Agenda for Meeting 03-2012
CITY OF ROCKVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
David Hill, Chair
Jerry Callistein Kate Ostell Kathleen Cook Dion Trahan Don Hadley John Tyner
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 7:00 p.m. Mayor and Council Chamber City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue
Bridget Donnell Newton, Council Liaison Andrew Gunning, Staff Liaison Marcy Waxman, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Planning Commission Agendas and Staff Reports are available online at: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-4
I. WORK SESSION ITEMS A. Draft Rockville Pike Plan - Sixteenth work session on the Draft Rockville Pike Plan: Transportation and Land Use - Jefferson and Fleet Street Extensions.
B. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Standards – discussion of the report prepared by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Review Committee. Final Report | Appendices | Minority Report
II. COMMISSION ITEMS A. Staff Liaison Report B. Old Business C. New Business D. Minutes E. FYI Correspondence III. ADJOURN
HELPFUL INFORMATION FOR STAKEHOLDERS AND APPLICANTS
I. GENERAL ORDER OF SESSION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS • Staff presentation • City Board or Commission comment • Applicant presentation (10 min.) • Public comment (3 min, or 5 min for the representative of a group) • Planning Commission Discussion and Deliberation • Decision or recommendation by vote
Note: The Planning Commission may ask questions of any party at any time during the proceedings II. PLANNING COMMISSION BROADCAST SCHEDULE • Watch LIVE on Comcast Cable Rockville Channel 11 and online at: www.rockvillemd.gov • Replay on Comcast Cable Rockville Channel 11: Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m. (if no live meeting) Sundays at 7:00 p.m. Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays at 1:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays at 12:00 am (midnight) • Video on Demand (within 48 hours of meeting) at: www.rockvillemd.gov/VideoOnDemand III. NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS For a complete list of all applications on file, visit: www.rockvillemd.gov/DevelopmentWatch IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESOURCES The following resources are available to anyone who would like more information about the development review process. City staff can be reached at 240-314-8200 and additional information can be found on the City’s web site at: www.rockvillemd.gov/CPDS • Citizen’s Guides to Development Review and Zoning • Development Review Manual • Planning Academy Information
Maryland law and the Planning Commission’s Rules of Procedure regarding ex parte (extra-record) communications require all discussion, review and consideration of the Commission’s business take place only during the Commission’s consideration of the item at a scheduled meeting. Telephone calls and meetings with Commission members in advance of the meeting are not permitted. Written communications will be directed to appropriate staff members for response and included in briefing materials for all members of the commission.
M E M O R A N D U M
February 1, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cindy Kebba, Planner III
VIA: David Levy, Chief of Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: Rockville's Pike: Envision a Great Place – Work Session #16 Transportation/Land Use topics revisited: Fleet Street Extension, Jefferson Street Extension, Street network between Jefferson Street and Rockville Pike
On February 8, 2012, the Planning Commission will hold a work session on the draft Rockville Pike plan, which can be found at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/rockvillespike/2010DraftPlan/index.html.
The Planning Commission expressed interest in continuing the broad discussion of Architectural Standards and Document Format that was started on January 25, 2012. The memorandum for the January 25 work session is attached (without its attachments 1-3, which related to other issues) for your convenience in preparing for that discussion.
Staff recommends that this session also return to some of the issues of the draft plan that were not resolved during earlier transportation work sessions that were held in June and July, 2011, specifically recommendations to expand the street network.
Added street network in the plan area is in line with the revised Development Principles, especially Transportation Principle #3: “Access and movement choices for all travel modes that provide connections within the corridor and with surrounding areas.” Within this Principle, it is stated that “This plan seeks to expand the street network to enhance connectivity throughout the corridor for both cars and pedestrians.”
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use the February 8, 2012 work session to provide direction on the transportation and land use components of: 1) The proposed Jefferson Street extension; 2) Additional street grid between the proposed Jefferson Street extension and Rockville Pike (including the parallel “B” Street extension); and, 3) The proposed Fleet Street extension.
Staff recommends that Commissioners view the July 27, 2011 work session as a refresher on the previous discussion, since it has been six months since these topics were discussed. The link to that work session is
http://rockvillemd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1983. The Jefferson Street discussion begins approximately two hours into the meeting and lasts about an hour. The Fleet Street discussion follows immediately afterward.
Jefferson Street Extension
At the July 27, 2011 work session, the Planning Commission indicated that it was in favor of the Jefferson Street extension, but some of the details of that recommendation needed to be evaluated further.
Draft Plan Fig. 5.15. In the draft Rockville Pike Plan, it is The red line is the stated that “an extension of Jefferson Plan area boundary. Street [from where it now ends, just north of Congressional Lane, northward to Wootton Parkway] should be considered as a component of any future land use changes to the Country Club that affect that portion of the Club’s property in the Pike planning area.” Figure 5.15 on page 5.17 of the draft plan (also shown here, left) depicts a conceptual alignment for this extension. This alignment also follows the plan area boundary through most of the Club property.
The draft plan states that the extension would redistribute some of the Rockville Pike traffic, and allow local travel to reach the west side of future Rockville Pike redevelopment in the Middle Pike without having to use the Pike.
According to the draft plan, the extension would be considered when and if Woodmont Country Club proposes land use changes to the portion of the Club property that is within the Pike Plan area.
Testimony received from Woodmont Country Club (testimony # 20, 100, and 129) requests that the extension only be considered if it is in conjunction with rezoning to a more intensive use or substantial redevelopment of the club property outside of the plan area boundaries.
Testimony in opposition to the extension was received from the President of the Village Green Condominiums, representing the Board of Directors and the condominium residents (testimony # 112). A few other citizens also testified against the extension.
Testimony in favor of the Jefferson (and Fleet) Street extensions was received from Rockville Pike Joint Venture, the owners of Wintergreen Plaza Shopping Center (testimony # 73). Others have testified in favor of an expanded street grid generally without specific reference to Jefferson Street.
Staff believes that the Jefferson Street extension would improve traffic operations along Rockville Pike as it would alleviate some of the congestion at the Pike’s intersections with Congressional Lane and Twinbrook Parkway, both shown as failing, on page B.4 of the draft plan (Appendix B). Staff recommends that the City’s best interest would be served if the extension could be considered in conjunction with any development or redevelopment project that merits it, whether it is part of the Club property, inside or outside of the plan area, or another project that has significant impact on traffic congestion in the vicinity. The language “be considered” indicates that the extension would not automatically be built if development/redevelopment occurred, only that the option be available.
2
The draft plan recommends that the extension be classified as an “A” street (see page 5.20), with one lane of travel in each direction and a bike lane in each direction between the vehicle lane and on-street parking. Vehicular movement on “A” streets is meant to be slow (25 miles per hour). This type of street, with the bike lanes, could replace the bicycle/pedestrian connection shown in the Comprehensive Master Plan and shown on Figure 5.15 in the draft Pike Plan to avoid redundancy while still connecting to existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to the north and south.
The City is in the midst of updating and revising its road code (Chapter 21, Article II, Division 3 of the City’s Code). Therefore, the dimensions and particular operating characteristics of the “A”, “B”, “Collector” streets shown in the draft plan may need to be revised to match up with new road classifications and requirements. However, staff estimates that approximately 78 feet of right-of-way would be needed for a road extension that would include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes, on-street parking, sidewalks and sidewalk amenities such as trees. These road components are part of the City’s “Complete Streets Policy” that was adopted in July 2009. Complete streets provide facilities for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motorists, to the extent appropriate for the land use or the context of the street.
If and when the Jefferson Street extension were to be considered, staff recommends that its exact alignment and where it would connect to Wootton Parkway be determined based on development proposals west of the Pike in the Middle Pike area as well as engineering studies. The alignment shown in the draft plan would be used for illustrative purposes only. In fact, staff recommends that language to that effect be added to the draft wherever new streets are shown on maps to allow for some flexibility based on engineering and specific development proposals.1
The draft plan does not identify a street frontage for the Jefferson Street extension (see page 9 of the form code). Staff recommends that the frontage within the plan area be identified as either Urban Neighborhood or Urban General. In the draft plan, Jefferson Street is depicted as Urban Neighborhood in the South Pike; the east-west streets in the Middle Pike, west of Rockville Pike, are shown as Urban General. This could be considered a “placeholder” frontage designation that could be re-evaluated based on future development.
Straw votes: At the July 27, 2011 work session, the Commission indicated that it was in favor of including the Jefferson Street extension in the plan, with parallel street grid (see next section, below). Some unanswered issues remain:
What event(s) or condition(s) should trigger consideration for building the extension? Options include: 1) any development or redevelopment that merits it, as recommended by staff; 2) redevelopment of the Country Club within the Plan area, as recommended in the draft plan; 3) redevelopment of the club property west of the plan area, as requested by representatives for Woodmont Country Club; or, 4) some other catalyst.
What type of road should the extension be? Options include: 1) a two-lane street with bike lane (similar to the “A” street shown in the draft plan); 2) a street without bike lanes (similar to the draft plan’s “B” street); or, 3) other.
What should the street frontage for the extension be?
Parallel Street Grid between Jefferson Street Extension and Pike
The July 27, 2011 discussion of the extension of Jefferson Street was held in conjunction with a discussion of added street network on the west side of Rockville Pike, in the middle portion of the study area. The draft plan shows a “B” street extension in Figure 5.15 on page 5.17, but no other street grid in this frontage area. The Middle Pike regulating plan, on page 20 of the draft form code, only shows frontages along existing streets: Talbott Street, Templeton Place, and a paper street just north of the Woodmont Country Club entrance.
1 This is the approach being taken with the extension of Chapman Avenue, in the context of the Twinbrook Metroplace development proposal. The road extension is shown conceptually in the 1989 Rockville Pike Plan, but its alignment may be refined based on input from adjacent property owners and engineering analysis. 3
Woodmont Country Club submitted testimony that the maximum lot sizes (width and depth) in the draft plan are too small to allow construction of a viable mixed-use project in the Middle Pike. The Planning Commission has eliminated all maximum lot size dimensions through straw votes, so this point is now moot. However, adding new street grids creates blocks which also limit the sizes of individual developments, but to a much lesser extent than would have been the case with the draft plan’s maximum lot sizes.
Woodmont Country Club representatives suggest, through testimony, that block dimensions of 320 feet in depth and 500 feet in width would allow for feasible mixed-use development on the west side of the Middle Pike. This equates to 3.7 acres and a perimeter of 1,640 feet.
The draft plan states (p. 45) that sites larger than two acres must be subdivided further to create additional blocks. However, discussions with the plan consultants revealed that the actual intent is to create blocks that are no larger than four acres in area. The draft plan also states that no block face should be longer than 500 feet in length without an alley, common drive, access easement, or pedestrian pathway providing through access, and that blocks must be no greater than 1,600 feet in total perimeter.
Since the Planning Commission has eliminated maximum lot sizes through straw votes, the Club’s request is very similar to what the draft plan and consultants recommend for maximum block sizes since it is possible for one development to take up an entire block.
In general, the plan consultants do not recommend adding more streets than are shown in the street master plan, as they feel that the street master plan is calibrated to create optimal walking conditions. An exception to this approach would be the Woodmont Country Club frontage, where a more finely grained street grid would be both appropriate and possible if that area were to be developed. In general, the consultants have verbally recommended that areas that exceed four acres and do not have a plan recommendation for a street grid (i.e. portions of the Middle and North Pike) be guided by the 1,600-foot perimeter and 500-foot block face maximum recommendations in the draft plan and, further, that the street grid could be adjusted based on specific development proposals.
It is staff’s position that added street network would be needed to access new development in the area between the Pike and Jefferson Street extended. It would also provide more vehicle movement options and create more pedestrian-friendly, buildable blocks.
Attachment 2 shows the Middle Pike street grid as shown in the draft form code. Staff has drawn, for illustrative purposes, three additional possibilities for an expanded street grid in the Middle Pike.
Attachment 3 shows a grid that illustrates staff’s interpretation of the Commission’s discussion at the July 27, 2011 work session. This grid extends Templeton Place, Talbott Street, and the Club entrance driveway from the Pike to the extended E. Jefferson Street and adds another street between Templeton and the Club driveway, immediately north of the existing Woodmont Overlook townhouses to approximate the consultant’s block size recommendations. This extended street network avoids existing buildings for the most part, but these roads would not be built without redevelopment of the affected parcels, so the location of existing buildings and parcel boundaries does not need to be the driving force for this grid concept.
Attachment 4 shows a grid of approximately equally sized blocks, roughly four acres in size, throughout the Middle Pike without regard for existing buildings or property boundaries. Again, no buildings would be demolished to create this network as the network would be built only in conjunction with redevelopment of underlying properties.
Attachment 5 is similar to the grid shown on Attachment 4, except that it follows the north and south property lines of the Woodmont Country Club fronting Rockville Pike such that the property could be developed intact as a single project without crossing property lines or being bisected by a street. It also realigns the north – south street between the Pike and extended E. Jefferson Street to the rear of the Woodmont Overlook townhouse development.
Other alternatives are, of course, possible. In any case, streets would be added concurrently with redevelopment of the area between the Pike and the extended E. Jefferson Street to access new development. 4
Staff recommends that the street grid that generally conforms to the dimensions recommended by the consultants be added to the plan in the Middle Pike for illustrative purposes and that the Woodmont Country Club frontage be shown intact without a street dividing it. Staff further recommends that the interior street network created between the Pike and the Jefferson Street extension be identified as Urban General frontage and that strategic intersections be designated as Urban Center nodes in keeping with the vision of the plan and form code. These recommendations most closely conform to the grid shown in Attachment 5.
Straw votes: Does the Planning Commission agree that street network between the Pike and Jefferson Street extended should be included in any consideration to build the Jefferson Street extension?
If so, does the Planning Commission favor any one of the street grids shown in the attachments, or does the Commission propose an alternative grid?
Does the Commission agree that streets shown in the Street Master Plan, including any added between the Pike and Jefferson Street extended, should be described in the plan as “for illustrative purposes” with language added that adjustments to the Street Regulating Plan and the Regulating Plan may be considered if in keeping with the intent of the plan to create walkable blocks?
What should the street frontages for the added streets be?
Fleet Street Extension
The Commission took a straw vote in favor of the draft plan’s proposed Fleet Street extension, from Ritchie Parkway to Mt. Vernon Place, at the July 27, 2011 work session. The vote was tied to provisions that would ensure pedestrian safety and slow speeds and that Richard Montgomery High School and its PTSA would be consulted regarding safety measures and the road’s design. However, at the January 11, 2012 work session, the Commission indicated that it wanted to re- visit this vote.
Draft Plan The draft plan states (p. 5.24) “This short Fig. 5.14 extension provides a network alternative to the Wootton Parkway/Rockville Pike intersection, especially for traffic wishing to access development on the west side of Rockville Pike and north of Wootton”.
Testimony received from the community, including the Richard Montgomery High School PTSA Executive Committee, generally was in opposition to the Fleet Street extension, based on concerns for the safety of Richard Montgomery High School students (multiple testimony).
5
The owners of Wintergreen shopping center provided testimony in favor of the extension, noting that it would provide “a long overdue and logical means of mitigating the Pike’s traffic distribution needs, and it will be complementary to the overall vision of the Rockville Pike Plan.” (testimony #73 )
An architect suggested, through written testimony and drawings, to move the alignment of the extension to the middle of the existing Ritchie Plaza shopping center (upon redevelopment of that center, when and if it occurs) to reduce the impact on the Hungerford neighborhood (testimony # 113).
Staff continues to strongly recommend inclusion of the Fleet Street extension in the plan as it would provide improved circulation and connectivity for the businesses in the North Pike. Staff recommends that language be included in the plan to ensure that the roadway design, if and when built, would encourage vehicles to travel at safe speeds (maximum 25 mph), provide wide sidewalks along both sides of the road, and utilize other available measures to maintain safety for students and other pedestrians.
Fleet Street is included in the 1989 Rockville Pike Plan as a four-lane road. It is currently a “paper street” that is shown on maps as a public right-of-way but has not been improved as a public street. The right-of-way is approximately 80 feet in width. The draft plan proposes the Fleet Street extension with only two lanes (one lane in each direction). Staff agrees that it should be a two-lane road and that it should include a parallel shared use path for bikes and pedestrians. There is already such a path within the proposed alignment of Fleet Street extended.
Staff recommends that the Fleet Street extension frontage be North Pike Urban General, as shown in the draft Plan. Although the Urban General frontage is not retail-based, the parallel shared use path would allow bicycle access to retail and other businesses to the north and south.
6
Straw votes: Does the Planning Commission want to retain or amend its July 27, 2011 straw vote that was in favor of the extension of Fleet Street?
Does the Commission agree with staff’s proposed cross-section (shown on the previous page) for the Fleet Street extension?
What should the street frontage for the extension be?
Next Steps
Remaining portions of the draft plan and form code that need to be reviewed include open space, streetscape, sidewalks and trees, code administration, the APFO, congestion management, implementation, and finalizing outstanding transportation issues (i.e. the Pike cross section).
Attachments 1. January 25, 2012 staff memorandum (with its attachment 4) 2. Middle Pike street grid as shown in the draft Form Code 3. Middle Pike street grid - staff’s interpretation of July 27, 2011 work session discussion 4. Middle Pike street grid with regular block pattern 5. Middle Pike street grid avoiding bisection of Woodmont frontage
cc: Susan Swift Andrew Gunning Mayra Bayonet Clark Larson Deane Mellander Craig Simoneau Emad Elshafei Peter Campanides
7
Attachment 1
M E M O R A N D U M
January 18, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cindy Kebba, Planner III
VIA: David Levy, Chief of Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: Rockville's Pike: Envision a Great Place – Work Session #15 Architecture
On January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission will hold a work session on the draft Rockville Pike plan, which can be found at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/rockvillespike/2010DraftPlan/index.html.
Staff recommends three topics for the work session: 1. Continuation of topics from the January 11, 2012 memorandum; 2. Overview of the draft form code’s Architectural Standards, including building and frontage types; and, 3. Document format (Plan, Code, Other Standards)
Continuation of January 11, 2012 discussion The Planning Commission expressed interest in completing review of the parking standards (Attachment 1) and land use tables (Attachment 3). These attachments, in addition to the parking standards comparison table (Attachment 2), were also included in the January 11 briefing materials. Staff suggests that the Commission begin the work session with this task.
Architectural Standards, Building and Frontage Types Staff recommends that the work session next focus on a broad discussion of the Building Type and Frontage Type tables on pages 50-53 and the Architectural Standards which comprise pages 54 through 69 of the form code.
Architectural Guidelines in Rockville’s Zoning Ordinances and Master Plans Influencing the appearance of architecture, whether through regulation or guidelines, is not new to the City’s zoning regulations or master plans. Article 13 of the existing zoning ordinance provides broad design guidelines for the City’s mixed-use zones. They are not mandatory, but are considered as part of the review of development projects. (Attachment 4 is a summary of architectural guidelines from Article 13).
These guidelines address many of the same architectural features that are included in the Form Code’s Architectural Standards, including building walls, roofs, parapets, windows and doors. In addition, the City regulates and provides guidance for lighting in Article 17 and in the Landscaping, Screening and Lighting Manual, and regulates and provides guidance for signage in Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. Overall, the architectural design guidelines in the zoning ordinance tend to be broad and focus more on intent (e.g., breaking up massing, creating visual interest) than on specific materials and techniques to achieve a predictable outcome.
Much of the language that deals with architectural design in Article 13 also existed in the previous zoning ordinance and was directed at development in the RPC and C2 retail-oriented zones, as there were no mixed-use zones prior to adoption of the new ordinance in 2008.
Architectural and design guidelines have been produced to assist in the implementation of neighborhood master plans as well. The Town Center Design Guidelines http://www.rockvillemd.gov/towncenter/design-guides.htm were published, for instance, to provide architectural guidance for Town Square. The 1989 Rockville Pike Plan also contains some design guidelines for the treatment of building facades in the Rockville Pike corridor.
Purpose of Architectural Standards, Building and Frontage Types
Like streets, sidewalks, and open space, the facades of buildings are part of the public realm. Building and frontage types establish some of the basic parameters of architecture as they deal with massing, form, and how buildings engage the public realm. The Architectural Standards in the Rockville Pike draft plan serve to implement the plan vision beyond what the form code building setback, height and other form standards can do. They provide more control over and greater certainty regarding the appearance of individual buildings, and therefore the “place” as a whole. They are intended to complement the land use and urban design objectives of the Plan, as expressed through the Development Principles.
