation Review
(LATR)
mitigation
payments, including the White Oak Local Area Transportation Improvements Program and
future Urban Mobility
PrOb1flllTIs.
that were incorrectly deleted in Bill
37-16.
The bill would
take effect on March
1.2017,
when Bi1l37-16 takes effect.
1.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used,
• Montgomery County Planning Department's Local
Area
Transportation Review and
Transportation Policy Area Review Guidelines January 2013
Expedited Bill 51-16 addresses an oversight in the adopted version of the SSP and
Development Impact Taxes vlithout changing the ba<;ic policy or intent oithe items adopted
\vith Bill
37-16.
This legislation does not have an economic impact since it only authorizes
Finance to collect LAIR payments from developers and establishes the process for when
developers are to make the payments. LATR rates are established ill a separate resolution
that is not covered by this legislation.
2. A description of any variable that could affect the ecoDomk impact t'\Stimatcs.
There are two tests
for
detemlining transportation adequacy that include the variables that
could alTect economic impact estimates when a separate resolution !:;pecifying rates is enacted
- the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) test and the policy area test called
Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR).
LAIR
dctcnnines the adequacy of local roads
by
measuring congestion at roadway
intersections based on critical lane volume (eLV) and volume to capacity ratio (vIc). The
estimated vehicle trips generated by a proposed development are compared to the applicable
policy area standard to evaluate likely future congestion. The development's trips that
contribute to nearby intersections exceeding the standard must be mitigated in some fashion.
The
TPAR
test fi.rst considers whether a policy area is cDnsidered inadequate tbr transit or
roadways
(Dr
bDth). If the area is inadequate, a development in the area must make a Traffic
Iv1itigation Payment based on the number of d\velling units or square footage of
nonresidential space, or make improvements
that
increase capacity in the policy area t.o
address identified specific roadway and transit inadequacies.
1.01'2
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Expedited
Bill
51-16~
Taxation - Development Impact Tax -
Local
Area
TransJW)Ttation
Review Mitigation Payment - Established
Given this bill does 110t set rates but instead simply authorizes the Council to establish LATR
payments,
there is
not
an
economic
impact
to estimate until rates are ultimately fonnulated in
a separate resolution.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect, if any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomes, and property values in
the
County.
The proposed bill authorizes the Council to establish
a
LATR payment and rate. LATR
guidelines
are
intended to ensure that development
in
Montgomery County
is
accompanied
by appropriate and sufficient transportation facilities. They are used by the Planning Board
and
staff
to
estimate
the
impacts
of
development on
the
transportation network
and
determine
effective \vays to
mitigate
that impact. Quantifying
the economic impact to the County' and
development will require sped fie rate structures to
be
determined in a separate resol ution
from this
hill.
4.
If
a Bill is likely to have
no economic impact,
why
is that the case?
Please see the answer to question 3.
5.
The
following contributed to
or
concurred with this analysis:
David Platt, Dennis Hetman, and Robert
Hagedoom~
Finance.
.._ _""m_ _
''''''_~~~,~_.
Alexandre
A.
Espinosa, Director
____
Department
of
Finance
2of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARYLAND
BUILDING
INDUSTRY
.......... ASSOCIATION
\~
11825
West Market Place
i
Fulton, MD
20759 : 301-776-6242
/'
Testimony on Expedited BiIl51 16
8
Taxation - Development Impact Tax ­
Local Area Transportation Review Mitigation Payment - Established
Presented by Raquel Montenegro
On Behalf of the Maryland Building Industry Association (MBIA)
January 17, 2017
Good afternoon President Berliner and members of the County Council. My name is Raq uel
Montenegro and I am testifying as a representative ofthe Maryland Building Industry
Association. The MBIA represents over 1000 companies dedicated to developing and
building communities in more than 20 Counties in Maryland; over 300 member companies
work and live in Montgomery County, creating the fabric for neighborhoods, communities,
and jobs. Thank you for the opportunity to present comments on this Bill
The Building Industry has over the years consistently recognized that new developments
have an impact on the existing infrastructure, and that new development should be
assessed the proportional impact it has on the county. The building industry has
consistently attempted to work with the County to realistically assess its impact on schools
and transportation, and has frequently disagreed with both the dollar evaluation and the
percentage that is attributed to the new development This was the case with the recently­
approved Subdivision Staging Policy which eliminated the Transportation Policy Area
Review (TPAR) and increased the over-all transportation Impact Tax, generating more
revenue for the County, and increasing the cost for development anywhere from 20% to
123%.
Continued next page
.....
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page
2/Bill
51-16/Montenegro Testimony
Given Council's action and the recent increase, the initial read of this Bill created a negative
response among industry members. Upon closer reading of the Bill, it became clear that the
intent of Bill 51-16 is to restore the legislative authority to exact LATR payments which
was mistakenly eliminated in Bill 37-16. Given that the Local Area Transportation Review
more equitably assesses the impact on an individual development, as was specifically done
for the development of White Oak, resulting in a more predictable mitigation fee and
avoiding having the cost burden fall on the latest applicants, the MBIA does not oppose Bill
51-16.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1117/2017
Testimony on Expedited Bill 51-16 Transportation Development Mitigation Tax by
Richard D. Wilder representing Citizens to Save South Valley Park and Whetstone
Run
While we applaud the Council on adding transit to the Sub-division Staging Policy we
have the following comments about this bill:
(1)
Is this transportation development tax to be used for transit and/or roads?
(2) What is the necessity for a transportation mitigation tax?
(3) What will the transportation mitigation tax funds be used for?