The Planning Commission endorsed 15 Development Principles (through a straw vote) for the Rockville Pike Plan on September 14, 2011. Under the heading “Liveable, desirable environment enhanced by thoughtful urban design”, the first of these principles reads as follows:
1. Community Design and Architecture Distinctive to Rockville The Pike will have a more coherent and human-scale relationship among the buildings, transportation infrastructure and open spaces, in a manner that draws on Rockville’s character and heritage and creates an inviting community. The form-based code strongly supports this approach. It places a greater emphasis on building form rather than use, brings buildings closer to the street, encourages façade improvements, reduces the prominence of surface parking, and emphasizes high-quality landscaping, among other strategies. The form-based code clearly defines the character of the public realm and provides development regulations and design standards that will create more consistent development patterns and greatly improve the appearance of the Pike, while allowing for architectural diversity and visual interest.
Discussion topic: Do the Architectural Standards further this development principle beyond what the form code provides through other building standards?
Regulation
The key architectural elements that are covered by the draft plan’s Standards are exterior building walls; windows and doors; roofs and parapets; street walls (or delineation of the public realm from the private realm where there are no building walls); signage; and lighting and mechanical equipment. For each element, a principle is provided to explain the intent of the standards related to that element, followed by permitted materials and permitted configuration and techniques.
Under the Definitions section of the Architectural Standards on Page 54, it is noted that: Statements that have language such as “shall” or “shall not” are mandatory. Statements that have language such as “preferred” mean that the applicant must comply unless he/she can prove that it is impractical for his/her project, based on a) the physical conditions of the property or, b) the 2
applicant presenting an alternative means of compliance that meets the applicable principles and complies with the stated goals and standards of the Form Code. Statements that have language such as “encouraged” or “discouraged” are guidelines and mean that compliance is not mandatory, merely recommended.
Most of the statements are written as mandatory in the draft plan’s Architectural Standards because form based codes typically control form more rigorously (and control uses less rigidly) than traditional zoning does.
Discussion topic: How stringently should the architecture within the Rockville Pike Plan Area be regulated (i.e., mandatory, “preferred” with the option to deviate with approval from the Approving Authority, or guidelines that recommend but are not enforceable)? Does the Commission want to identify which standards should be mandatory as opposed to either preferred or guidelines?
Level of Detail
The purpose of architectural standards in a code that focuses on form is to, over time, help bring about a coherent and distinctive character to an area. Design elements can also soften the impacts of massing, which may be a particular consideration given that there are no lot or building size maximums in the current (straw vote) version of the draft form code. Too much specificity, however, can run the risk of leading to an overly homogenous “themed” appearance.
Discussion topic: How specific should the Architectural Standards be? Are the Standards in the draft plan too specific? Not specific enough?
Architectural Style
The draft plan’s Architectural Standards avoid reference to any particular architectural styles; rather they regulate materials, configuration and construction techniques. As with most form codes, the draft plan’s Architectural Standards generally point to a New Urbanist “traditional” character. The intention is to foster a coherent and regionally appropriate aesthetic. As a result, the Standards exclude modern details and techniques. Staff agrees that requiring the traditional theme of the Standards would help promote coherence and consistency which are important to place-making.
However, there are many interpretations of what is “traditional” for Rockville. Rockville does not have a single distinctive architectural tradition. Rather, the City is fortunate to have an eclectic mix of architectural styles that spans more than two centuries. The City’s recently published Historic Buildings Catalog includes almost 40 distinct architectural forms, including several modern and late modern styles.
Discussion topic: Does the Planning Commission wish to retain the “traditional” focus of the draft Plan’s Architectural Standards as a tool to provide coherence and place-making to the Pike Plan area, or does the Commission wish to remove, minimize, or change this focus? Is there a particular architectural character that the Rockville Pike Plan Area should project, whether traditional or not?
Document Format
The draft plan and the draft form code are intended to be two separate documents that are considered in tandem to ensure that the vision of the plan is properly incorporated into the regulating tool. The form code states that it is intended be a stand-alone document that will be adopted into the City’s zoning ordinance, which is why it is paginated differently from the rest of the plan document.
Staff recommends that the Architectural Standards, Signage, Lighting and Mechanical Equipment, and Streetscape Standards sections of the form code be separated from the form code into a third document (Design Standards) that would provide the design elements that support the plan. The level of detail and regulatory nature of this 3 document is yet to be determined (per the discussion topics suggested above); but by separating it from the code, it could be modified in the future without affecting the plan or the code. This three-document approach would be similar to what occurred for Town Center – Rockville Town Center Master Plan, the amendment to the zoning ordinance, and the Town Center Design Guidelines.
Suggested Table of Contents for documents:
I. Rockville Pike: Envision a Great Place (The Plan) A. Executive Summary B. Introduction (Ch. 1) C. The Public Process (Ch. 2) D. Key Findings (Ch. 3) E. Development Principles (Ch. 4) F. A Plan for the Rockville Pike Corridor (Ch. 5 – this chapter will likely need more detail added to adequately provide a foundation for the code, if they are separate documents) G. Implementation (Ch. 7) H. Research Appendices
II. Rockville Pike District Form Code (Ch. 6, pp. 6.1-6.2 and pp. 1-53; Administration and Glossary (pp. 73-89 ). Until such time as the zoning ordinance is amended to incorporate the Rockville Pike standards, existing standards for the mixed-use zones would apply.
III. Design Standards (Architectural Standards, Signage, Lighting and Mechanical Equipment, Streetscape Standards)
Discussion topic: Does the Planning Commission agree with Staff’s recommendation to separate the design aspects of the form code into a separate “Design Standards” document and to ensure that the plan document provides sufficient guidance in that regard?
Next Steps
Staff recommends that the Commission return to two outstanding transportation/land use issues at the February 8, 2012 work session:
1. The potential extension of Fleet Street from Mt. Vernon Place to Wootton Parkway and the frontage designation and building form standards of that segment of road, if extended.
2. The potential extension of Jefferson Street through the Woodmont Country Club property; related street network in the club frontage property; and the frontage designation and building form standards of these roads if included in the plan.
Remaining portions of the Form Code that need to be reviewed include administration, plan implementation, the APFO, and congestion management. Discussion of other outstanding transportation issues will be scheduled for an upcoming work session(s) as well.
Attachments:
1. Parking setbacks and required number of spaces for South, Middle and North Pike frontages 2. Parking standard comparison table 3. Land use types for South, Middle and North Pike frontages 4. Summary of Zoning Ordinance’s architectural design guidelines for mixed-use zones
4
cc: Susan Swift Andrew Gunning Mayra Bayonet Clark Larson Deane Mellander Craig Simoneau Emad Elshafei Peter Campanides
5
Draft Rockville’s Pike: Envision a Great Place Form Code / Zoning Ordinance Design Guidelines City Zoning Ordinance Form Code: Sec.1.8.1 – General Principles and Intent Sec.25.13.06.b.3 – Materials and Color (a) General Provisions - Buildings should have exterior building materials and colors that are compatible with materials and colors that are used in adjoining neighborhoods. Certain types of colors should be avoided such as fluorescent or metallic, although brighter colors may be considered at the discretion of the Planning Commission. (b) Materials Not Desired - Construction materials such as tilt-up concrete, smooth-faced concrete block, prefabricated steel panels, and other similar materials should be avoided unless the exterior surface is covered.
Form Code: Sec.1.8.2 - Building Walls, Exterior. Sec.25.13.06.b.1 – Facades and Exterior Walls Including Sides and Backs
Buildings should be designed in a way that avoids massive scale and uniform and impersonal appearance and that will provide visual interest consistent with the community's identity, character, and scale. It is recommended that building walls greater than 100 feet long include projections, recessions, or other treatments sufficient to reduce the unbroken massing of the façade along all sides of the building facing public streets.
(a) Along any public street frontage building, design should include windows, arcades, awnings or other acceptable features along at least 60 percent of the building length. Arcades and other weather protection features must be of sufficient depth and height to provide a light-filled and open space along the building frontage. Architectural treatment, similar to that provided to the front facade must be provided to the sides and rear of the building to mitigate any negative view from any location off-site and any public area (e.g. parking lots, walkways, etc.) on site. (b) Buildings should include architectural features that contribute to visual interest at the pedestrian scale and reduce the massive aesthetic effect by breaking up the building wall along those sides fronting on public streets with color, texture change, wall offsets, reveals, or projecting ribs.
The façade design must be consistent with the standards set forth in subsection 25.13.05.b.2 (a). Where the façade height exceeds 35 feet, the façade should include an expression line above the first floor level and a defined cornice line at the top of the façade wall.
Form Code: Sec. 1.8.3 - Roofs & Parapets Sec.25.13.06.b.2 - Roofs Roof design should provide variations in rooflines where appropriate and add interest to, and reduce the massive scale of, large buildings. Roof features should complement the architectural and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods. Roofs should include two (2) or more roof planes. Parapet walls should be architecturally treated to avoid a plain, monotonous look. For energy saving purposes, roof design should also include a light color surface or be planted with vegetation.
Form Code: Sec.1.8.4 – Street Walls Not Applicable
Form Code: Sec.1.8.5 - Windows and Doors Sec.25.13.07.a.4 – Fenestration and 25.13.06.b.5 - Entryways Generally, fenestration of the stories above the ground floor should be by individual framed windows. Continuous strip windows may be allowed by the Planning Commission if they are used to maintain compatibility with existing contiguous projects. Building design must include design elements which clearly indicate to customers where the entrances are located and which add aesthetically pleasing character to buildings by providing highly visible customer entrances. Areas of a building originally designed for residential use at the ground floor level, having individual entries to the units, should have the entry from the ground level raised at least two (2) feet, or have another form of demarcation between the public sidewalk and the private entry. In order to be readily convertible to retail space, such areas must have a minimum ceiling height of 15 feet.
Form Code: Sec.1.8.6 – Signage Sec.25.18.14 – Signs in Mixed-Use Zones Signs permitted in the MXCD, MXNC, Zones: 1. Permanent Building Signs - Permanent building signs are permitted in the MXTD, MXCD, Zones in accordance with the following: (a) MXTD and MXCD Zones i. The total aggregate area of all signs on the premises allowed for each business/tenant must not exceed: A. Two (2) square feet for each linear foot of exterior building wall enclosing the business/tenant space up to a maximum of 50 square feet. B. If such building wall or portion thereof measures more than 50 linear feet, then the aggregate area of all signs on the premises for that business/tenant may be increased in area at the rate of one (1) square foot for each linear foot of exterior building wall in excess of 50 linear feet. ii. For a lot occupied by more than one (1) business/tenant, each building sign must be consistent and harmonious in terms of design, color, shape, size, style, material, and mounting with other such signs on the building or in the center. A proposal for the entire building or center must be submitted by the owner prior to the issuance of the first sign permit for either a new or existing development.
Form Code: Sec.1.8.7.A - Lighting 25.17.04 - Lighting a. Purpose – The purposes of lighting requirements are to: 1. Protect against glare and spillover of light onto adjacent properties or into the sky; 2.Protect against glare onto public rights-of-way that can impair vision of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists; 3. Increase nighttime utility, safety, security, and productivity of the sites where lighting is provided; 4. Foster the nighttime use of property; and 5. Protect the privacy of residents. b. Lighting Manual – Lighting must be provided in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the Landscaping, Screening and Lighting Manual approved by resolution of the Mayor and Council. This manual will provide information and guidance on matters such as: 1. Design of light fixtures; 2. Types of bulbs; 3. Cut-off requirements; 4. Height of light standards; 5. Recommended maximum and minimum foot-candles; 6. Special provisions for high-density and entertainment districts; and 7. Other appropriate provisions.
Form Code: Sec.1.8.7.B - Mechanical Equipment. Sec.25.13.06.6 – Screening of Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment must be screened to mitigate noise and views in all directions. If roof-mounted, the screen must be designed to conform architecturally to the design of the building either with varying roof planes or with parapet walls. A wood fence or similar treatment is not acceptable. (25.13.06.b.6)
Recommendations on the City of Rockville's Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Standards
A Report by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Review Committee
November 2011
Committee Membership
Julie Palakovich Carr, Chair Jason Anthony, Vice-Chair Dennis Cain Tom Gibney Sean Hart Soo Lee-Cho Charles Littlefield Roald Schrack Eric Siegel
City of Rockville Staff
Deane Mellander James Wasilak
2 Table of Contents
Introduction 4 Background on the APFO Review Committee 5 Overview of the APFO and APFS 6 School Facilities Standard 7 Transportation Facilities Standard 19 Fire and Emergency Service Standard 26 Water and Sewer Standards 30 Waivers to the APFO 32 Amendments to the APFS 34 Citizen Opinions of Growth 35 Reevaluation of the APFO 37 Appendices 38 Minority Views 85
3 Introduction
The population of the City of Rockville, Maryland grew by 29 percent between 2000 and 2010.1 This rate of growth was exceptional; the City has not seen such growth since the post-WWII boom years of the 1950s-60s.2 Regional planners estimate that Rockville's population growth will continue, albeit at a slower pace. The City's relatively strong economic conditions, anticipated job creation, high quality schools, and well regarded quality of life are anticipated to continue to draw the demand of new residents for the foreseeable future. Rockville's population is predicted to reach 83,929 by the year 2040.3
While population growth can be a boon to a city through increased tax revenue, growth also can create problems. Without proper planning for population growth, the infrastructure and services of a municipality can become overburdened and the quality of life of the citizens will suffer. Roads can become overly congested with traffic, school enrollment can exceed program capacity, and water supplies can be strained during dry summer months.
For these reasons, city planners across the nation turn to tools to help them properly plan for changes in population size. One tool that is widely used is an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). According to the Maryland Department of Planning: “An APFO ties development approvals under zoning and subdivision ordinances to specifically defined public facility standards. They are designed to slow the pace of development or in extreme cases to delay development approvals in an area until adequate service levels are in place or reasonably assured.”
Since the City of Rockville enacted an APFO in 2005, a number of issues have arisen with the ordinance and the Adequate Public Facilities Standards (APFS or Standards) that implement the law. In response to these problems, the Rockville Planning Commission ordered a review of the APFO and APFS by an ad hoc committee of Rockville citizens and commercial stakeholders. This report serves to communicate the findings and recommendations of the APFO Review Committee.
1 U.S. Census results for the City of Rockville. 2 Rockville Strategic Scan 2010. See http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/strategicscan/StrategicScan2010.pdf. 3 Rockville Strategic Scan 2010.
4 Background on the APFO Review Committee
In December 2010, the City of Rockville's Planning Commission created the APFO Review Committee to “review and study the APFO and APFS, identify discrepancies and make recommendations to amend the ordinance and standards.”4
The membership of the Committee is comprised of Rockville residents and representatives of the City’s commercial stakeholders. Nine committee members were selected by the Planning Commission from a pool of volunteers who applied to serve on the Committee.
The Committee held its first meeting on January 27, 2011. In the ensuing eight months, the Committee met nearly 30 times. These meetings were all open to the public. Meeting minutes and supporting materials were posted to a web page on the City’s website,5 and City staff distributed information about the Committee's activities via a City listserv.
During the course of its work, the Committee solicited information from a variety of sources, including: City staff, a member of the Board of Education, the director of Long Range Planning for Montgomery County Public Schools, principals and PTA members of Rockville schools, the City’s Fire Marshal, a representative of the County’s Department of Fire and Rescue Services, Montgomery County Planning Department, a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority representative, the deputy staff director to the Montgomery County Council, representatives of neighborhood associations, two appellants in the Beall’s Grant II court case, a former mayor, a former city council member, and representatives of Rockville’s commercial stakeholders (see Appendix A for a full list of experts).
These sources provided a diversity of views, opinions, facts, and data on topics relevant to the APFO and APFS. In addition to oral testimony, the Committee requested and was provided with written and electronic data and information, much of which is posted on the Committee’s website. Several Committee members conducted their own analysis of school enrollment and capacity data.
Additionally, the Committee held a public forum on June 2, 2011 to provide Rockville residents and commercial stakeholders an opportunity to share their views on the APFO. Written comments from the public were also accepted for a two-month period in May-June 2011. The Committee, with the assistance of City staff, advertised these opportunities on the City’s website and in Rockville Reports, as well as sent a press release to local media outlets. About a dozen people submitted input in writing or at the public forum.
4 See Planning Commission Resolution 3-10 for the full charge to the Committee. 5 http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/pc/APFOCommittee.
5 Overview of the APFO and APFS
The APFO and the Standards that implement the law were adopted by Rockville Mayor and Council in November 2005.6 As stated in the APFO, the Ordinance and Standards establish “the method used by the City to ensure that the necessary public facilities will be available to serve proposed new development or redevelopment.”
The ordinance requires proposed development projects in the City to be examined for their impacts to roads and public transportation facilities, sewer and water service, schools, and fire and emergency services. If a project would cause any of these facilities to decline below a minimum threshold of service, the City must deny the project, unless the applicant can mitigate any adverse impacts on public facilities that are deemed inadequate under the Standards.
Montgomery County has its own APFO and APFS, which have been in place since 1973. The County ordinance is superficially similar to Rockville's, in that it regulates the timing of new development in order to maintain certain levels of service for schools, roads, fire/emergency services, water, and sewer. Major differences, however, exist between the APFOs of the two jurisdictions. The Committee has included relevant information within this document in order to provide the proper context for our findings and recommendations.
6 The APFO is Section 25.20 of the City Code and can be viewed online at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/citycode.htm. The APFS, as adopted on June 6, 2011, can be viewed at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/cpds/APFO-adopted06-11.pdf.
6 School Facilities Standard
During the course of its work, the Committee dedicated more time to discussing and analyzing the school standard than any other aspect of the APFO. These extensive discussions were due to the complexity and importance of the standard. Given the standard’s significant potential consequences for residents and commercial stakeholders alike, the Committee paid great attention to—and vigorously discussed— the topics of public school capacity, impact of overcrowding, projection of future student enrollment, and estimated student generation by housing type. In addition to addressing these four main topics, the Committee also examined key differences between the City's APFO school standards and those of Montgomery County, as well as the pipeline of approved projects in Rockville and alternative approaches to funding additional school capacity.
The six recommendations presented at the end of this section are a result of these discussions. All of these recommendations were voted on by the nine Committee members and passed with either a majority or unanimous vote.7
1. Capacity of Public Schools serving the City of Rockville and Impact of Overcrowding
Students in Rockville attend schools that are located both within and outside the city limits. Of the schools that are located within Rockville, only two schools service 100 percent Rockville residents: Beall Elementary and Meadow Hall Elementary. The student bodies of the remaining 18 elementary, middle, and high schools are comprised of 3 to 90 percent Rockville residents.
School capacity can be assessed in two ways: core capacity and program capacity. For the purposes of the APFO, program capacity is used.
Core capacity is the number of students a school can physically accommodate for all activities including those that occur outside of the regular classroom, such as lunch, recess, bathrooms, assemblies, as well as art, music, physical education, and computer classes. When core capacity is exceeded, schools typically adjust student usage of core facilities. The most prevalent example is extended lunch periods. At College Gardens Elementary School there are six lunch periods, with the fourth grade class eating lunch from 1:30 to 2:00 PM.
Core capacity is generally a standard building specification and applied somewhat consistently at each school level (e.g. elementary, 640 or 740 students; middle, 1,000 or 1,200 students; and high school, 2,000 or 2,400 students). It is also the fundamental element around which the size and cost of a building are determined. The physical layout of a school is also based around core uses. Other functions, such as classrooms, offices, etc., are located around core facilities toward the outside of the
7 There were core topics related to the school standard, however, on which the Committee could not agree. Rather than exclude these different views, the Committee agreed that individual members would be allowed to include minority reports as an appendix to the main report.
7 school. Therefore, core capacity is difficult to modify through renovation due to the potential high cost.
Program capacity is defined by the state of Maryland as “the maximum number of students that can reasonably be accommodated in a facility without significantly hampering delivery of the given educational program. School [program] capacity is the product of the number of teaching stations at a school and the average class size for each program.”
Program capacity is determined by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) and is changed in accordance with various economic and social issues. The most typical change is adjustment of the number of students in each classroom in each grade level. Schools that have a large number of students receiving Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARMS) and/or students participating in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program are designated by MCPS as part of the Class Size Reduction (CSR) initiative. Class size in these designated schools is reduced, with the size of the reduction depending on grade level. Such status is re-evaluated from time to time meaning that a change in a school's CSR status can affect whether or not a school is considered overcapacity or not. Five elementary schools in Rockville have CSR status as of the 2011-2012 school year. Beall ES had its CSR status removed this year.
When a school exceeds its program capacity, the additional students are typically accommodated by installing temporary classrooms (also known as portables) next to the main school building. Portables are considered a temporary solution, and are not included in program capacity calculations. However, they can persist at extremely overcrowded schools while the County looks for a permanent solution (either construction of a new school or renovation of an existing school). Overall, about nine percent of Rockville's elementary school students are taught in portable classrooms for at least part of their school day.
MCPS typically uses program capacity when it reports on school capacity. If a school has filled 100 percent of its seats in regular (i.e. not portable) classrooms, the school’s enrollment would be 100 percent of program capacity. Any additional enrollment, such as that accommodated by portables, would cause the school’s capacity to exceed 100 percent program capacity.8 A school that exceeds its defined program capacity may or may not exceed its core capacity, depending on its CSR status. (See Appendix C for a comparison of school core capacity versus actual and projected enrollment.)
In the 2010–2011 school year, eleven of the twenty schools that service Rockville exceed their program capacity.9 Capacities ranged from 76 percent (Tilden Middle School) to 137 percent (Beall Elementary School). The twenty schools that service Rockville are grouped into five clusters based on the high school that serves students within the cluster. Of these five clusters, only one—Walter Johnson—did not have any overcapacity schools. The most overcrowded cluster was the Richard Montgomery
8 See Appendix B: City of Rockville FY 2012 School Test – in effect from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. 9 See Appendix B: City of Rockville FY 2012 School Test – in effect from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.
8 cluster, whose schools stood at an average 115 percent of program capacity in 2010– 2011.10 The Richard Montgomery cluster also has the three most overcrowded schools that serve Rockville residents, which averaged 130 percent of program capacity. This cluster services more than half of Rockville's student population and covers about half of the City's land area. As such, the Committee frequently focused on this cluster when conducting its analysis. Nevertheless, conclusions drawn about the Richard Montgomery cluster cannot be assumed to affect all of Rockville's residents, nor all of Rockville's geographic area.
In addition to data provided by the City and County, the Committee received testimony from several educators and parents regarding how portables and overburdened core facilities impact students' learning experience. In general, the educators agreed that portables have not been shown to negatively impact the quality of education students receive in core-curriculum areas (reading, math, etc.), although there have been concerns raised by parents and school staff about student safety and health, as well as diminished exposure to non-core-curriculum areas of study such as music, art, computers, etc. It was also noted that the addition of extra students accommodated by the portables can overburden core facilities such as the cafeteria, library, gymnasium, computer lab, and music and art classrooms.
2. Rockville's Role in Adequacy of Schools
Rockville’s APFO is designed to ensure that the necessary public facilities, including schools, will be available to meet the needs of new development and redevelopment in the City prior to project approval. The ordinance considers projected student enrollment at each elementary, middle, and high school that would serve a proposed development project. When a project application is filed, the City estimates how many students the project would contribute to each impacted school using student generation rates determined by the Montgomery County Planning Department. If the projected student population of a school exceeds 110 percent of the program capacity (including approved but unbuilt projects) in either of the two "test" years following a residential development application, the ordinance requires that project be denied. The two exceptions are developments that are granted a waiver from the APFS school test because they will not generate school age children (e.g. a nursing home) or that are exempt from the AFPO because they were grandfathered into the law. Rockville has no direct role in managing the adequacy of the public schools serving its residents; it is the full and sole responsibility of Montgomery County. The County, however, taxes City residents to support the schools.
3. MCPS School Enrollment Projections
MCPS estimates future student enrollment for each school by considering a variety of factors, including the local birth rate, aging of children through the school system, movement of students into and out of the school system, and new construction of housing.
10 City of Rockville FY 2012 School Test – in effect from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.
9 Several Committee members and invited guests who testified at the Committee’s meetings questioned the accuracy of MCPS’ projections of student enrollment. To evaluate the historical accuracy of the enrollment projections for Rockville’s schools, the Committee received and analyzed data and testimony by Montgomery County staff responsible for projecting future enrollment at MCPS schools. Specifically, the Committee considered MCPS’ past school enrollment projections for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years and compared those predictions to actual school enrollments in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Enrollment projections made in May or June of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 were provided to the Committee for the two school years.
For the Richard Montgomery cluster, the Committee found that MCPS consistently underestimated student enrollment rates (see Appendix D). Enrollment at the six schools in the cluster was underestimated by 7 and 8 percent on average, although accuracy was worse the farther out the prediction was made. Accuracy of enrollment predictions differed between the two selected school years. College Gardens Elementary School had the worst accuracy for both years. Notably, the 2006 projections underestimated the cluster’s 2010-2011 student population by approximately 600 students.
In addition to testing the historical accuracy of enrollment projections in the Richard Montgomery cluster, the Committee discussed the diverse demographic factors, the degree of difficulty in accounting for those factors, various methodologies involved in projecting enrollment, and the consequences of inaccurate projections. With respect to the latter, it was noted that gross underestimation can lead to overcrowded schools, while gross overestimation can lead to unnecessary delay or denial of proposed development projects. Since the projections are a County function, the Committee used the input to generate recommendations for the City that could potentially influence and motivate MCPS to pursue improvement with respect to the accuracy of their school enrollment projections (see recommendations 1, 2, and 5).
4. Past Growth in Student Enrollment
Past growth in student enrollment has been caused by a number of factors such as increasing birth rate, student migration from private schools to public schools, immigration into Montgomery County from other parts of the U.S. and from abroad, and turnover of existing housing from older persons to families with young or school-age children.11
The Committee heard from several experts, including MCPS’ director of long range planning, that the turnover of existing housing stock has had – and is expected to continue to have – a significant impact on student enrollment in the local schools. In recent years, about 80 percent of home sales in Montgomery County have been resales of existing housing.12 Although activity in the real estate market is subject to a great deal of variation year to year, resales have comprised between 69.5 percent and 86
11 See Appendix E: Memo from MCPS Division of Long-Range Planning, dated March 31, 2011. 12 Memo from MCPS Division of Long-Range Planning, dated March 31, 2011.
10 percent of annual home sales for 1990 to 2009. Future trends in home sales, however, have yet to emerge in the aftermath of the recent recession.
New construction has also played a role in growth of student enrollment at public schools. Approximately one-fifth of the City’s housing has been built since 2000.13 The housing units added in the early years of the 2000’s contributed significantly to the student populations in the King Farm and Fallsgrove communities, which are comprised of multiple housing types and cater to families. These newer developments helped to fuel the City’s population increase of 14,000 people in the last ten years.14
The Committee heard from multiple witnesses who expect future residential development in Rockville to play out in a very different fashion. Most new residential construction will likely be multi-family apartments or mixed use buildings. This change in development pattern is a result of the fact that there is very little space left in the City under current zoning for the construction of new single-family homes, as well as the high land values in Rockville.
5. Estimated Student Generation Rates by Housing Type
One of the key elements utilized by MCPS in projecting future student enrollment is an estimation of the average number of students generated per household based on housing type (e.g. single-family, townhouse, multi-family garden apartment, mid-/high- rise). These estimates are calculated and provided to MCPS by the Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission.15 City staff also use these estimates to determine how many students will be generated by a proposed residential development project. The estimated number of students generated is compared to the projected program capacity of each elementary, middle, and high school that will serve the new development. In accordance with the City’s APFS, a project fails when a new development would cause a school to exceed 110 percent of its projected program capacity in either of the two years immediately following the current school year.
The Committee spent considerable time discussing the accuracy of the student generation rates by housing type. Similar to enrollment projections, the accuracy of these rates carries important consequences. Inaccurate rates can lead to school overcrowding; they can also distort the APFO review process for new residential projects. In particular, accurate rates for new multi-family residential are especially important given the likelihood that most future residential construction will be multi- family apartments or mixed-use buildings.
13 Rockville Strategic Scan 2010. See http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/strategicscan/StrategicScan2010.pdf. 14 Rockville Strategic Scan 2010. 15 A summary table of Montgomery County Student Generation Rates for New Housing by Type is available at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/pc/apfo/2011/StudentGeneration2008.PDF. Average estimated student generation rates in Montgomery County range from 0.442 students per single- family home in the northern part of the County to 0.236 in the eastern part of the County. Rockville is located in the southwest area with an average rate of 0.341 students per single-family home. There is clearly significant variation, even on a geographical basis.
11 The County’s estimates of average student generation rates by housing type are derived by a survey of existing households across Montgomery County. The most recent survey was conducted in 2008. Due to an inadequate sample size for multi- family buildings, the County was forced to use student yield rates collected in 2005. This was particularly troubling to the Committee, in that six year old data was used by MCPS to project student yields for six years into the future – a 12 year time span.
Other aspects of the estimation method were disconcerting as well. Data from existing homes of all ages is used to calculate student generation for both existing residences and for new construction. Discussion focused on the notion that the demographics of households who purchase new homes could be different from the families who live in existing housing. Also, the County’s student generation rates do not acknowledge more localized impacts, such as the number of bedrooms in each housing unit, location and desirability of the local schools, local demography, and ethnic diversity.
The Committee received testimony and data from City and County staff, as well as anecdotal data from residents, developers, and school officials. Several Committee members also conducted their own analyses and shared their findings and opinions with the group. In response to testimony that actual generation rates for certain new housing developments were much higher than the County’s estimates, the Committee requested for verification purposes actual student yields for 16 specific locations in or adjacent to Rockville (see Appendix F). The locations were chosen by Committee members and represent a cross-section of housing types and neighborhoods. The exact construction year for each location was not obtained; however, some of the developments were several decades old, while others were completed in the last few years.
The data set shows a noticeable degree of variation within each housing type. The yield-rate from similar multi-family complexes may differ significantly depending on the characteristics of those properties. The availability of nearby recreational facilities, proximity and reputation of schools, and perceived desirability of a neighborhood are among factors that will influence parents and potential parents in their choice of location in which to live. One example to illustrate this degree of variation: at the Huntington apartments in King Farm, the student yield was twice as high for apartments located south of Redland Boulevard than those located to the north. Students south of Redland Boulevard go to College Gardens Elementary in the Richard Montgomery cluster; students north of Redland Boulevard go to Rosemont Elementary in the Gaithersburg cluster. Testimony by King Farm residents indicated that some families north of Redland Boulevard decided to sell their houses and move to another house nearby, south of Redland Boulevard, just to be able to send their children to College Gardens Elementary School (or Richard Montgomery High School instead of Gaithersburg High School).
These 16 locations were chosen by committee members and are representative of various housing types throughout the city. A statistical sampling analysis was not conducted, however, the information did sufficiently convince the Committee that average estimation rates vary considerably when applied locally.
12 The Committee also discussed Rockville's demographic patterns at several meetings. The Committee members agreed that changing demographics add an additional layer of complexity that would provide valuable information to improve the accuracy of estimated generation rates and their resultant projections.
The fact that several years have passed since the County has updated its rates, and the lack of actual data to address whether or not new housing generates similar numbers of students as existing housing, motivated the Committee to adopt recommendations 1, 2, and 3, which appear below.
The Committee also analyzed and debated Rockville's demographic patterns. While this analysis proved too complex and—in some cases too subjective—for inclusion into this report, Committee members agreed that changing demographics add an additional layer of complexity that, if not properly addressed, will undermine the accuracy of estimated generation rates and other projections. This demographic analysis provided further motivation for the adopted recommendations related to estimated student generation rates by housing type.
6. Key Differences Between the City’s and Montgomery County’s APFOs
The Committee also discussed the differences between Montgomery County's APFO and Rockville's APFO with respect to the schools standards. The main differences are:
• The County's school test threshold is 120 percent of program capacity. (Rockville's threshold is 110 percent); • The County APFO determines program capacity by averaging capacity for all schools of a given level within an entire high school cluster and allows residential development so long as the average threshold does not exceed 120 percent of program capacity. (Rockville tests school capacity on a school-by-school basis; each school must be under the City’s 110 percent threshold); • The County APFO tests projected enrollment for a one year period. (Rockville considers enrollment projections for a two year period); • The County APFO's test year is five years into the future. (Rockville's test years are one and two years out); and • Under the County APFO, developers are supposed to pay a school facilities payment for each student estimated to be generated from new residential construction when the affected school(s) is more than 105 percent but less than 120 percent of program capacity. (Rockville does not have a comparable fee.)
It is important to note that the Montgomery County APFO allows new residential development projects to be approved until the five year forecasted school enrollment reaches 120 percent of the average school cluster program capacity. The rationale behind Rockville’s stricter standard of 110 percent is to prevent further overcrowding of already overcapacity schools. Even though no new residential development would be permitted by the City in areas where schools are more than 110 percent over program capacity, overcrowding at such schools could be exacerbated by new development that
13 occurs in Montgomery County just outside the City’s boundaries. While the Committee did not make a specific recommendation on this issue, it is important to be aware of it as a factor that affects planning and is beyond the City's control.
The differences in the City’s and County’s APFO helped inform the Committee’s analysis of Rockville’s APFO and served as a source of possible recommendations for some Committee members. Specifically, the Committee debated the merits of increasing Rockville's 110 percent threshold to 120 percent in order to match that of the County's. This topic of discussion led to three alternative proposals: some members believed that the current Rockville standard of 110 percent over capacity is reasonable and should be retained; some members believed that increasing the threshold to the County level of 120 percent would illustrate a good faith effort by Rockville to work cooperatively with the County to solve overcrowding in Rockville schools; and some proposed to allow a waiver of the threshold (up to 120 percent) under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, none of these proposals received the support of a majority of the Committee.
The sponsors and supporters of each of these proposals, however, recognized the need for more accurate projection of future school enrollment and student generation rates by housing type and enabled the adoption of recommendations 1, 2, and 3.
Another related topic of discussion was the duration of the test window for program capacity. The City uses a two-year test, versus the County’s one-year test. The Committee heard from original authors of the APFO that a two-year test was selected in order to ensure that the results of the school test were real trends and not a one-year aberration. Conversely, some Committee members noted that a two-year test poses a higher hurdle for new developments to pass. Ultimately, a majority of the Committee endorsed retaining the existing two-year test.
7. Rockville’s Pipeline of Approved Projects
There are six residential development projects within Rockville that are not subject to the APFO. Five of these projects were approved by the City prior to enactment of the APFO in 2005, and are thus not subject to the law. One additional project was in the review process with the City in 2005; that project was “grandfathered” into the law, so that it too would be exempt from the APFO. Known as “grandfathered” projects, the APFO grants all of these projects a 25-year validity period for implementation with the option of an additional 5-year extension. This is significantly longer than the validity period that new applicants receive.
The grandfathered projects are relevant to the APFO because when applying the school standard, the City must account for all development projects that have been previously approved but not yet built, including the grandfathered projects. Thus, a grandfathered project that is never built could potentially hold reserved school capacity for several decades. These projects, if ever fully built, include in excess of 3,000 potential residential units with a projected student contribution to Rockville schools of almost 500
14 children. Most of the impact of these projects would be felt in the Richard Montgomery cluster. A complete listing of all grandfathered projects, their respective number of approved residential units, and the number of students they are estimated to generate can be found in Appendix G.
The Committee was told by one of the authors of the APFO that a long validity period was granted to the grandfathered projects because the City did not want to overturn development approvals it made prior to the enactment of the APFO. As a group, the Committee was not able to speak directly to any of the grandfathered project applicants, or their representatives, in order to inquire as to their plans for moving forward.
There was a range of views expressed by various committee members on whether or not anything should or could be done with respect to these grandfathered projects. Committee members agreed that there were both positive and negative tradeoffs in having the City reserve school program capacity for projects that may not be built for several decades. For example, some felt that removing grandfathered projects from the schools test could contribute to further overcrowding. Although several suggestions (e.g. selling or trading of approved reserved student capacities) were put forth, no single view coalesced into a recommendation that received the support of a majority of the Committee.
8. Funding for School Construction
The biggest concern, and constraint, for any school project is funding. Vying for competing funds is a pursuit in every jurisdiction, and the limited availability results in contentious disputes.
The Committee reviewed various alternatives to gaining the funding necessary to support school construction projects directly or to provide supplemental foundational funding.
One potential source of new funding is a school facilities payment. In Montgomery County, this fee is supposed to be paid by a developer when their proposed project would contribute students to a school that is overcapacity, but not to the extent that the school cluster is in development moratorium (i.e. between 105 percent and 120 percent of program capacity). The amount of the school facilities payment varies by the projected number of students generated in excess of program capacity, and by the grade level of the anticipated students. The fee is $28,501 per student at the high school level, and is less for the middle and elementary school levels.16 The school facilities payment can only be used in the affected school cluster. Currently, the school facilities payment has been collected only once by the County.17 It is important to note that the County does not have the authority to collect this fee for development projects
16 School facilities payment effective July 1, 2009; see permittingservices.montgomerycountymd.gov/permitting/pdf/DevelopmentImpactTax.pdf. 17 A payment of $6,244.48 was made in September 2010 in the Whitman cluster according to Montgomery County Department of Finance.
15 located in the City of Rockville, because the school facilities payment only applies to projects approved under the County’s APFO.
9. Conclusions
Because of the region’s strong economy and well-regarded schools, Rockville is, and will continue to be, a draw for families. The adult population of the City is growing as is the student population. Of the ten elementary schools that serve Rockville, only Lakewood Elementary and Fallsmead Elementary in the Wootton Cluster show a projected reduction in students in the current five-year projection (Appendix B). Therefore, student generation is expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, and it is likely that school overcrowding in Rockville will continue even without new development. The solution to this problem is for Montgomery County Public Schools to build new schools and expand existing schools. While preliminary discussions have taken place, there is no commitment on the part of the County to address any of Rockville’s urgent needs.18
The most significant issues in the schools serving Rockville are in the Richard Montgomery cluster. At present, there is a need for 472 additional spaces for elementary school students. This growth has been evident for several years, and the solution has been incremental and distributed, being addressed by the introduction of portable classrooms to accommodate the growth in student population without corresponding increases in school core capacity. MCPS’ estimated time frame for opening a new school is five years. If a new school is authorized now, the projected requirements will rise to 627 additional spaces in that time span. This number would almost fill the new elementary school. Rockville urgently needs this new elementary school to merely mitigate the current and projected student overload.
18 In November 2011, after the Committee ended its regular meetings, MCPS recommended the construction of an additional elementary school and an addition to Julius West Middle School in the Richard Montgomery cluster in its FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvement Program. The County will not vote upon the school construction budget until spring 2012.
16
Table 1. Actual and projected Richard Montgomery cluster elementary school populations. Number of students overcapacity is based on MCPS’ program capacity for the school.
Actual Projected Elementary Program Enrollment # Students Enrollment # Students School Capacity 2010-2011 Overcapacity 2015-2016a Overcapacity Beall 526/641b 720 194 835 194 College Gardens 670 792 122 831 161 Ritchie Park 387 517 130 571 184 Twinbrook 538 564 26 626 88 Total 472 627 a Projected enrollments calculated by MCPS, and therefore may not include all anticipated student generation from approved, but unbuilt projects. b Beall Elementary School’s CSR status was removed for the 2011-2012 school year, resulting in a higher program capacity for the school.
The existing overcrowding at Richard Montgomery elementary schools is a signal of the forthcoming impact on Julius West Middle School. The recently completed feasibility study for Julius West cites the need for and proposes a renovation to the school. Similar to the elementary school project, this renovation would be completed in a minimum of five years. If it were to be implemented next year, a dozen or more portable classrooms would be needed during the construction to accommodate the anticipated 323-362 additional students who will attend the school by the 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 school years. According to MCPS’ enrollment predictions, Julius West will be at 132 percent of program capacity, severely burdening the core capability of the school.
Since funding for new schools is determined by the County and MCPS, the City of Rockville does not have the ability to directly solve the problem of school overcrowding. Until the County, in conjunction with MCPS recommendations, appropriates the funds to build or expand schools and completes construction, most of Rockville’s students will attend overcrowded schools and much of the City will be in residential development moratorium.