(4) How will the designated funds be protected to ensure that they will be used for the
desired purpose?
(5) How will development near transit be given priority over development near roads?
These important questions need to
be
answered before we can support this bill.
We are also members of Transit Alternatives to Midcounty Highway Extended (TAME)
and are concerned about the delayed MCDOT M-83 Alternatives Study which has been
presented to the County Executive but not the Councilor public. The original study has
been compromised by allowing an additional2-lane reversible parkway alternative,
which is not a parkway but another attempt to keep this pre Clean
Air
and Clean Water
Acts alignment alive. This alignment
will
never be the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). We are concerned that ifthe Council does not act upon
this issue immediately then County Budget priorities will further delay any Council
action.
In respect to Senator Edmund Muskie and Leon Billings who gave us the Clean Air and
Clean Water Acts and Aldo Leopold who gave us a Land Ethic "which reflects a
conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of
the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this
capacity", this M-83 #9 damaging alternative alignment needs to
be
removed from our
master plans.
Richard D. Wilder and
Jane
Ann
S.Wilder (co-chairs and founders of Citizens to Save South Valley Park and
Whetstone Run)
9969 Lake Landing Rd.
Montgomery Village, MD 20886
(301) 208-1828
RWi3206724@aol.com
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill No.
51-16
Concerning: Taxation - Development
Impact
Tax
Local
Area
Transportation Review Mitigation
Payment - Established
Revised: February 9,2017 Draft No.
L
Introduced:
December 13,2016
Expires:
June 13, 2018
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective:
March 1, 2017
Sunset Date:
--,-!:No~n.!.!:e:.....-
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _• Laws of Mont. Co. _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President Berliner
AN EXPEDITED ACT
to:
(1)
establish a local area transportation review mitigation payment;
(2)
authorize the Council to set the rates by resolution after a public hearing;
ill
authorize a credit against the local area transportation review mitigation payment for
the cost of certain improvements; and
amend the law concerning the development impact
tax
for transportation
[[(3)]]
ill
improvements.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 52, Taxation
[[Section]] Sections 52-47 and 52-51
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 thefollowing Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ExPEDITED BILL
No. 51-16
1
Sec.
1.
[[Section]] Sections 52-47 and 52-51 [[is]] are amended as follows:
52-47. Credits
2
3
4
*
(b)
*
*
Except as provided in subsection
(1),
a [[A]] property owner must receive
a credit for constructing or contributing to an improvement of the type
listed in Section 52-50 if the improvement reduces traffic demand or
provides additional transportation capacity, including the cost of an
improvement in an Urban Mobility Program or the White Oak Local Area
Transportation Improvement Program to the extent it exceeds the listed
cost of the improvement in that program [[However, the Department
must not certify a credit for any improvement in the right-of-way of a
State road, except a transit or trip reduction program that operates on or
relieves traffic on a State road or an improvement to a State road that is
included in a memorandum of understanding between the County and
either Rockville or Gaithersburg]].
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
*
*
*
ill
the Department must not certify a credit for:
ill
the cost of a project in an Urban Mobility Program or the White
Oak Local Area Transportation Improvement Program up to the
20
21
listed cost of the improvement in that program; or
(2)
any improvement in the right-of-way of a State road, except:
(A)
22
23
a transit program that operates on or relieves traffic on a
State road or an improvement to a State road that is included
in a memorandum of understanding between the County
and either Rockville or Gaithersburg; or
24
25
26
27
(ill
the cost of an improvement in an Urban Mobility Program
or the White
Oak
Local Area Transportation Improvement
-2­
f:\law\bills\1651 local area transportation review mitigation payment\bill-e 5.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL
No. 51-16
28
Program to the extent it exceeds the listed cost of the
improvement in that program.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
52-51. [Reserved] Local Area Transportation Review Mitigation Payment.
W
In addition to the tax due under this Article, an applicant for
~
building
permit for any building [[on which an impact tax is imposed under this
Article]] must
~
to the Department of Finance
~
Mitigation Payment if
this payment is required for
~
building included in
~
preliminary plan of
subdivision that was approved under the Local Area Transportation
Review provisions in the County Subdivision Staging Policy.
(Q)
The Council,
by
resolution after
~
public hearing advertised at least
U
38
39
40
days in advance, must establish the rates for the Mitigation Payment
required in this Section.
{£}
The Payment must be paid at the same time and in the same manner as
the tax under this Article, and is subject to all provisions of this Article
for administering and collecting the tax.
41
42
43
44
45
@
The Department ofFinance must retain funds collected under this Section
in an account to be appropriated for transportation improvements that
result in added transportation capacity or improved mobility in the area
where the development for which the funds were paid is located.
46
47
48
49
50
~
A property owner must receive a credit against the Local Area
Transportation Review Mitigation Payment authorized by this Section for
the cost of constructing or contributing to an improvement listed in a
Unified Mobilitv Program for that area or for the White Oak Local Area
Transportation Improvement Program up to the cost of the improvement
listed in that program.
51
52
53
54
Sec. 2.
Expedited Effective Date.
IS
The Council declares that this legislation
-3­
necessary for the immediate
f:\Iaw\biJIs\1651 local area transportation review mitigation payment\biJI-e 5.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL
No. 51-16
55
56
protection of the public interest. This Act takes effect on March 1,2017.
Approved:
57
Roger Berliner, President, County Council
Date
58
Approved:
59
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
60
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
61
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
-4-
f:\law\bills\16S1 local area transportation review mitigation payment\bill-e S.docx
@