10. Recommendations
1) The City should create a standing commission to advise Mayor and Council on K- 12 education within the City and to monitor enrollment in the City's schools. The commission should work to better understand the cause of variations in student enrollment due to poor projections by MCPS, demographic factors, perceived school reputation, and other issues. The commission should monitor actual student enrollment and student generation rates by housing type in order to identify inaccuracies in the enrollment projections. Membership of the commission should be comprised of individuals with expertise in areas such as education, statistics,
17 demographics, and other applicable fields, and should be determined by Mayoral appointment and subject to approval by a majority vote by Mayor and Council.
Based on the advice of, and in coordination with, the standing commission on education, the City should work with MCPS to alleviate the serious overcrowding in schools that service Rockville residents and to improve the accuracy of annual projections of student enrollment. (Adopted 9-0-0)
2) To promote greater transparency of the process and open government, the City should post and maintain the MCPS projections and actual enrollments, from 2005 forward, for each school and cluster that services Rockville students on the City website. The City should also post and maintain student generation data for development projects approved or under consideration that impact Rockville schools. This data should be provided in its raw form to enable citizens to understand the data relationships and perform their own analysis. (Adopted 9-0-0)
3) The City should strongly encourage the County to more regularly update the student generation rates from all housing types, with particular emphasis on high- rise and mid-rise, multifamily buildings that are expected to be the primary source of new development in the future. This is currently conducted by survey, and should be supplemented by demographic data and/or GIS data of actual student enrollment. (Adopted 8-1-0)
4) The Mayor and Council should meet with the Board of Education about the urgency of the need for a new elementary school and additional classrooms in the Richard Montgomery cluster and the need for additional capacity at the middle school level in this cluster to address impending overcrowding at Julius West, and report regularly on the status to the residents of Rockville. (Adopted 9-0-0)
5) The timeframe for the schools test should be kept as is currently cited in the APFS (1 and 2 years). (Adopted 5-3-1)
6) The City should explore the concept of imposing a school facilities payment on new development projects that would cause any school serving Rockville residents to become overcapacity. This should include a discussion of at what thresholds the payment should be applied. (Adopted 7-0-2)
18 Transportation Facilities Standard
1. The Comprehensive Transportation Review Methodology
The City of Rockville utilizes the Comprehensive Transportation Review Methodology (CTR), amended by the Mayor and Council on March 21, 201119 to ensure that adequate transportation facilities exist before and after a new development project in the City. The CTR lists the transportation requirements for all new development applications. A development application’s compliance with the CTR requirements constitutes compliance with the City’s APFS for transportation facilities.
The CTR requires that all development applications submit a Transportation Report (TR), which can consist of ten separate components or sections.20 Taken together, the components are designed to analyze the current condition of the local transportation network, including auto and non-auto modes of transportation, and the expected impact that the proposed new development will have on that network. If the expected impact exceeds certain thresholds established by the CTR, then the proposed development must mitigate its impact to the extent required by the CTR in order to be approved by the City.
Developments that generate 30 or more total new peak hour site trips21 are considered to have a measurable traffic impact, and therefore are required to provide a full TR that addresses all ten components. Developments that generate less than 30 total new peak hour site trips are considered to have minimal impact on the overall transportation system and are allowed to submit an abbreviated version of the TR that covers the Introduction, Proposed On-Site Transportation, and Attachments sections. These smaller developments are not required to mitigate any of their trips in order to fulfill the APFO. In determining a proposed project’s total new peak hour trips, credit for existing trips generated by current occupants of the site is provided based on the most recent use of the site.
The CTR represents a multimodal approach in analyzing the adequacy of transportation facilities that serve the City. In addition to requiring analysis of a new development’s anticipated automobile traffic impact, the CTR requires an assessment of existing alternate modes of transportation located in and around the proposed development, such as transit (i.e. proximity and access to Metrorail/bus routes), pedestrian (i.e. accessibility and condition of sidewalks), and bicycle (i.e. availability of bike paths and racks). However, the ability of a new development to move forward in the City is largely dependent on passage of the “Intersection Capacity Analysis” component of the CTR.
19 The revised CTR is available at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/transportation/pdf/CTR03-21-11.pdf. 20 The ten components of a full TR, discussed under Section C of the CTR, are as follows: (1) Introduction, (2) Multimodal Analysis, (3) Existing Conditions, (4) Background Conditions, (5) Trip Generation, (6) Intersection Capacity Analysis, (7) Other Studies, (8) Proposed On-Site Transportation, (9) Mitigation Requirements, and (10) Attachments. 21 The latest editions of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Local Area Transportation Review Guidelines and the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation tables are used as the primary sources for estimating trips for specific types of development.
19 A. Intersection Capacity Analysis/Mitigation
The Intersection Capacity Analysis begins with a determination of the number of intersections anticipated to be impacted by a proposed development. The number of intersections can range from 4 to 16, depending on the number of trips that the development is expected to generate. Each individual intersection’s “congestion capacity” is measured using a method called Critical Lane Volume (CLV). An intersection’s CLV is defined by the number of vehicles that can move through an intersection’s conflicting through or left-turn (“critical”) lanes in an hour. Acceptable CLV values in the City vary based on the number of traffic signal phases and cycle lengths at a particular intersection and time of day. The maximum CLV for intersections along Rockville Pike range from 1400 (Congressional Lane in the morning) to 1700 (Richard Montgomery Drive in the late afternoon/evening).22
A proposed development’s intersection impact (or net new peak hour trip generation) is then calculated to determine whether the net new trips of the development will make a given intersection’s congestion exceed certain intersection impact thresholds.23 If so, then Intersection Mitigation must be provided as discussed further below.
i. Calculation of Net New Peak Hour Trip Generation
The CTR calculation for a development’s intersection impact or “net new peak hour trip generation”, allows for some trips to be discounted from the number of trips the project is required to mitigate under the APFS. For instance, for certain commercial retail developments, such as a bank, it is assumed that a portion of the trips to the site are those that would have otherwise traveled on a street adjacent to the development even if the development had not been constructed. Therefore, these trips are not counted for purposes of the Intersection Capacity Analysis.
Developments can also earn trip reductions based on the type of proposed development and its proximity to public transportation. Mixed-use developments are afforded a 10 percent reduction in their impacts if located in a transit-oriented area (TOA)24 or a 5 percent reduction if located in a non-TOA. Developments occurring within TOAs are eligible for a 15 percent reduction in trips. Additionally, projects can earn credits to further decrease their required trip mitigation based upon the implementation of multi-modal transportation options. Examples of such trip reduction strategies include employers providing subsidies to employees for using mass transportation or bicycling to work, charging for parking, and promoting teleworking or
22 The reader will note that Committee’s recommendations outlined in Section 3 below does not address the issue of whether the various CLVs applied to City intersections should be changed/adjusted in any way. CLVs were discussed, but only in relation to their effects on other traffic issues. The Committee’s discussion did not include offering a recommendation to change the CLVs. 23 These are outlined in Table 4 of the CTR. 24 The City has established Transit-Oriented Areas (TOAs) around the fixed-guideway transit stations that serve the City (i.e. Shady Grove Metro Station, Rockville Metro Station, and Twinbrook Metro Station). The TOAs include streets/sidewalks in the City that are within 7/10ths of a mile walking distance from one of the three Metro stations.
20 flextime.25 The maximum amount of trip reductions/credits/mitigation relief allowed by the CTR for purposes of the Intersection Capacity Analysis is 30 percent for TOAs and 20 percent for non-TOAs. ii. Intersection Mitigation
Once a proposed development’s net new peak hour trip generation is calculated, the impact of the trips on the various intersections within a project’s Transportation Study Area is analyzed in order to determine to what extent, if any, intersection mitigation will need to be provided.
• For a development whose impact is less than a full 1 percent deterioration in an intersection’s acceptable congestion threshold, or Level of Service (LOS), no intersection mitigation is required. • For a development whose impact is between 1 to 6 percent deterioration in an intersection’s acceptable LOS, the project must provide intersection improvements that will mitigate at least half of its impact. • If a development’s impact is greater than 6 percent deterioration in the LOS, then the project must provide intersection improvements that will mitigate the project’s impacts to 3 percent or less.
If a physical intersection improvement cannot be identified or cannot be achieved that would mitigate a development’s impacts within the parameters indicated above, the development project does not pass the City’s transportation facilities test and is denied. A number of intersections within the City are at, or near, failing conditions (i.e. exceed their acceptable LOS). A few examples include the intersections of East Jefferson/Maryland Avenue, Rockville Pike/MD 28, Rockville Pike/Wootton Parkway, Rockville Pike/Congressional Lane, Rockville Pike/Halpine Road, and Rockville Pike/Rollins Avenue. As a result, new development in the vicinity of these intersections cannot proceed unless the project’s impacts to adjacent intersections can be physically mitigated to the levels required by the CTR.
Intersection mitigation via expansion or improvement of physical infrastructure (i.e. the addition of a lane to a road) is often not a viable option in Rockville. Rockville Pike issues are the most notable, being a state-controlled highway with limited space for additional lanes. Two major intersections on Rockville Pike receive a failing grade during morning rush hour and five intersections fail during evening rush hour. The problem in these locations is the high volume of traffic moving across Rockville Pike (east-west direction), and the necessity to accommodate it with a longer signal cycle. This issue is not necessarily something that can be addressed by a lane addition or other physical improvement at the intersection. Rather, a much larger infrastructure or modal transport change is required that would reduce the cross-traffic volume through the area. Some of this cross-traffic volume is due to cars entering Rockville Pike, or traveling across Rockville Pike to reach their final destinations (e.g. Veirs Mill Road, Edmonston Drive). In other cases, such as Halpine Road – where eastbound traffic
25 See pages 47-48 of Transportation Demand Management Plan.
21 terminates at the Twinbrook metro station – the traffic could be due to cars traveling to park or leave people at the Metro station.
B. Additional Transportation Network Mitigation Required by CTR
Assuming passage of the above Intersection Capacity Analysis portion of the CTR, certain developments are required to provide additional mitigation in the form of fees, contributions, or trip reduction plans that are geared toward improving the broader transportation network.
Transportation Improvement Fee: A Transportation Improvement Fee is collected from developments generating 30 or more new peak hour trips. The fee is collected by the City and used to implement multimodal improvements such as bus shelters, bike racks, etc. throughout the City of Rockville.
Transportation Improvement Contribution: For any development generating 350 or more new peak hour trips, the CTR requires a Transportation Improvement Contribution, which can consist of an actual physical improvement funded and constructed by the applicant, or a monetary contribution to the City proportional to the development’s impact.
Trip Reduction Plan: For office-use only, development generating 125 or more new peak hour trips, the CTR requires implementation of a Trip Reduction Plan (TRP). According to the CTR, the goal of the TRP is to “reduce single-occupancy vehicle usage and increase biking, walking, ridesharing, use of transit, and travel outside of peak hours.”
2. Montgomery County’s Approach to Transportation Facilities Planning
Montgomery County also employs a similar type of transportation facility review for new development that looks at local traffic congestion at nearby intersections, known as the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR).
The LATR requires proposed new development to mitigate trips generated from the site that cause a nearby intersection to exceed acceptable congestion levels. Unlike the CTR, however, the LATR allows a development project to mitigate up to 100 percent of its intersection impacts by implementing alternative improvements/strategies designed to reduce reliance on auto-related capacity by removing existing trips off the street. Construction of sidewalks, bikeways, and transit stations, provision of shuttle service/buses and Metro subsidies, enforcement of carpooling plans, and reductions in the number of on-site parking spaces provided, etc. are some of the mitigation options available for a developer to influence the use of alternative modes of transportation by not only individuals that reside, work, or shop at the development itself, but also by others within surrounding developments/communities.
The LATR’s approach to the issue of CLV is also somewhat different. The County sets
22 maximum CLV values for intersections that vary by larger policy areas, as opposed to intersection by intersection. The variation is based on the idea that less traffic congestion should be permitted in areas with lower transit service and usage, and more traffic congestion should be allowed in areas with greater transit service and usage. For the rural policy areas of the County, anything worse than 1400 CLV is unacceptable. For policy areas with the greatest level of transit service available, such as policy areas that include Metro stations, the value is 1800 CLV. Other policy areas fall somewhere between 1400 and 1800, depending on the area’s level of transit service and usage.
In addition to the LATR’s analysis of local traffic congestion at specific intersections, the County employs a broader set of techniques to help reduce the impact of development on traffic congestion. The most significant of these techniques are the phasing of development with defined milestones marking transportation infrastructure implementation and timed financing plans to support them. Examples of some broader techniques/strategies employed by the County were found in the approaches taken to transportation phasing for the White Flint and Great Seneca Science Corridor sector plans (see Appendix I).
A. White Flint Sector Plan
Integral to the White Flint Sector Plan is the phasing component that ties the amount of development allowed to move forward at a given point in time to the provision of transportation capacity. Total new development approved under the White Flint Sector Plan, which amounts to 9,800 dwelling units and 5.7 million square feet of non- residential development, is separated into three phases as follows:
Table 2. Phases of the White Flint Sector Plan approved by Montgomery County.
Phase One Phase Two Phase Three 3,000 dwelling units 3,000 dwelling units 3,800 dwelling units
2 million sq. ft. non- 2 million sq. ft. non- 1.69 million sq. ft. non- residential residential residential
Each phase includes specific transportation infrastructure milestones that must be completed before the next phase of development is allowed to proceed.
In addition, a financing mechanism in the form of a special taxing district was created so that the funds necessary to realize the specific list of transportation infrastructure is available when needed. Only existing residential owners within the newly formed district are exempt from the tax. All others, including new residential properties and existing/new commercial properties, will be assessed 10 cents per $100 of assessed property value, effective as of July 2011.
As a result of the “phasing approach” taken by the White Flint Sector Plan, i.e. phasing development with necessary transportation infrastructure to support said development,
23 projects in White Flint are exempt from having to separately comply with the transportation component of the County’s APFO. The County’s rationale for this exemption is that since the developments themselves are being required under the White Flint Sector Plan to fund and put in place the necessary transportation infrastructure capacity to support their developments, the underlying goal/requirement of the APFO has been met, which is to make sure that adequate facilities are in place to support any proposed development.
B. Great Seneca Science Corridor (GSSC) Master Plan
The GSSC Master Plan also employed a similar phasing approach to development, but did so in four stages as follows:
Table 3. Phases of the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan.
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three Stage Four 5,800 dwelling units: 2,000 dwelling 1,200 dwelling No additional - 3,300 existing/approved units units dwelling units units - 2,500 new units
11.1 million sq. ft. non- 2.3 mil. sq. ft. 2.3 mil. sq. ft. 1.8 mil. sq. ft. residential: non-residential non-residential non-residential - 10.7 mil. sq. ft. existing/approved - 400,000 sq. ft. new
The GSSC Plan sets forth specific transportation capacity prerequisites, specifically tied to the completion of the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) project and achievement of what the County has termed “non-auto driver mode share,”26 setting milestones for each that must be met prior to the start of Stages Two, Three and Four as follows:
Prerequisite for Start of Stage Two: • Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) construction funding in place • Relocation of County service park funded • Achievement of 18 percent non-auto driver mode share
Prerequisites for Start of Stage Three: • CCT under construction with 50 percent of funds spent • Other master planned transportation infrastructure programmed for completion within 6 years • Achievement of 23 percent non-auto driver mode share
26 “Non-auto driver mode share” is defined as the percentage of travelers within a given study area that commute/travel in a non-driver capacity, meaning they are passengers/bikers/walkers.
24 Prerequisites for Start of Stage Four: • CCT operational • Additional master planned transportation improvements programmed • Achievement of 28 percent non-auto driver mode share
3. Recommendations
7) The City should engage in master planning for larger geographic areas within Rockville for transportation needs in order to address transportation issues in a more holistic manner, rather than in a piecemeal approach as development projects unfold. (Adopted 9-0-0)
8) In the future, should the Rockville Pike corridor be redeveloped, it should occur in phases; later phases of development should not be allowed to proceed until transportation milestones are met. Aspects of the White Flint and Great Seneca Science Center projects that focus on the requirement for development to occur in phases based on milestones, including but not limited to (a) completion of transportation infrastructure and (b) utilization of mass transit and non-automobile modes of transportation, are recommended as case studies for review by the Planning Commission. (Adopted 9-0-0)
9) The City should evaluate the maximum credit allowable for reduction of vehicle trips, which is currently set at 30 percent. For example, under certain circumstances, the City could consider allowing a trip reduction credit greater than 30 percent, provided that a trip reduction agreement with regular compliance monitoring is implemented. (Adopted 9-0-0)
10) The Comprehensive Transportation Review document should be amended to include a list of potential Transportation Demand Management strategies. (Adopted 9-0-0)
11) The City should periodically evaluate the efficacy of traffic mitigation options implemented by developers in the City, and update the APFS if deemed necessary. (Adopted 9-0-0)
12) The City should draw upon the data collected by the County and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments in regard to the efficacy of transportation mitigation options. (Adopted 9-0-0)
25 Fire and Emergency Service Standard
1. Summary of the Standard
The Committee’s review found the Fire and Emergency Services Protection Standard adequately protects the availability of fire and emergency medical services (EMS) within the City, but also found the Standard could benefit from several clarifications and amendments.
The Standard’s applicability to new development is limited; the Standard does not limit most new residential construction. The Standard only limits the construction of certain types of higher-risk development to areas of the City where a “full” fire and emergency services response is possible. The Standard defines “full response” to include the “availability of engines from at least 3 separate stations to arrive at the location within 10 minutes.” Under the Standard “[t]he following higher-risk uses shall be allowed only where a full response from 3 stations within 10 minutes is possible: schools with the exception of relocatable classrooms;27 hospitals; nursing homes; commercial buildings over 3 stories high with no sprinklers; places of assembly seating more than 500.” The fire and emergency services standard notes the “public risk issues [for such properties] are much greater…and there is thus a logical basis to require…an optimal fire or EMS response[.]” Other types of new development are permitted in the City even where this “optimal fire or EMS response” is not possible.
The Fire and Emergency Service Protection Standard therefore does not restrict other types of new development, including lower risk residential construction and commercial buildings less than three stories high. The City building code requires all new residential development (both single- and multi-family dwellings) to have sprinklers. For this reason, the Standard provides that “being on the fringe of the full response areas shall not be a determining factor for adequacy of fire protection for new residential development activity.” Consequently, the fire and EMS standard will not present a significant impediment to many forms of new development in the City. Rather, the fire and EMS standard will only affect higher-risk uses, which must lie within “full response.”
The City uses response-time calculations provided by the Montgomery County Department of Fire and Rescue Services (MCFRS) to determine compliance with the “full response” requirement.28 The predicted MCFRS response times to City locations are overlaid onto a map showing the areas of the City where a full response is possible (See Appendix K). Response time is based on the total time for MCFRS to receive a 911 call, alert and dispatch fire-rescue stations, and travel to the incident. MCFRS does not use actual response time data to create this map. Rather, to calculate response time, MCFRS uses the results of a study conducted in New York City that assumes emergency vehicles travel to a response at an average speed of 39 miles-per-hour. If the actual speed of emergency service vehicles in the City varies from this average, the
27 “Amendment to exclude relocatable classrooms (aka portables) from the Fire and Emergency Service Protection standard was passed by Mayor and Council on February 28, 2011. 28 See Appendix J.
26 response-time map the fire and EMS standard relies on might not accurately reflect the true extent of fire coverage in the City. However, current response time statistics provided by MCFRS demonstrate that fire and rescue units typically arrive to a call within MCFRS’ response-time goals.29 This suggests that the model-based response time predictions are reasonable indicators of fire and EMS travel times in the City.
2. Compliance with the Current Standard
Under the MCFRS data and map currently used, approximately 90 percent of the City is within a full-response zone. However, this map assumes that a long-planned Montgomery County fire station, Travilah Station 32, is already in place, which is not currently the case. Station 32 is now fully funded and construction is expected to begin by the end of 2011. At its earliest possible readiness date, Station 32 will come on line in fiscal year 2013. Thus, to the extent the response-time map incorporated in the City's APFS relies on the existence of Station 32, it overestimates the percentage of the City currently within the full-response zone. Only approximately 75 percent of the City is within the full response zone if the planned, but currently un-built, Station 32 is omitted from the calculations.30
The County also has identified plans to construct another fire station at the intersection of Shady Grove Road and MD 355. Although this station is not currently funded in the Shady Grove Master Plan, if constructed, this station will further add to the fire and emergency services capacity in the City.31
3. Issues Raised During the Committee’s Work
While investigating the current Fire and Emergency Service Protection Standard, several issues and considerations came to light.
First, after completing its review of the Standard and the information and testimony provided during the review process, the Committee noted that the Standard is somewhat confusing and does not clearly address both fire and emergency services protection.
Second, the current Standard focuses on “engines” and responses to fires, and does not address that the overwhelming majority of fire and EMS calls are for medical emergencies as opposed to fires based on the information provided to the Committee by MCFRS. In fiscal year 2010, about 80 percent of incidents in Rockville that MCFRS responded to were medical emergencies. This was also true for incidents at schools located within the City, with eight of the past ten incidents32 being classified as emergency medical incidents rather than fire incidents. Additionally, a high percentage
29 See Appendix J. 30 See Appendix L. 31 See February 24, 2011 Memorandum to the APFO Advisory Committee from David Levy, Manisha Tewari, and Deane Mellander regarding Current and Future Development Patterns and the APFO. 32 As of June 9, 2011.
27 of responses involve "rescue" calls (e.g. accidents on I-270 and similar situations). The current Standard does not address the combination of resources required to respond to the variety of call types that actually occur in Rockville, as a “full response” under the Standard is response by three fire engines. Given the high prevalence of medical and rescue emergencies in the City, response by three engines may not be appropriate for the vast majority of incidences MCFRS responds to in Rockville. The Committee believes that Standard should be revised to recognize this demand for EMS and rescue services.
Third, the Standard defines “full response” to include the “availability of engines from at least 3 separate stations to arrive at the location within 10 minutes.” Based on the Committee’s review, it appears that this requirement was based in part on the assumption that Montgomery County would have already completed the development of the planned Travilah Station 32. (See Appendix L to view the areas of Rockville serviced by fewer than three stations when Station 32 is excluded from the analysis.) Although the “three stations” standard appears to make logical sense based on the existing fire stations within the City of Rockville and the planned build out of Travilah Station 32, it was unclear what additional factors were used to determine the original standard. While the Committee has not identified a specific issue that would lead it to recommend a change to the “three stations” standard, the Committee would suggest a review of this portion of the Standard to confirm its appropriateness.
Fourth, the Standard requires that an entire property fall within the full response zone. Some properties may meet the Standard’s response time requirement at one building entrance but fail at another entrance. One example of this situation is the portable classrooms at College Gardens Elementary School. The Committee understands that the addition of portables at the elementary school passed the Fire and Emergency Service Protection Standard if measured at the front door of the school but failed if measured at the rear door, due to the school being situated at the boundary line for response by two versus three stations. In response to a dispute with Montgomery County Public Schools regarding this issue, the Mayor and Council passed an amendment to the APFS on February 28, 2011 to exclude portable classrooms from the requirements of the Fire and Emergency Service Protection Standard. In lieu of carving out this specific exception, the Committee believes it would have been a better approach to amend the APFS to state that a project satisfies the Standard if any portion of a property falls within the full response zone.
4. Recommendations
13) The standard would benefit from a complete rewrite to provide greater clarity. (Adopted 9-0-0)
14) The standard should be revised to recognize that the primary demand is for emergency and rescue services rather than for fire service, as defined by “engine” response. In this context, the term “full response” in this section should be redefined accordingly. (Adopted 9-0-0)
28 15) The Planning Commission should evaluate if the current standard for level of service (response by three stations) is appropriate. (Adopted 9-0-0)
16) For the purposes of applying this standard, response time to a building should be considered the same for all parts of the building. (Adopted 9-0-0)
29 Water and Sewer Standards
The City adopted and issued a Water Resources Element Comprehensive Master Plan33 on December 13, 2010. The document details the provision of adequate drinking and potable water, wastewater disposal in Rockville’s sewer system, and its stormwater management program through the year 2040. While stormwater run-off affects the quality of water and aquatic habitats in streams and rivers in and around Rockville, discussion of this subject is beyond the purview of the APFO. Stormwater management regulations and requirements are addressed in other parts of the Rockville code, primarily in the City’s Water Quality Protection Ordinance. Those ordinances are heavily influenced by State law requirements.
1. Water Supply
The APFO requires denial of any development that would cause the City to exceed its available water supply less a reasonable reserve for responding to fires. Rockville is part of a regional partnership that ensures adequate potable water capacity. As referenced in the Water Resources Element of the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan, the City owns and operates its own water treatment plant and supplies approximately 74 percent of its total residents with drinking water. The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) provides water to the remaining residents through its distribution system and maintenance of water lines in the City.
The City has an appropriation permit issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to withdraw an average of 7.1 million gallons of Potomac River water per day and may not exceed 12.1 million gallons per day. Per the Water Resources Element, the actual daily average withdrawal for 2009 was 4.91 million gallons, and the current summertime maximum withdrawal is 8 million gallons per day. Accordingly, the City’s water needs are more than met at the present time and into the foreseeable future. The City projects a total need of 6.55 million gallons per day by 2040, well below the allowable average threshold level. In short, while the drinking water needs of Rockville are expected to grow over the coming decades, the City is projected to be able to meet these demands until at least the year 2040.34
2. Sewer Service
Similar to the water standard, the APFO requires denial of any development project that would cause the City to exceed the sewage transmission capacity in any part of the City’s sewer system or the treatment capacity available to the City at the Blue Plains Treatment Plant in Washington, D.C.
Per the Water Resources Element document, all sewage in the City is collected in 148 miles of City-owned and maintained sewers, and it is transported to interceptor sewers
33 Available at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/masterplan/elements/WaterResources121310.pdf. 34 See “Water Resources Element, Comprehensive Master Plan,” approved and adopted December 13, 2010 at pages 5-6, 18, and 31.
30 owned and maintained by WSSC. Similar to its provision of potable water, Rockville provides wastewater service for approximately 74 percent of its residents, while the remaining residents are serviced by WSSC. WSSC does not anticipate any concerns with continuing to service its Rockville customers for the next 20-30 years.35
The City is working to address issues with its aging wastewater collection system. The current sewer demand for Rockville is 3.93 million gallons per day. The City’s sewer system is experiencing approximately 2.18 gallons per day of infiltration and inflows due to breaks and cracks in the system. While the City is actively taking steps to correct these issues, it must account for this inflow in its calculations of sewer capacity at Blue Plains. The City projects that by 2030, it will require an additional 0.78 million gallons per day above its current demand. By 2040, the total demand should grow to 7.42 million gallons per day. This volume of wastewater is well within the City’s existing allotment of Blue Plains regional treatment capacity, which is 9.31 million gallons per day. In fact, the City projects that it will not meet its total allotment at Blue Plains until well after the year 2040.36
3. Recommendations
17) The current water standard is adequately serving the City. The Committee has no recommended changes. (Adopted 9-0-0)
18) The current sewer standard is adequately serving the City. The Committee recommends correcting the wording of the sewer service standard (APFS III.E (ii)) to state “sewer service” not “water supply.” (Adopted 9-0-0)
35 See Water Resources Element at pages 7 and 39-41. 36 See Water Resources Element at page 42.
31 Waivers to the APFO
The APFO allows certain types of development to receive a waiver from all or part of the APFS if the Approving Authority “finds that there will be minimal adverse impact resulting from such a waiver.”37
The APFO provides waivers for houses of worship, minor subdivisions (up to three residential lots), accessory apartments,38 personal living quarters,39 wireless communications facilities, and publicly-owned or publicly operated uses. Nursing homes and housing for the elderly and physically handicapped can receive a waiver, but not from the Fire and Emergency Service Protection Standard. The addition(s) of portable classrooms to existing schools are excluded from the APFO requirements.
A waiver of the requirement to comply with the APFS may be granted only with a super- majority vote of an Approving Authority. A super-majority vote currently consists of three votes for the Board of Appeals, five votes for the Planning Commission, and four votes for the Mayor and Council. The Chief of Planning may not grant a waiver.40
As currently written, the APFS provision on waivers does not spell out any criteria to guide the granting of a waiver by an Approving Authority, beyond the requirement for “minimal adverse impact” to public facilities. The Committee heard from representatives of commercial stakeholders that greater clarity on this provision, especially criteria for the granting of a waiver, would be helpful to applicants pursuing development projects in the City.
The Committee also identified ambiguity in the APFS language on waivers. In its current form, the APFS states that “[t]he following uses or classes of uses are eligible for a waiver from the APFO requirements.” It is not clear if the list of eligible uses is intended to be limited to only the identified uses, or since this is not stated, if other uses could seek a waiver.
Recommendations
19) The APFS provision on waivers should be clarified in regards to whether or not the list of projects eligible for a waiver from the APFO is inclusive of all eligible project types. (Adopted 9-0-0)
37 See APFS Section II.C. Waiver Provisions. Note: a waiver does not exclude any project from the final adequacy check for water and sewer service, if needed for the project. 38 An accessory apartment is a second dwelling unit that is part of and subordinate to an existing single unit detached dwelling and contains cooking, eating, sanitation, and sleeping facilities. (City of Rockville Zoning Ordinance, 25.03.02) 39 A personal living quarter is a permanent residential unit with incomplete kitchen or bathroom facilities, occupied by no more than two persons in each such unit, and located within a larger structure that contains at least five such units, plus a residential unit for an on-site manager. (City of Rockville Zoning Ordinance, 25.03.02) 40 See Section 25.20.01.b of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
32 20) The City should develop non-binding criteria to help guide the decision-making process for considering whether to grant a waiver. The Approving Authority should issue a finding with sufficient justification for each waiver granted or denied. (Adopted 8-1-0)
33 Amendments to the APFS
Two amendments to the APFS were considered and approved by Mayor and Council while the Committee was actively meeting (January-August 2011).
On February 28, 2011, Mayor and Council adopted a resolution that amended the APFS to exempt the addition of portable classrooms from the requirements of the APFO.41
On June 6, 2011, Mayor and Council adopted a resolution that amended the APFS to allow development applications filed in conjunction with a petition for property to be annexed into the City to be subject to the County’s school test, rather than the City’s school test.42 This new provision is only applicable to development applications that would be serviced by schools located outside of the City and whose student body is comprised of less than 10 percent Rockville students.
In both instances, the changes to the APFS required a simple majority vote by Mayor and Council to be approved. Both sets of changes received the required three votes in support. Since these were amendments to the APFS, not waivers, a super-majority was not required. Additionally, a public hearing process was not required prior to a vote on either amendment.
After much discussion on the topic, the Committee felt strongly that more public input should be solicited prior to a vote by Mayor and Council to amend the APFS. Several options were debated. Some Committee members favored a requirement for a super- majority of the Mayor and Council to vote in favor of an amendment to the APFS in order for said amendment to be adopted. Other Committee members felt this was too stringent. Ultimately, the Committee reached consensus that a new requirement for a public hearing process prior to amending the APFS would suffice.
Recommendation
21) The APFO should be amended to require a public hearing process before any amendment to the APFS can be voted upon for adoption by Mayor and Council. (Adopted 9-0-0)
41 See http://rockmail.rockvillemd.gov/clerk/egenda.nsf/d5c6a20307650f4a852572f9004d38b8/dfe2ef03d87bae 508525783800571747!OpenDocument for the text of the resolution and supporting documents. 42 See http://rockmail.rockvillemd.gov/clerk/egenda.nsf/d5c6a20307650f4a852572f9004d38b8/3a4bc611009c3 86d8525789a0056ce44!OpenDocument for the text of the resolution and supporting documents.
34 Citizen Opinions of Growth
As part of its deliberations, the Committee explored how the City gauges the sentiment of Rockville residents regarding the pace of development in the City, protections offered by the APFO and APFS, and other related issues.
The City’s Citizen’s Survey43 is the only survey that encompasses the entire city. It is conducted every two years, most recently in November 2010. Two thousand survey forms were mailed to Rockville residents, with 761 returned. In addition to other items, the survey includes “key drivers” that are intended to indicate where resources should be allocated – snow and ice removal, maintenance of the Town Center, water and sewer, recreation, etc.
The questions posed on the survey change over time, depending on the priorities of the City. In 2010, a new question was added regarding the rate of growth in Rockville. Fifty-five percent of residents responding to the question thought that population growth in the City was “somewhat too fast” or “too fast;” only three percent thought that it was “much too slow” or “too slow.” In terms of new development, a majority of respondents (62 percent) responded that retail growth was proceeding at the right pace, whereas slightly less than half of respondents (46 percent) indicated that the speed of growth in housing was the “right amount.”
With the exception of the new question about rate of growth, the Citizen Survey does not ask residents their opinions about new development or the APFO and APFS. A barrier to implementation of additional questions is the limited length of the survey. Core questions are required in order to maintain the on-going statistics about quality of life, which leaves little space for “specific issue” questions each time the survey is issued. It appears that there is some flexibility to include tailored questions. For example, in 2008, there was a “specific issue” question regarding arts, culture, and entertainment.
Despite these limitations, the Committee discussed the possibility of the City conducting an APFO-specific survey in order to obtain pertinent citizen data about quality of life, the pace of development, and other relevant issues. Additionally, the Committee identified the value of surveying the Rockville business community regarding their perceptions of growth, as this segment of the community is not currently included in the City's Citizen Survey.
Recommendations
22) Future Rockville Citizen Surveys should gather more information to determine residents’ opinions about the pace of development within the City and the balance of quality of life, availability of public facilities, and new development. (Adopted 9-0-0)
43 See http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/citymanager/rockville-citizen-survey-results-2010.pdf.
35 23) The City should periodically solicit residents’ and commercial stakeholders’ opinions on the impacts and outcomes of, and issues with, the APFO. (Adopted 9-0- 0)
36 Reevaluation of the APFO
The Committee saw value in its mission to review the APFO and APFS and to make recommendations to the Planning Commission about the ordinance. For that reason, the Committee recommends future reevaluations of the law.
Recommendation
24) The Planning Commission should review the APFO at least every five years. (Adopted 9-0-0)
37 Appendix A. Experts consulted by the APFO Review Committee.
City of Rockville Staff • Louise Atkins, Council Support Specialist • Emad Elshafei, Chief of Traffic and Transportation • David Levy, Chief of Long Range Planning • Deane Mellander, Zoning Administrator • Craig Simoneau, Director of Public Works • Matt Shanks, Fire Marshal • Susan Swift, Director of Community Planning and Development Services • Jim Wasilak, Chief of Planning • Marcy Waxman, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Montgomery County Staff • Patrick Butler, Planner, Montgomery County Planning Department • Bruce Crispell, Director of Long Range Planning, Montgomery County Public Schools • Pamela Dunn, Senior Planner, Montgomery County Planning Department • Steve Finley, Senior Planner, Montgomery County Planning Department • Scott Gutshick, Planning Section Manager, Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service • Glenn Orlin, Deputy Staff Director, Montgomery County Council • Rollin Stanley, Director, Montgomery County Planning Department
Schools • Laura Berthiaume, District 2 Representative, Board of Education • Troy Boddy, Principal, Beall Elementary School • John Ewald, Principal, College Gardens Elementary School • Jack Leiderman, appellant in the Beall’s Grant II court case • Cheryl Peirce, Coordinator, Richard Montgomery Cluster PTA • John Spano, Treasurer, Beall Elementary School PTA • Jennifer Young, President, Ritchie Park Elementary School PTA
Citizen’s Associations • Christina Ginsburg, President, Twinbrook Citizen’s Association • Nancy Paul, King Farm • Susan Prince, President, West End Citizen’s Association
Commercial Stakeholders • Erica Leatham, Counsel, Ballard Spahr LLP • Jody Kline, Partner, Miller, Miller and Canby, Chartered • William Kominers, Partner, Holland and Knight LLC • Samantha Mazo, Associate, Linowes and Blocher LLP
Others • Larry Giammo, former mayor of Rockville • John Hall, former Rockville council member • Tom Harrington, Director of Long Range Planning, Washington Area Transit Authority
City of Rockville FY 2012 School Test - in effect from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012 Projected Enrollment and Utilization at Schools With Service Areas Completely or Partly Within the City of Rockville* MCPS Program Capacity Compared to Projected Enrollment - Reflects County Council Adopted Amended FY 2011–2016 CIP June 30, 2011
Approx. Percent of MCPS ACTUAL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Enrollment from PROGRAM ENROLLMENT TEST YEAR CLUSTER SCHOOLS City of Rockville CAPACITY 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Gaithersburg Gaithersburg H.S. 3% 1974 2017 2099 2170 2155 2122 2117 2163 space available 2284 -43 -125 -196 -181 162 167 121 % utilization 102% 106% 110% 94% 93% 93% 95%
Forest Oak M.S. 5% 873 858 825 825 860 881 902 914 space available 15 48 48 13 -8 -29 -41 % utilization 98% 95% 95% 99% 101% 103% 105%
Rosemont E.S. (CSR) 20% 621 484 520 537 546 562 564 573 space available 137 101 84 75 59 57 48 % utilization 78% 84% 86% 88% 90% 91% 92%
Walter Johnson Walter Johnson H.S. 15% 2274 2156 2220 2251 2272 2266 2278 2242 space available 118 54 23 2 8 -4 32 % utilization 95% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99%
Tilden M.S. 35% 984 746 747 729 720 748 815 910 space available 238 237 255 264 236 169 74 % utilization 76% 76% 74% 73% 76% 83% 92%
Farmland E.S. 50% 617 578 596 618 643 646 650 661 space available 728 39 21 110 85 82 78 67 % utilization 94% 82% 85% 88% 89% 89% 91%
Richard Montgomery Richard Montgomery * 90% 2232 2058 2107 2070 2031 1977 1934 2113 space available 174 125 162 201 255 298 119 % utilization 92% 94% 93% 91% 89% 87% 95%
Julius West M.S. * 90% 995 1046 1027 1051 1121 1214 1318 1357 space available -51 -32 -56 -126 -219 -323 -362 % utilization 105% 103% 106% 113% 122% 132% 136%
526 Beall E.S. * 100% 641 720 775 802 824 822 835 815 space available -194 -134 -161 -183 -181 -194 -174 % utilization 137% 121% 125% 129% 128% 130% 127%
College Gardens E.S. (CSR) * 70% 670 792 848 862 838 838 831 825 space available -122 -178 -192 -168 -168 -161 -155 % utilization 118% 127% 129% 125% 125% 124% 123%
Ritchie Park E.S. * 80% 387 517 538 565 580 582 571 579 space available -130 -151 -178 -193 -195 -184 -192 % utilization 134% 139% 146% 150% 150% 148% 150%
Twinbrook E.S. (CSR) * 80% 538 564 580 590 609 618 626 633 space available -26 -42 -52 -71 -80 -88 -95 % utilization 105% 108% 110% 113% 115% 116% 118%
Rockville Rockville H.S. 35% 1516 1252 1279 1295 1342 1378 1406 1439 space available 264 237 221 174 138 110 77 % utilization 83% 84% 85% 89% 91% 93% 95%
Wood M.S. 35% 952 847 883 919 962 982 990 1025 space available 105 69 33 -10 -30 -38 -73 % utilization 89% 93% 97% 101% 103% 104% 108%
Maryvale E.S. (CSR) * 90% 570 576 589 605 614 625 641 644 space available -6 -19 -35 -44 -55 -71 -74 % utilization 101% 103% 106% 108% 110% 112% 113%
Meadow Hall E.S. (CSR) * 100% 344 390 411 415 427 431 440 436 space available -46 -67 -71 -83 -87 -96 -92 % utilization 113% 119% 121% 124% 125% 128% 127%
WOOTTON Wootton H.S. * 15% 2109 2412 2375 2385 2338 2266 2269 2141 space available -303 -266 -276 -229 -157 -160 -32 % utilization 114% 113% 113% 111% 107% 108% 102%
Frost M.S. * 15% 1058 1125 1093 1098 1100 1075 1011 970 space available -67 -35 -40 -42 -17 47 88 % utilization 106% 103% 104% 104% 102% 96% 92%
Fallsmead E.S. * 70% 574 554 545 524 539 536 542 546 space available 20 29 50 35 38 32 28 % utilization 97% 95% 91% 94% 93% 94% 95%
Lakewood E.S. * 30% 569 616 590 566 539 542 541 546 space available -47 -21 3 30 27 28 23 % utilization 108% 104% 99% 95% 95% 95% 96%
According to the City of Rockville test of school adequacy, schools fail if the utilization percent exceeds 110% two years in the future (the highlighted column.)
CSR indicates schools that have class-size reductions in Grades K -2, with class sizes of 18:1. Beall ES was a CSR school in 2010-11, but will no longer be one, beginning in 2011-12. * Asteriks denote schools located within the City of Rockville. Funded CIP Projects: The table incorporates modernization of Gaithersburg HS, to be completed in August 2013. This project increases the capacity of the school to 2,284. The table incorporates modernization of Farmland ES, to be completed in August 2011. This project increases the capacity of the school to 728. Tilden MS is scheduled for modernization with completion in August 2014. No additional capacity is planned for this modernization. Future Capacity Projects in th Richard Montgomery Cluster (RM): A feasbility study a new Richard Montgomery cluster elementary school at the site of the former Hungerford Park ES has been conducted. Feasibility studies for possible additions at Beall ES, Ritchie Park ES and Twinbrook ES have been conducted. A feasbility study for an addition at Julius West MS has been conducted. It is anticipated that design and construction funds for the new RM cluster elementary school, and possible additions at other schools, will be requested in the FY 2013–2018 CIP, in fall 2011. Capacity that will be added by new schools and additions cannot be counted in the school test table until funds for design and construction are approved by the County Council. Comparison of Projected Enrollment and Core Capacity of Schools Core capacity reflects the total enrollment that core areas of a facility can accommodate, including school cafeterias, media centers, gymnasiums, and administrative areas. Please note that the capacities shown in this table are not the current program capacities of the schools. The program capacity is less than the core capacity due to variations in the class size of programs at a given school. In addition, many schools are not built out to their full core capacity.
April 5, 2011
Approx. Percent of ACTUAL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Enrollment from CORE ENROLLMENT CLUSTER SCHOOLS City of Rockville CAPACITY 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Gaithersburg Gaithersburg H.S. 3% 1974 2017 2099 2170 2155 2122 2117 2163 space available 2400 -43 -125 -196 -181 278 283 237 % utilization 102% 106% 110% 90% 88% 88% 90%
Forest Oak M.S. 5% 1200 853 833 825 860 881 902 914 space available 347 367 375 340 319 298 286 % utilization 71% 69% 69% 72% 73% 75% 76%
Rosemont E.S. (CSR) 20% 640 484 520 537 546 562 564 573 space available 156 120 103 94 78 76 67 % utilization 76% 81% 84% 85% 88% 88% 90%
Walter Johnson Walter Johnson H.S. 15% 2400 2150 2220 2251 2272 2266 2278 2242 space available 250 180 149 128 134 122 158 % utilization 90% 93% 94% 95% 94% 95% 93%
Tilden M.S. 35% 1000 743 747 729 720 748 815 910 space available 257 253 271 280 252 185 90 % utilization 74% 75% 73% 72% 75% 82% 91%
Farmland E.S. 50% 617 579 602 618 643 646 650 661 space available 740 38 15 122 97 94 90 79 % utilization 94% 81% 84% 87% 87% 88% 89%
Richard Montgomery Richard Montgomery * 90% 2400 2053 2107 2070 2031 1977 1934 2113 space available 347 293 330 369 423 466 287 % utilization 86% 88% 86% 85% 82% 81% 88%
Julius West M.S. * 90% 1000 1038 1037 1051 1121 1214 1318 1357 space available -38 -37 -51 -121 -214 -318 -357 % utilization 104% 104% 105% 112% 121% 132% 136%
Beall E.S. * 100% 740 708 763 802 824 822 835 815 space available 32 -23 -62 -84 -82 -95 -75 % utilization 96% 103% 108% 111% 111% 113% 110%
College Gardens E.S. * 70% 740 792 835 862 838 838 831 825 space available -52 -95 -122 -98 -98 -91 -85 % utilization 107% 113% 116% 113% 113% 112% 111%
Ritchie Park E.S. * 80% 640 516 544 565 580 582 571 579 space available 124 96 75 60 58 69 61 % utilization 81% 85% 88% 91% 91% 89% 90%
Twinbrook E.S. (CSR) * 80% 740 559 577 590 609 618 626 633 space available 181 163 150 131 122 114 107 % utilization 76% 78% 80% 82% 84% 85% 86%
Continued on next page Comparison of Projected Enrollment and Core Capacity of Schools (continued)
Core capacity reflects the total enrollment that core areas of a facility can accommodate, including school cafeterias, media centers, gymnasiums, and administrative areas. Please note that the capacities shown in this table are not the current program capacities of the schools. The program capacity is less than the core due to variations facility in the class size of programs. In addition, many schools are not built out to their full core capacity.
April 5, 2011
Approx. Percent of ACTUAL PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Enrollment from CORE ENROLLMENT CLUSTER SCHOOLS City of Rockville CAPACITY 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Rockville Rockville H.S. 35% 2000 1255 1279 1295 1342 1378 1406 1439 space available 745 721 705 658 622 594 561 % utilization 63% 64% 65% 67% 69% 70% 72%
Wood M.S. 35% 1000 845 893 919 962 982 990 1025 space available 155 107 81 38 18 10 -25 % utilization 85% 89% 92% 96% 98% 99% 103%
Maryvale E.S. (CSR) * 90% 640 565 582 605 614 625 641 644 space available 75 58 35 26 15 -1 -4 % utilization 88% 91% 95% 96% 98% 100% 101%
Meadow Hall E.S. (CSR) * 100% 640 391 409 415 427 431 440 436 space available 249 231 225 213 209 200 204 % utilization 61% 64% 65% 67% 67% 69% 68%
WOOTTON Wootton H.S. * 15% 2109 2409 2385 2385 2338 2266 2269 2141 space available -300 -276 -276 -229 -157 -160 -32 % utilization 114% 113% 113% 111% 107% 108% 102%
Frost M.S. * 15% 1000 1122 1098 1098 1100 1075 1011 970 space available -122 -98 -98 -100 -75 -11 30 % utilization 112% 110% 110% 110% 108% 101% 97%
Fallsmead E.S. * 70% 740 545 539 524 539 536 542 546 space available 195 201 216 201 204 198 194 % utilization 74% 73% 71% 73% 72% 73% 74%
Lakewood E.S. * 30% 740 614 594 566 539 542 541 546 space available 126 146 174 201 198 199 194 % utilization 83% 80% 76% 73% 73% 73% 74%
According to the City of Rockville test of school adequacy, schools fail if the utilization percent exceeds 110% two years in the future (the highlighted column.)
CSR indicates schools that have class-size reductions in Grades K -2, with class sizes of 18:1. Beall ES was a CSR school in 2010-11, but will no longer be one, beginning in 2011-12. * Asteriks denote schools located within the City of Rockville. Funded CIP Projects: The table incorporates modernization of Gaithersburg HS, to be completed in August 2013. This project increases the capacity of the school to 2,284. The table incorporates modernization of Farmland ES, to be completed in August 2011. This project increases the capacity of the school to 728. Tilden MS is scheduled for modernization with completion in August 2014. No additional capacity is planned for this modernization. Future Capacity Projects in th Richard Montgomery Cluster (RM): A feasbility study a new Richard Montgomery cluster elementary school at the site of the former Hungerford Park ES is currently underway. A feasibility study for a possible addition at Ritchie Park ES was conducted last year, and feasibility studies for possible additions at Beall ES and Twinbrook ES are currently underway. A feasbility study for an addition at Julius West MS is currently underway. It is anticipated that design and construction funds for the new RM cluster elementary school, and possible additions at other schools, will be requested in the FY 2013–2018 CIP, in fall 2011. Capacity that will be added by new schools and additions cannot be counted in the school test table until funds for design and construction are approved by the County Council. Appendix D. Comparison of past student enrollment projections for the Richard Montgomery cluster versus actual enrollment for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.44 A positive value indicates that MCPS’ projected enrollment for the given school year was higher than the number of actual students enrolled (i.e. enrollment was overestimated). A negative value indicates that predictions underestimated the number of students enrolled.
2010-2011 Enrollment Predicted in 2010-2011 May/June Actual Average for School Enrollment 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 School Richard Montgomery HS 2,058 -8% -11% -10% -3% -3% -7% Julius West MS 1,046 -15% -9% -7% -4% -8% -8% Beall ES 720 -8% -18% -21% -7% -9% -13% College Gardens ES 792 -28% -18% -17% -13% -2% -16% Ritchie Park ES 517 -15% -11% -6% -2% 6% -6% Twinbrook ES 564 6% -10% -6% 2% 9% 0% Average by Year -11% -13% -11% -5% -1%
2009-2010 2009-2010 Enrollment Predicted in May/June Average Actual for School Enrollment 2006 2007 2008 2009 School Richard Montgomery HS 2,053 -9% -11% -8% -2% -8% Julius West MS 961 -10% -4% -4% 1% -4% Beall ES 641 2% -9% -10% 5% -3% College Gardens ES 739 -22% -14% -12% -6% -14% Ritchie Park ES 522 -17% -13% -8% -6% -11% Twinbrook ES 548 6% -10% -5% -2% -3% Average by Year -8% -10% -8% -2%
44 Analysis was conducted by several members of the Committee. Accuracy of enrollment predictions was calculated as [(predicted enrollment)-(actual enrollment)]/(actual enrollment).
Appendix F. Student generation rates by housing type for select residential developments in Rockville.
Elementary School Students Middle School Students High School Students Housing Housing Student Student Student Development Type Units Actual Projected Yield Actual Projected Yield Actual Projected Yield Fireside Apts Garden Apts 237 26 28 0.110 11 8 0.046 29 10 0.122 Monroe St Garden Apts 190 20 23 0.105 9 6 0.047 21 8 0.111 Congressional South Mid-rise 407 19 17 0.047 7 16 0.017 10 13 0.025 Huntington Apts N (KF) Mid-rise 403 26 17 0.060 10 16 0.020 11 13 0.030 Huntington Apts S (KF) Mid-rise 433 54 18 0.125 17 17 0.039 21 14 0.048 King Farm Blvd. (KF) Mid-rise 60 1 3 0.017 0 2 0.000 0 2 0.000 Park Potomac Mid-rise 304 11 13 0.040 4 12 0.010 4 10 0.010 The Allaire Mid-rise 279 4 12 0.014 3 11 0.011 5 9 0.018 The Chase Mid-rise 146 9 6 0.062 3 6 0.021 0 5 0.000 The Fitz Mid-rise 221 6 9 0.027 5 9 0.023 8 7 0.036 The Westchester Mid-rise 192 11 8 0.057 8 7 0.042 14 6 0.073 Town Center Mid-rise 645 23 27 0.036 4 25 0.006 12 21 0.019 The Americana High-rise 425 5 18 0.012 6 17 0.014 7 14 0.016 Redland Blvd (KF) Townhouse 110 28 28 0.255 13 12 0.118 11 14 0.100 N. of Gude Dr. (KF) Single-family 202 90 69 0.446 28 27 0.139 28 20 0.139 West End Park Single-family 478 87 163 0.182 38 65 0.079 70 47 0.146 Student yield is defined as the number of students observed divided by the number of housing units. KF denotes King Farm.
Student generation rates determined by Montgomery County for each housing type for the southwest part of the County.
Housing Type Elementary Middle High Total K-12 Single-Family 0.341 0.136 0.099 0.575 Townhouse 0.254 0.112 0.127 0.493 Multi-Family Garden 0.119 0.034 0.043 0.196 Mid- and High-Rise* 0.042 0.039 0.033 0.114 *County-wide data from the 2005 survey, as the most recent survey sample was too small for mid- and high-rise buildings.
Appendix G. Estimated student generation by proposed residential development projects grandfathered into the APFO.
Estimated # of Students Generated
Elementary Residential Total Project Name School Cluster School Units Elementary Middle High Students Chestnut Lodge (Remaining Phases) Richard Montgomery Beall 38 11 5 3 19 Duball (Lots 2J & 2K) Richard Montgomery Beall 485 20 19 16 55 KSI Richard Montgomery Beall 293 12 11 10 33 Rockville Center Richard Montgomery Beall 117 5 5 4 14 Tower Oaks Richard Montgomery Ritchie Park 100 4 4 3 11 Twinbrook Station (East) Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 206 9 8 7 24 Twinbrook Station (Future Phases) Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 751 32 29 25 86 Upper Rock District (Phases 3 & 4) Gaithersburg Rosemont 552 73 40 28 141 Upper Rock District (Future Phases) Gaithersburg Rosemont 292 39 21 15 75 Twinbrook Station (West) Walter Johnson Farmland 359 15 14 12 41 Total 3193 220 156 123 499
Appendix K. Areas of Rockville serviced by three fires stations within 10 minutes (includes planned Travilah Station 32).
Appendix L. Areas of Rockville serviced by three fires stations within 10 minutes (excludes planned Travilah Station 32).
Minority Report by Dennis Cain
I have lived in the West End neighborhood of the City for 43 years, and have been a very active and founding member of the West End Citizens Association (WECA). I have also been an active member of a number of commissions and committees in the City over the years. I identified myself as representing the neighborhood perspective in the APFO Committee nomination forms. It is my position, and that of WECA, that Rockville's APFO is a critically important planning tool designed to support the balanced life in, and growth of Rockville. It provides guidelines and metrics for assuring that development activities in the City are within the bounds of, and supported by the resources available from the City in terms of water, sewer, fire/emergency services, transportation/traffic, and schools - the most crucial of these in many neighborhoods being the schools. It is after all concern about these elements and other quality of life issues by the City which makes Rockville such a wonderful place to live and raise a family.
The Rockville APFO is intended to help prevent overcrowding of the MCPS schools in the City as a result of residential development. Once the schools have become overburdened, the APFO cannot reduce the existing overload – school construction, program redistribution, or boundary changes are necessary to ease the overcrowding. The overburdened schools are not a consequence of the APFO but are a consequence of MCPS inactivity in educational resource development. As noted in the report, the City has no official role in the schools. The schools are completely the responsibility of Montgomery County.
Our immediate neighborhood is served by 3 MCPS schools: the new Richard Montgomery High School which is projected to be at 94% of school program capacity next year, Julius West Middle School – 103% in 2012-13 (132% in 2015-16), and Beall Elementary School - 125% in 2012-13. Even MCPS has placed Richard Montgomery’s elementary school cluster and middle school cluster in residential development moratorium based on County standards. Data regarding the level of overcrowding of the other Rockville schools is presented in the committee Report.
Recognizing the serious overcrowding in these schools, most of the members of the APFO Committee expressed concern over the fact that there is still no specific plan or commitment in place for resolving the overcrowding problem through funding additional schools or classrooms in the next 5 years. Nevertheless, some members of the APFO Committee actually voted to double the acceptable level of overcrowding of the core facilities of these schools before terminating additional residential construction in the school neighborhoods. It is worth recalling that in MCPS, “School Capacity is defined as the maximum number of students that can reasonably be accommodated without significantly hampering delivery of a given educational program.” (CIP 2012, App Q). Unfortunately, the Committee voted not to pursue the question of the impact of portables and overcrowding on the quality of education of the students.
The Committee met with PTA and neighborhood community groups in a work session
and also at a Public Hearing on June 2, 2011. This community feedback is not discussed in the report, but virtually all of the respondents in this group spoke passionately about the value of, and the need for, the Rockville APFO both in controlling residential construction in neighborhoods and preventing any construction-related overpopulation of the schools. In my opinion, a degradation of APFO standards toward those of Montgomery County will not be acceptable to the Rockville neighborhoods and PTA communities.
Montgomery County APFO
Some members of the APFO Committee have voted to abandon the Rockville APFO in favor of an APFO more like that being used by Montgomery County. Hence it is urgent that we have a clear understanding of the details of the County APFO process which is not fully described in the Report. The Rockville APFO is designed to assure balanced growth in the City by assuring that adequate public facilities are available prior to the approval of additional residential development. In contrast, the Montgomery County APFO is designed to assure that adequate educational facilities are available to prevent interfering with residential development, by allowing the additional overcrowding of the schools to an average of 120% of program capacity in the grade level cluster five years in the future, a time that our analysis demonstrates the maximum underestimation of enrollment projections occurs.
The County APFO allows the enrollment of schools to exceed the maximum program capacity of the schools by 20% on average across the entire grade level cluster prior to initiating a moratorium on residential development. This is in contrast to the 10% overcrowding allowed by Rockville. The basis for the enrollment figure is the projection of enrollment in the school cluster 5 years in the future.
The County APFO also allows residential development to proceed when the projected school cluster enrollment 5 years hence exceeds program capacity in the range of 105% to 120% in exchange for a school Facilities Fee payment by the developer. This is essentially equivalent to borrowing capacities from adjacent schools in the cluster when a school exceeds the overcapacity limit. This mitigation process has not functioned thus far since the fee has been collected on only one occasion ($6,244) as noted in our report.
If enrollment projections at 5 years out exceed 120% grade level cluster average, the County routinely avoids a moratorium on residential development by including a "paper school" or portion of a school in the fifth year of the County CIP. The additional space projected thus prevents that cluster from being placed in a development moratorium. The school may or may not be built in the future. The consequence is a moratorium- free APFO – surely the ideal system for the development community, but totally unacceptable for Rockville. In spite of the overcrowding rampant in the schools throughout the County, at the present time, only Richard Montgomery's elementary school cluster and middle school cluster (i.e. Julius West) are in residential development moratorium by Montgomery County.
Composition of the committee:
The APFO committee appointed by the Planning Commission is comprised of 7 Rockville residents including 5 very bright young people who have had somewhat limited experience with Rockville City, plus two senior citizen activists who are long term residents of the City. Three of the seven Rockville resident members are parents of children in the City's schools. In addition, the Commission chose to appoint two non- Rockville residents to the Committee who are attorneys working in the development community in Rockville, one of whom is the executive vice president of a development firm. At the outset, the Rockville residents on the Committee were relatively naïve concerning the details of the APFO process, while the attorneys have been very well versed in all of the legal and technical aspects of the APFO’s of both the City and the County and recognize the substantial advantages to the development community of the County’s less constrained APFO. In my opinion, as well as that of an attorney with whom I spoke, their advocacy of a relaxation of the Rockville Standards could reasonably be expected to materially benefit themselves or their firms if such changes were enacted as a consequence of the Committee activity.
It is my observation that the two development lawyers have had an overwhelming effect on the Committee's activities both in the Committee process as well as in the determination of the agendas for the series of meetings. The Committee has met weekly for over 6 months and biweekly on occasion. Only three of the thirty or so meetings were focused on input from local citizen groups and PTA representatives. On the other hand, examination of the agendas in the Committee file will demonstrate the focus of many of our meetings on the various large scale development projects largely outside the boundaries of Rockville. We met with planners and developers at every level ranging from the City through the County planner's lengthy promotion of high rise, dense development proposed for tax revenues for the County, and beyond (WMATA). In terms of the APFO study, this stands in stark contrast to our lack of solid statistical studies of the enrollment issues which would have been very informative. I is my observation that the Rockville development community has been very well served by their two professionals on the APFO Committee in terms of the Committee discussions, the identification of meeting topics and presenters, the advocacy of the County's moratorium-less APFO, authorship and votes on the APFO committee's final recommendations. One final point which illustrates this sensitivity on the Committee, for some reason, the Committee obfuscates the issue further by replacing the word “developer” with the expression “commercial stakeholder” in our documents and discussions.
Responsibility of MCPS:
As noted in the report, Rockville has no official responsibility in the education of her children. Montgomery County has the full responsibility for these activities. Unfortunately under our present system, our schools have become seriously overcrowded far beyond the program capacities of the facilities. The Richard Montgomery Cluster has even been placed in a residential development moratorium at
the middle and elementary school levels - enrollment forecast projection is 122.7% of program capacity and at the elementary school level – where the projection is for 136.4% of capacity. At present there are no funds committed to correcting the Rockville school overcrowding situation. Very recently, MCPS Superintendent proposed adding funds to future County CIPs for a future additional elementary school and an addition to Julius West Middle School in Rockville. With the current state of the County budget, funding of future projects is far from certain, but Montgomery County has the legal responsibility of educating Rockville's children – including facilities and staff.
Some members of our Committee suggest that the committee should recommend additional crowding as the baseline by adopting the County APFO as a 'good will gesture' or as 'a show of good faith and cooperation' or to 'incentivize' the County. My suggestion is that we remind the County of its legal responsibility to educate the Rockville children, and offer the cooperation and resources of the City of Rockville in any way possible within the constraints of our laws. The APFO Committee Report recommends the formation of a City Commission on Education to explore and monitor educational issues in the City and recommends a direct interaction between the Rockville Mayor and Council and the Board of Education and the County Council on regarding school overcrowding. This is a reasonable positive first step toward initiating a resolution of the overcrowding of the Rockville schools.
In summary: the purpose of the Rockville's APFO is to insure that development does not exceed the capacity of the roads, public resources and schools within the City. It is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of life of the citizens of this community. The construction of schools in Rockville is wholly under the control of the County; the City cannot compel the County to construct additional school capacity, regardless of obvious need based upon overcrowding. Any attempt to weaken the City's APFO by adopting some of the County's less stringent APFO standards will serve only the development community and detract from the education of our children and from the quality of life of the City's residents and, in my view will be judged unacceptable by the citizens of Rockville.
Minority Report by Tom Gibney
The APFO Review Committee Schools recommendation 1, 2, and 3 are all tied to the need for greater cooperation with the MCPS and the use of data to assist in the projection of student populations and the resolution of the resultant issues.
Section 4 of the report cites a 14,000 increase in the population of Rockville since the year 2000. This growth was not a surprise, the communities were planned, and the housing types known. The Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPCC) provided the student generation rates for those types, and the time frame in which they were given, enabled MCPS to be adequately prepared for the growing needs.
When we bought our home in King Farm, the developer showed us the plans and locations for an elementary and a middle school that were to be built to accommodate the population growth anticipated from King Farm and Fallsgrove. These would accompany the new College Gardens Elementary School and Richard Montgomery High School.
Neither was built.
The City of Rockville is now pushing for funding to build a new Elementary School and renovate the middle school to accommodate the crush of students in the city. If approved, they would be completed in 2016.
The MCPS projection method needs to adopt a comprehensive and robust formula that provides the capability to incorporate the ever-changing demographic environment. The committee learned that information sources, such as M-NCPP, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), census, and various other publicly available resources are not only available, but can provide an accurate snapshot of current conditions, future trends, and the factors affecting those trends.
Unfortunately, the city’s ability to influence the MCPS is limited. Using the standing commission to establish the City of Rockville as a pilot for these efforts may provide the means for a solution to this state-wide issue, and at the same time provide the foundation for a stronger relationship between the two groups.
Minority Report 2 from Tom Gibney
Throughout the APFO Review Committee effort, the single most talked about issue was the Silverwood apartment proposal and the associated annexation of the property into the City of Rockville. The decision of council members Gajewski, Pierzchala and Britton to use their majority to amend the APFS and enable the annexation, prior to the outcome of our committee efforts, was offensive.
The information presented to us was that the property was zoned for commercial use by the county, and that Silverwood developers sought to use it for residential housing. In order to do so, they would need for it to fall under oversight of a different governing body. Through annexation, Rockville could provide for that change. The council, in a 3- 2 vote, amended the APFS, and included a provision that any elementary school children living in the apartments would attend Washington Grove, in the Gaithersburg cluster, as opposed to the overcapacity College Gardens Elementary School in the Richard Montgomery cluster.
What is baffling is why the three members of the council would wish to promote this project and the interests of the developers.
The property shares a border with the Montgomery County Solid Waste Processing Facility and Transfer Station, backs to the Shady Grove Metro Station and is bordered on the west side by 355, which would provide the primary pedestrian and vehicular access.
As a resident of King Farm, I am very familiar with the intersections at Redland Blvd/Rd and King Farm Boulevard with 355. Several pedestrian traffic deaths over the last several years are noteworthy and germane. Potential residents of this complex would be regularly crossing 355 to perform their grocery shopping at the Safeway a few blocks away. Despite the claims by Gajewski and Pierzchala that they do not believe any children would live there, the demographic data we reviewed is contrary to those opinions.
The committee discussed at length the student generation rate for mid- and high-rise apartments, .114 students from the 2005 data, and determined that this most assuredly is not an adequate representation of the current demographics. However, even using the 2005 factors, the 417 units complex will produce almost 50 school-aged children. They would also be crossing 355 to visit the stores in King Farm, as well as our parks.
Living in King Farm, I am also very familiar with the chemical odor that occasionally emanates from the waste facility. Unfortunately, it is an eerie reminder of a similar odor from the recycling center in Nassau County, NY, over 30 years ago, that was closed due to the impact it had on the health of the horses at Roosevelt Raceway – several of which died.
Between the proximity to the dump and the high potential for a tragic traffic incident, it is unclear why this proposal even merited consideration.
Finally, the city of Rockville has no control over the school boundary designations assigned by the MCPS. The borders are currently being reconsidered, and the students projected out of the Silverwood project would impact the determination of students attending College Gardens and the Richard Montgomery cluster. With the inclusion of these students, MCPS could conceivably move all of King Farm to the Gaithersburg cluster.
I hope I never have to say “I told you so,” if a child from the “Silverwood Apartments” dies crossing 355. I am sure an independent investigation would yield the question as to why the complex was ever given approval.
From a financial perspective, since the city would have approved the building, the city would most likely be directed to mitigate the situation. At that point, the only answer would be a pedestrian bridge or tunnel, and the tax revenues generated from Silverwood, will not come close to covering that expense.
Minority Report by Tom Gibney and Eric Siegel
The amending of the APFS to exclude portable classrooms appears to be a case of political expedience and is perceived as callous. What is more notable is the fact that it was completely unnecessary.
It is a shame that no member of the Mayor’s office or any member of the Council actually investigated the underlying cause of the issue. They would have discovered that the data used as the basis for presenting the amendment in the first place, was in fact, erroneous.
Montgomery County Fire and Rescue has provided the City with a map that reflects areas within and outside the three station, ten minute response time constraint. College Gardens Elementary School is located on Yale Place, with the front of the school about 700 feet from the corner of College Parkway, with a driveway used for entry on the northern end and an exit on the southern.
The situation arose from the determination that the portable units at College Gardens, located in the back of the school about 100 yards from the road, were outside the ten minute response time constraint. There are no obstacles or impediments to vehicles making the turn and driving straight to the portables. This driveway entrance is about 10 yards from the northern entry driveway.
Driving north on Yale Place, about 100 yards further there is an intersection with Rutgers Street; another 100 yards further is the intersection with Fordham Street; and then Yale Place dead ends a little more than 100 yards after. Over 100 yards down Fordham Street, and all of the way to the dead end on Yale Place are considered within the three station ten minute response time.
The determination that the College Gardens portables are outside of the limits, and these other locations – three times the distance, are within, is incorrect.
This information was part of the discussion that resulted in the committee’s finding and fourth recommendation under Fire and Emergency that “response time to a building should be considered the same for all parts of the building.”
In addition to that recommendation, this minority opinion recommends the removal of the amendment excluding portables from the application of the APFS. With the imminent arrival of a large number of portables at numerous schools, it is imperative that the safety of the students is not subject to this ill-advised provision.
Minority Report by Charles Littlefield
Below are my views related to various issues the APFO Committee did not reach consensus on. (Some were voted on and didn't pass; some were discussed but not voted on).
Waivers of the Schools Test Threshold (up to 120% of program capacity) At our August 4 meeting I proposed a recommendation to allow waivers to the schools standard, up to 120% of program capacity and on a case-by-case basis, but only under two conditions: 1) That there be a public hearing process; 2) that the waiver be formally approved by the PTAs (Parent-Teacher Associations) of the affected schools.49
My recommendation received insufficient support. I subsequently removed the "PTA" criteria and replaced it with the requirement that waivers be granted only via a supermajority (4 votes) of the Mayor and Council. This also failed to garner sufficient support. This "waiver" idea later resurfaced during our final votes on the 110% threshold but—despite having originally proposed the idea—I voted against the waiver option and voted instead to leave the AFPS schools standard at 110%. However, if the Planning Commission or City Council were to pursue the waiver idea, I would strongly recommend that exceptions or waivers to the schools standard only be allowed if accompanied by very strict criteria that: i) limit their usage; ii) ensure residents have input or control over the granting of such exceptions; and iii) provide a financial mechanism by which the project applicant is directly responsible for mitigating the additional students imposed on already overcrowded schools.
My Opposition to Increasing the APFS Schools Standard from 110% to 120% As a member of this Committee I witnessed an aggressiveness on the part of certain developers, elected officials and public planners to push through large-scale residential development regardless of public opinion. The impression they made on me left me firmly convinced that Rockville's APFO/APFS should not be weakened. From the perspective of a Rockville resident/homeowner, the APFO "evens the playing field" between everyday citizens and organized, connected and financially powerful developers. Without this tool, it would be virtually impossible for citizens to stop an undesirable development project from occurring and negatively impacting our quality of
49 The logic behind #2 is that it would put the affected party (parents, teachers, students) and the affecting party (the developer) in direct negotiation and thus create a funding mechanism for mitigating the impact of overcrowded schools. My idea was also inspired by precedent—city staff told us that Meadow Hall ES received $200,000 from the City (outside of the MCPS budget) to renovate its gymnasium. In a similar manner, the PTAs could negotiate funds for renovation, expansion of core capacity (e.g. cafeteria), or purchase of learning equipment (computers, etc), with guidelines to ensure a legitimate process and fairness to all parties. In terms of economic science, this arrangement is an application of the Coase Theorem, a theory which maintains that the most efficient way to deal with an economic externality (in this case, the addition of students to an already overcrowded school) is to put the two parties in direct negotiation without other layers of "rent-seeking" governmental involvement. The purpose of the Coase Theorem is to identify the least costly solution and minimize transaction costs for both parties, and achieve the most efficient outcome for society as a whole. So if this solution were applied, it would likely be the least costly for the developers, while simultaneously maximizing the payment amount directly received by the school(s). For more information go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem.
life. This is why I voted to keep the school capacity threshold at 110%.
More specifically, the proposed recommendation of increasing the schools standard to 120% capacity is a flawed idea. Below are three reasons why.
Reason #1: Increasing the Threshold to 120% is a Bad Tactic The Committee members who voted to recommend that Rockville increase the APFS school capacity threshold to 120% did so on the grounds that it would be perceived by the County as a "good faith" gesture that would result in quicker (or more likely?) construction and renovation of certain Rockville schools,50 to help alleviate current overcrowding. Though well-intentioned, this tactic won't work. MCPS manages the school system on a "county-wide" basis, without favoritism to certain school districts or constituencies. MCPS’ approach is sensible—if they practiced favoritism, that would give cities such as Rockville an incentive for creating their own school systems (or give unincorporated areas of the County an incentive for incorporating into cities). Rockville schools will be prioritized according to their level of over-crowdedness versus other schools in the County; they will not be fast-tracked merely on account of a "good faith" tactic, nor delayed for lack thereof.
At several Committee meetings, the notion that Rockville would be "punished" because of its APFO was discussed. No credible proof of this was ever presented to me or the Committee as a whole. It was a politically motivated rumor, in my opinion, probably initiated by developers upset about the current residential moratorium in certain parts of the City, and probably designed to coerce the City into weakening its APFO. At any rate, recent news on this issue clearly indicates that MCPS is already working in good faith to address school overcrowding in Rockville.51
Reason #2: The Tactic Could Do As Much Harm As Good Even if this "good faith" tactic did work, it would be difficult to reverse and would open up certain vulnerable parts of Rockville to further overcrowding (Twinbrook ES, Maryvale ES and Wootton HS). If the threshold were changed to 120% to solve our short-term overcrowding problem, then we could be stuck in the long-term with schools wavering around 120% capacity instead of 110%. Why should Rockville place a long- term political burden on itself, only to "roll the dice" for a short-term solution? The potential irreversibility of such a tactic is like playing with fire.
While the tactic seeks to alleviate overcrowding in Beall, College Gardens and Ritchie Park, it ignores the fact that it will likely increase overcrowding in other parts of the City. An increase of the threshold from 110% to 120% would take three already overcrowded schools out of residential moratorium (Twinbrook, Maryvale, Wootton), meaning that a developer could get a project approved, further straining these schools' capacity. The chart below demonstrates this point; in bold are all capacities falling between 110% and 120%—these are the capacities which currently do not allow development with the 110% threshold, but would allow development if the threshold were raised to 120%.
50 Construction of the "new Hungerford elementary school" and the expansion of Julius West Middle School. 51 http://www.gazette.net/article/20111116/NEWS/711169444&template=gazette.
2010-2011 2013-2014 test 2015-2016 test enrollment year enrollment year enrollment Twinbrook E.S. 105% 113% 116% Maryvale E.S. 101% 108% 112% Wootton H.S. 114% 111% 108%
The Twinbrook area in particular is experiencing massive development interest, which could worsen overcrowding at Twinbrook ES, especially given that part of its enrollment falls outside of the City's jurisdiction. The City must consider all residents, not just those whose children attend Beall, Ritchie Park and College Gardens. Don't employ a tactic designed to help one part of Rockville at another's expense.
Reason #3: Most residents favor a strong APFO and support the logic behind the current 110% threshold. All written and oral testimony received by the Committee from Rockville residents concurred that the APFO was needed to mitigate (or prevent) the negative impacts caused by overdevelopment.52,53,54 Only one resident (out of a dozen or so that testified to us) suggested any type of weakening of the APFO, and this was only under limited circumstances.55 This Committee equally solicited testimony from Rockville's business community (including developers): not a single Rockville business owner (nor developer) provided testimony to the Committee asking that the APFO be weakened; the only request—outside of the Committee—to weaken the APFO came from law firms that specialize in representing developers.
Altogether, I did not find any significant evidence of popular support among residents for weakening the APFO, nor was I presented with evidence of a broad consensus among the business community to weaken the APFO.
I also analyzed two recent surveys: the "Rockville, MD 2010 Citizen Survey"56 and the "Montgomery County, MD 2009 Citizen Survey."57 Both have good response rates and
52 Agenda and select testimonies from the June 2 public forum are available at: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/pc/apfo/2011/060211.htm. 53 Meeting minutes, including a list of who testified at the public forum, is available online at: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/pc/apfo/2011/APFO060211min.pdf. 54 Additional testimonies submitted via email to the Committee are attached at the end of this minority report. 55 A person representing the failed Beall's Grant II project suggested that a waiver be created to allow for the approval of residential MPDU (Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit) projects even if they failed the schools test. I believe her motive was to assist people on a low income; however—as noble as that objective may be—it does not take priority over maintaining a quality public education for people of all incomes. The elementary school that would have served this project, Beall E.S., is the most overcrowded school in Rockville (137% capacity in 2010–2011). Such MPDU housing projects should be built in areas where schools are under capacity; otherwise they are creating a new problem while solving another, and that is a zero net gain for society as a whole. 56 Survey conducted by National Research Center, Inc. Available online at: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/citymanager/rockville-citizen-survey-results-2010.pdf. 57 Survey conducted by National Research Center, Inc. Available online at: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/pio/pdfs/2009_resident_survey_report.pdf.
low margins of error (±4%, ±3%; respectively). In the 2010 Rockville Survey, 55% of respondents said that population growth was "too fast"; only 3% of respondents said that population growth was "too slow." (42% said it was the "Right amount.") Given that there are very few projects currently underway in Rockville, this response strongly convinced me that residents do not support any increase in the pace of residential development. When asked about the rate of housing growth, the median response was "Right amount" (46%), also suggesting that the current slow pace of housing growth is acceptable to most Rockville residents (only 21% thought it was too slow).
The 2009 Montgomery County survey shows an even stronger disdain for both population growth and development: 60% of respondents said that the rate of residential growth (new housing developments) was "too fast"; only 9% of respondents said that it was "too slow". (31% said it was the "Right amount.") With respect to population growth, a large majority (69%) said that it was "too fast"; only 2% thought it was "too slow". The County survey was also conducted after the housing bubble and is thus a measurement of current development rates, not pre-housing bubble development rates. These responses suggest that Montgomery County is pursuing an agenda completely counter to public opinion and/or doing a poor job of regulating development. Rockville should not emulate such an undemocratic agenda and/or ineffective regulatory model. Public opinion, based on strong majority support, should always be the foundation of any government policy for both planners and elected officials alike.
Solution to School Overcrowding So then, the question remains, how will we "solve" the problem of school overcrowding in Rockville? I believe that if the right policies are maintained, the problem will take care of itself within a few years because of two trend reversals that are already taking place.
First, local property values are steadily returning to pre-crisis levels. Over the next 4–6 years this will lead to higher tax assessments and thus higher tax revenues, on a per square foot basis, for existing properties. This will provide more capital funds for school construction and renovation proportional to the existing population. The higher home prices and tax rates will also mitigate the socio-economic trend that has caused existing housing stock to generate more students per household.
Second, the demographic factors that led to more children/students will stabilize and eventually begin to decrease in line with the lower rates of immigration seen nationwide since the recession began. Immigration has a "time-delay" effect in terms of augmenting—and reducing—the rate of students generated by existing housing. The time delay effect to reduce this rate has already begun. Just as the increase seen in recent years was set in motion by an influx of immigrants in the 1990s and early 2000s, I likewise predict that the current downturn in immigration will reduce the rate of student generation from existing housing in the coming decade. This has happened in Rockville once before: school enrollment fell off sharply in the 1970s and 1980s once the baby boom of the 1950s and 1960s had run its course. This trend reversal led to the painful closure and sale of a multitude of school properties. To this day, MCPS planners regret having made these closures. Likewise, the current “mega” boom of the past decade
has ended. As a believer of cause and effect, I thus expect some type of “leveling off” to occur in the coming 10–20 year period with respect to student enrollment.
Less—or even stable—federal government spending in the coming decade will also reduce or moderate the influx of new residents to the area, given our dependence on federal funding for job creation. This is being written in stone as we speak by our members of congress on both sides of the aisle.
In conclusion, the right policies to ensure that this situation self-corrects are simple: First, don't encourage too much high-density residential development; it will put more students into the system, create a net cost burden58 on public resources (versus taxes paid in) and potentially lead to an oversaturated housing market (if federal spending downsizes or remains flat) which will have a depressing effect on home prices, property tax assessments and hence tax revenue. Second, promote "tax positive" commercial and industrial development projects59 in the City limits, especially biotech, light industry, green industry, urban agriculture, research facilities, hotels, warehousing, company headquarters, etc. These things will create additional tax revenue, lessen the tax burden on residents, and provide jobs that will have a multiplier effect by bringing additional economic activity to the City, without adding students to Rockville's schools.
Lastly, as recommended by the Committee as a whole, the City needs to continue to work closely with MCPS to ensure that the planned school constructions and renovations remain a priority, as well as the schools planned (but not budgeted) for King Farm. If all of these policies are pursued, we will solve our school overcrowding problem in the near future, without having to weaken our APFO.
If a policy encouraging unsustainable, high-density population growth is pursued, however, the situation will never resolve itself, and will likely become worse.
Final Comment on Green Space Standard for the APFO At one point a fellow Committee member proposed that there be a "green space" standard when he noticed that the new Rockville Pike Plan only required 5% green space, versus King Farm, which required 30% green space. Though the Committee as a whole did not recommend this, I personally feel very strongly about it. I believe adequate green space (plazas, parks, forests, playgrounds, soccer fields, tennis courts, picnic areas, etc.) is a cornerstone to the quality of life here in Rockville. Every new development should provide at least 30% green space to ensure that the proportion of green space per resident is always maintained.
58 Montgomery County planners are convinced that high-density residential is a panacea that will fix all funding shortages for schools, etc. I am deeply suspicious of this claim and would recommend that an independent study be conducted; it is counter-intuitive and everything I have read—as an independent citizen—leads me to believe the opposite. We should not take what these planners say at face value, they may be leading us into a terrible situation. Only skepticism, due diligence and independent citizen input can save us from such a scenario. 59 During his campaign, recently elected City Council member, John Hall, mentioned this would be a priority if elected. I think this is a good sign that the City will adopt the right policy for alleviating our school overcrowding problems.
Addendum to Minority Report by Charles Littlefield
Testimony Provided by Jacques Gelin
----- Original Message ----- From: gelinjac_verizon_mail To: julie pakakovich Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:47 PM Subject: WECA submission to the APFO committee
Ms. Pakakovich, I am sending you the statement which the board of directors of the West End Citizens Association approved, unanimously, and which was submitted to the Planning Commission and City officials on April 29, 2011. As you see WECA's opposition to the Pike Plan, in its present form, rests on a number of reasons, including the Plan's attempt to destroy the City's APFO. WECA, which consists of over 1500 families strongly supports the APFO on the basis that the APFO is a principal way in which to preserve the quality of life for Rockville's residents. Please circulate this among the members of your committee. Sincerely, Jacques Gelin, Corresponding Secretary, WECA
STATEMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED ROCKVILLE PIKE PLAN ON BEHALF OF THE WEST END CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
A. Introduction and Background. – In 2007, the City retained a team of consultants to study and draft a Plan for the redevelopment of the 2.2-mile portion of the Rockville Pike that lies south of the Town Center. The consultants, at a cost of $547,000, have now issued a document called “Rockville’s Pike: Envision a Great Place.” This Rockville Pike Plan, or Plan, scheduled for adoption this year is the subject of this Statement.
WECA, which consists of slightly more than 1,500 households, is Rockville’s largest and oldest neighborhood association. It abuts the town center and its residents would be adversely impacted if the City should adopt the proposed Pike Plan. A draft of this Statement, which embodies testimony by individual residents of WECA to this Commission at various hearings, was distributed to WECA’s board of directors along with everyone on WECA’s listserve. Following comments and suggestions, it was revised and adopted as WECA’s official position at its regular board meeting on April 28.
B. Statement of Facts. – The Rockville Pike is but a small portion of State Route 355 that is one of the principal thoroughfares between Frederick and the District of Columbia (the other is I-270). The Pike is one of Montgomery County’s most traveled roads. Since World War II, the Pike has evolved from a two- lane country road to a major commuter and commercial thoroughfare. Even the small part of Route 355 that goes through Rockville is not subject to the City’s sole control; control over this thoroughfare is shared with the State and the County. At present, the Pike, carries 54,000 vehicles per day, which at critical times results in gridlock. Five of the principal intersections of the Pike within the City are rated “failing.” Of the six public schools within the Richard Montgomery Cluster within the City the enrollment of five already exceeds more than 110 percent of capacity and within the next five years this figure will increase so that attendance of one school will exceed 155 percent. Graphs of the current and projected school populations of the Richard Montgomery Cluster compiled by the Board of Education are appended to this Statement.
SUMMARY OF WECA’S CRITICISM OF THE PIKE PLAN In addition to our general criticisms discussed below, the Pike Plan is fatally flawed for three reasons: (1) it is based on the illusion that Rockville’s partial control of a small section of State Route 355 can convert the Pike into a “grand boulevard” that would benefit the residents of Rockville; (2) the Form Code created by the Plan would gut Rockville Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The APFO was designed to assure that all development within the City fits within its infrastructure; and (3) by ceding effective control over development projects to the City’s Chief of Planning, it creates, in effect, a planning czar, and by creating a power broker called the “Town Architect,” the Plan would destroy Rockville’s residents’ ability to become truly involved in the governance of the City, contrary to the recommendations of the City’s Communications Task Force. DISCUSSION We note at the outset that the Plan, which obviously is the product of much thought, attempts to address the traffic problems now present along the Pike. For example, the Plan recognizes that traffic congestion along the Pike is close to saturation at certain times of the day; the area lacks a connected street network; safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists is inadequate; and that the streetscape along the Pike needs improvement to enhance the attractiveness and accessibility of the Pike’s stores and restaurants. That said, the Plan’s recommendations threaten to destroy the civic development that residents demanded when, in 1996, hundreds of City residents participated in a “visioning” process that resulted in the creation of Town Center Action Team. In response to residents’ suggestions, TCAT envisioned a new mixed-use area in the Town Center with moderate density that would be built around a new state-of-the-art public library fronting on a communal plaza. This area would feature small stores, restaurants and a grocery. The library, the residencies, stores, and public garages were built, along with the plaza, but many of the stores and restaurants have been struggling; the grocery has yet to appear.
Furthermore, the Plan contains other critical omissions. First, it fails to recognize that two large, strategically- located parcels adjacent the Town Center remain undeveloped. The first is the 3.14-acre Duball tract facing the Regal Cinemas. The Duball tract represents a developer’s vision of a combination of high-rise buildings that would house a hotel, offices, and condominiums. Although this Commission has granted extensions of time to the developer, this rosy Duball project remains a parking lot. The other tract is the Town Center Phase II tract, located on a 17-acre triangular parcel north of Beall Avenue. It includes the old Giant supermarket site (3.07 acres), and the Bank of America parcel (2.14 acres). Not only is this tract undeveloped, it is a major eyesore. Rather than satisfy the demands of developers to promote and enable massive development of the Pike south of the City center, we believe that the City might consider examining the development of these two areas within the City’s Town Center and to make them more accessible and welcoming to travelers on the Pike. Rockville has already made a major investment in creating the Town Center, and in particular its garages, all of which represent a continual burden on the City’s taxpayers. The interests of residents of the West End, along with other Rockville residents would not be served by promoting the kind of large-scale development along the Pike envisioned by this Plan.
Furthermore, the Plan fails to contain an implementation plan, which would include the time line and stages of implementation and – most importantly – an explanation of how it would be financed. Any plan for the Rockville Pike must show how the contemplated improvements will be paid for. Both money and cooperation must come from the State and the County. We note that their testimony to this Commission submitted on April 13, 2011, at the request of the Mayor and Council, Rockville Economic Development, Incorporated, identified the total absence of an economic analysis of the proposed plan. We concur that the benefits and costs to all participants -- city residents, developers and owners of land along the Pike -- need to be identified and put forward for comment before further consideration is given to the plan. Without a sound analysis no one can know whether the proposed plan is sound or just a fantasy that will have adverse consequences for the City. Rockville’s citizens should not be asked to support an ambitious undertaking without understanding the financial burden they are being asked to assume.
We now explain the principal failings of the Pike Plan.
1. The Plan’s vision of converting the 2.2-mile portion of Route 355 that lies south of the City center into “grand boulevard” is illusory and would be detrimental of the interests of the City’s residents. – At the outset, none of the six thoroughfares to which the Plan refers is remotely comparable to the Rockville Pike because none of them serve as commuter roads as does the Pike. Only by recourse to an incredible stretch of one’s imagination can the Rockville Pike be compared to the Champs-Elysees in Paris or the Paseo de Gracia in Barcelona. The Champs was built in the mid-nineteenth century when Napoleon III hired Baron Haussmann to raze about 60 percent of medieval Paris to create a network of broad boulevards. The Paseo, likewise built in the mid- nineteenth century, is the most expensive street in Spain. The Esplanade in Chico, California, which is located on the edge of the Sacramento Valley, one of the world’s largest and most productive agriculture areas, is not comparable to Rockville. Finally, neither the two Brooklyn streets to which the Plan refers, Ocean Parkway and Eastern Parkway, nor K Street in downtown Washington compares with the Pike, because, like the Champs, the Paseo, and the Esplanade they are neither major commuter routes, nor do they border their communities’ major residential neighborhoods. For example, shopping in the Brooklyn neighborhoods is done at local stores almost completely by foot, not by automobile as in Rockville. For major purchases Brooklynites shop in “the City” – Manhattan -- almost exclusively by subway, just the way the Brooklyn’s residents commute to the City’s financial and commercial districts. 2. The Plan’s idea of discarding Rockville’s current zoning by allowing a higher level of density along this section of the Pike violates the policies that are embodied in the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and would not produce revenue for Rockville. – The City adopted the APFO expressly to require that any development must not exceed the City’s infrastructure, especially its road and school capacity. For that reason, the court in Anselmo v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville (Ct. Sp. App., Aug. 25, 2010), by invalidating the City’s issuance of a use permit for the construction of a low and moderate-income project adjacent to the Town Center, explicitly recognized that the APFO represented an important planning tool that the City was bound to obey.
Developers have always considered the APFO as a thorn in their side. They refuse to recognize that the City enacted this ordinance in order to limit development within the City to the capacity of its infrastructure for the simple reason that the City’s residents have determined that development must be responsible and not destroy their way of life and their property values and, most importantly, the quality of education for their children. The City does not control school construction, the County does. Accordingly, any major development in Rockville depends on decisions by the County. Rockville would be ill advised to authorize major projects upon the hope that the County might later satisfy Rockville’s demand for schools. This is especially important now that the County is experiencing a severe financial crisis.
Developers and owners of properties located along the Pike who spoke at the hearing were united in their opposition to the APFO. In taking this position, they effectively said that they do not support adequate school facilities for new or current residents. We would hope to have more enlightened developers who would join Rockville’s residents in preserving educational standards and creating an infrastructure that supports new residents, not high-density development that degrades the quality of life in Rockville. The APFO must be preserved.
The Plan fails for the additional reason that most of the contemplated revenues from the proposed development along the Pike would accrue to the State and the County, not Rockville. In 1989, the Mayor and Council adopted a Rockville Pike Plan that encouraged moderate development along the Pike under strict development guidelines. The proposed Pike Plan would discard the old plan and substitute, instead, a dense commercial development with a residential component that copies the kind of major development at Crystal City and Rosslyn that mars Northern Virginia.
The Plan fails for the additional reason that it would not produce additional revenue for the City. As former Mayor and Councilmember, Jim Coyle, pointed out in his testimony to this Commission on March 16, in 1989 the Mayor and Council passed a Rockville Pike Plan that was designed to allow reasonable development under a set of guidelines. The 1989 Plan reduced building height allowances and rejected proposals for uncontrolled density. This Plan reflected residents’ concerns that increased density coupled with an expanded transportation network would threaten neighborhoods near the Pike and create even more congestion. WECA, along with Rockville’s other residents, do not favor creating the kind of intense development that is now planned for White Flint and North Bethesda. In his testimony, Mr. Coyle showed that the proposed Plan would consume an increasingly significant portion of the City’s tax base and cause major unreimbursed costs to the City – all of which would threaten its residential character.
The plain fact is, as Mr. Coyle showed, that the contemplated sales tax revenues from the proposed development along the Pike would go to the State, not the City. In fact, the State and the County receive five times the revenues from development than does Rockville. See Pike Plan: Model Sites Program Summary Analysis: Table 8.13. To make matters worse most of the residual costs from the redeveloped Pike would fall on Rockville’s residents. The Pike Plan’s expansion would create monumental increased costs in associated infrastructure – for the environment, public safety, code enforcement, planning, lost retail revenue in the Town Center – and these costs would be bourne by Rockville’s residents.
3. The Plan’s scheme to delegate project approval to the Chief City Planner and a newly-created official called the “Town Architect” would contravene the suggestions for additional civic involvement by the Communications Task Force. – The Pike Plan, in the Proposed Form Code, implementation section, recommends “streamlining the development approval process,” by establishing the position of Town Architect. The Plan seeks to accomplish this “streamlining” process by allowing projects to be approved by the Chief of Planning, upon the recommendation of the Town Architect and a Development Review Committee. In effect, the Plan would vest in City staff members the power to approve all developments along the Pike, eliminating the roles of this Commission, the Board of Appeals, and the Mayor and Council. This would contravene the recommendations of Communications Task Force that sought to ensure citizen participation in the City’s governance, not to remove them from the decision-making process. The Form Code is objectionable on the additional ground that it converts the City’s zoning ordinance from a standard to a mere guidance document under which the Chief of Planning needs only to consider, subjectively, when a development application meets with his interpretation of the “intent” of the code.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, WECA urges that this Commission should reject the recommendations of the Pike Plan in their present form. Respectfully submitted, WEST END CITIZENS ASSOCIATION By ______Jacques B. Gelin, Corresponding Secretary May 28, 2011 Testimony Provided by Kevin Zaletsky
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kevin Zaletsky To: APFO Committee Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:40 PM Subject: Effect of New Development on School EnrollmentTo the members of the APFO Committee:
In response to your request on May 26th, I am forwarding the attached email summarizing my analysis of the effect of new development on Beall Elementary School. This analysis was done as part of a broader communication to the Planning Commission last year during discussions on the Master Growth Element (MGE), a document intended to provide overarching guidance for the city's policy on growth. In the first draft of the MGE, the city staff, citing arguments from the county, somewhat perplexingly reasoned that population growth and development in Rockville had little or no impact on increases in school enrollment. Confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary from the community, the Planning Commission directed the staff to revise the MGE.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Your careful consideration of these important matters is greatly appreciated. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Kevin Zaletsky Rockville, MD
From: Kevin Zaletsky To: Planning Commission; Bridget Newton CC: [email protected] Subject: Municipal Growth Element Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:08:17 -0400
To the members of the Planning Commission:
The following is submitted for your consideration and inclusion in the public record:
I live in the Richard Montgomery School Cluster, and like a rapidly growing number of residents in my neighborhood, I am gravely concerned about the severe overcrowding of our public schools and the apparent reluctance of our city to address or even to acknowledge any responsibility for this issue. I watched both the June 9th and June 23rd Planning Commission meetings regarding the Municipal Growth Element (MGE) with great interest and was shocked when I read the City's draft of the MGE.
I was particularly disturbed to read the language in the MGE suggesting that population growth in Rockville is not linked to the demand on schools. Specifically, the MGE states, "..there is not a tight link between the growth in Rockville's population and the need for school facilities within Rockville." [Municipal Growth Element Draft pg. 19]. The MGE offers three somewhat tenuous justifications for this assertion. The first two deal with students who leave the city or come from outside the city to attend school (which must, to some degree, cancel each other out), and the third cites the fact that some students within Rockville attend private schools. These factors, even when taken together, are no doubt a small fraction of Rockville's student population and are also very much quantifiable and predictable. To use these factors as a justification to completely avoid discussing the obvious link between growth of the city and school impact is intellectually dishonest. It should be noted that not one piece of statistical evidence is offered in the MGE to support these assertions.
Along the same line of argument, in the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting, the city staff and MCPS contended that new development has a minimal impact on school demand. Not only does this argument defy common sense, but it is not supported by MCPS's own data. To illustrate my point, I will use the example of Beall Elementary from my own neighborhood. The student enrollments at Beall Elementary School from MCPS's most recent projections in October 2009 for the next six years are as follows:
2010-2011 658 2011-2012 656 2012-2013 674 2013-2014 680 2014-2015 654 2015-2016 647
It is easy to calculate that the mean enrollment change for Beall Elementary from year to year is 11.8 students. This includes all the variations expected to be generated by fluctuations in existing housing and other demographic changes. City staff suggested that existing housing and demographic changes--not development--account for the bulk of the change in enrollment numbers from year to year.
In previous email correspondences with MCPS demographer Bruce Crispell, he provided the student generation rates from approved but unbuilt pipeline projects serviced by Beall Elementary as follows:
Chestnut Lodge 10 Duball 20 KSI 15 Beall's Grant II 10
For a total of 55 students expected to be generated by known new development. For the sake of argument, I will assume that these student generation rates are accurate, although, as aptly noted by the Planning Commission during the hearings, it is likely that they are grossly underestimated. This number also does not include the several other projects in the pipeline that have not yet been approved.
It becomes mathematically indisputable that new development is the most significant factor in enrollment growth. If added in one year, those 55 students account for more than 4 times the mean yearly enrollment change. Even when spread out equally over the six years (9.2 students per year), these 55 students would still account for close to 75% of the mean enrollment increase each year. The ground truth of this issue was succinctly stated in the June 9th meeting by community PTA and Cluster Coordinators who empirically demonstrated the impact unfettered growth is having on our public schools. Fortunately for Rockville, new development is the one factor in this equation that the city does exercise some control over--that is, if they chose to do so instead of allocating time and taxpayer resources to neuter our Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
There is no question that school overcrowding in Rockville is a dire concern and prominent public issue. To suggest that this is simply a perpetual condition that we must learn to live with is a disservice to our citizens and children and an abrogation of public responsibility. It is difficult to understand why, in a policy document that is singularly devoted to discussing the impacts of growth on our city, the bulk of the section on schools is spent attempting to obscure and minimize the effects of growth on school demand instead of highlighting the gravity of our current and future enrollment numbers.
This is a very dangerous and irresponsible tact for a document that is supposed to be guiding our public policy.
I would urge the Planning Commission to take a serious, common sense look at the MGE and to create a section on schools that reflects not only the reality of the school situation, but the sentiment and concerns of our citizens.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter.
Kevin Zaletsky 101 North Street Rockville, MD 20850
2nd Testimony Provided by Kevin Zaletsky
The attached letter is submitted for your consideration.
August 7, 2011
To the members of the APFO Committee,
I was fortunate enough to attend your meeting last Thursday, August 4th during which you considered your recommendations regarding the schools tests in the APFO/APFS. Like myself, there are many citizens watching the recommendations of your committee very closely who are deeply concerned about the impact that changes in the APFO/APFS will have on the quality of life in our schools.
While there were many issues discussed that are worthy of comment, I would specifically like to address the prospect of raising the school capacity limit from 110% to 120%.
This action (whether or not it is actually able to be attached to some sort of facility fee) will ultimately result in two certain consequences:
1. Our schools will hover perpetually near or over 120% capacity 2. Eventually, we will raise this number again
First, I will point out that no one on the committee believed that 120% capacity was good for our schools. It equates to more than 100 additional students in a facility built for 500 and all the related stresses on classrooms, core capacity and other resources that have been well documented throughout your deliberations. It should be noted that MCPS themselves cite 80%-100% as the peak efficiency range for school capacity. Schools at 120% will mean classroom trailers, angry parents, cheated students and crowded cafeterias, libraries and gymnasiums as the new norm for a Rockville education. This is a sad failure of public policy.
1. Our schools will hover perpetually near or over 120% capacity The justification by some members of your committee for supporting the change to 120% was the contention that MCPS's decision of whether or not to build a new school in a cluster was based either solely or in large part on whether the construction of a school would remove that cluster from a building moratorium. Presumably, tax revenue from new development would offset some of the cost of building the school, making the construction of that school a more attractive financial decision for MCPS.
While such financial considerations may indeed factor into these decisions, there are other significant factors that do as well. MCPS, for example, is mandated by policy to conduct feasibility studies and take other actions when specific capacity triggers are exceeded. Significant public and political pressures are also brought to bear on these issues.
Regardless of whether or not we believe that tinkering with our policies will significantly sway the county's building decisions, by raising our capacity limit to 120%, we are resigning ourselves to the fact that our schools will forever exist in a grossly overcrowded state. Regardless of the school capacity that is built, in the long run, our development approvals will always rapidly surge our student populations to the limits we set and beyond while we wait for county dollars to slowly catch up. Voting for a 120% capacity limit is a vote for the perpetual overcrowding of our schools.
2. We will raise this number again. There is an old adage about a wealthy old man who asks a young woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. After some short thought she agrees. He then asks her if she would sleep with him for 10 bucks. "Do you think I'm a whore?" she responds angrily. "We already established that," the old man replies. "I thought we were just haggling about the price."
When the APFO was originally drafted, the City purposefully set our school capacity limit at 110% by school, as opposed to the county's 120% by cluster, because our citizens believed that this was the very edge of the standard of acceptability that we would tolerate for our children. In all the debate over the APFO, no one has ever suggested that our schools aren't objectively overcrowded and negatively impacted at 110% capacity (remember, 100% is standing room only!). If we now choose to raise that limit to 120%, we are crossing our own line in the sand and effectively saying that we are making a political decision, not setting a tangible standard based on any ground truth. This is a slippery slope. Once we do this, our standards become baseless, and we have no justification not to raise our limit again when pressed by MCPS. We become the young woman--just haggling over the price. What reasoning can we then put forth not to go to 130%, 140%, 150%? I assert that a reaffirmation of the fundamental principles of Rockville's APFO/APFS, including our 110% capacity limit, would send a strong signal to the county and MCPS that our standards are non-negotiable and here to stay. The county is far too hungry to develop in Rockville not to build more classrooms. They ultimately must, and will, provide the necessary school capacity regardless of our municipal APFS limits.
As your committee draws toward a close, I would like to thank you all for the time and energy you have devoted in service to the city. I urge each of you, however, to think carefully about the long term consequences your recommendations will have on the citizens of Rockville and their children for years to come. I hope, looking back, you will be proud of the decisions you made because they are based on the principles of our city and not on political expediencies.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Kevin Zaletsky 101 North St., Rockville Testimony Provided by Jack Leiderman
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jack Leiderman To: APFO Committee; Jim Wasilak Cc: Jack Leiderman Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:49 PM Subject: Letter: Please distribute to APFO Committee Dear Members of the APFO Committee,
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to attend your committee meeting of August 4. I appreciate the opportunity you gave me to speak to your committee earlier in the summer, and I would ask your indulgence one more time, by allowing me to submit the following comments for your consideration, in response to the issues raised at your last meeting.
There was much concern expressed regarding the question of whether grandfathered projects are taking up much-needed reserve capacity “in the queue.” The question arose as to whether or not it was the 25- year grandfathered residential developments that had generated the previously reserved student capacity in the Beall’s Grant II court case. You graciously allowed me to chime in from the sidelines, but unfortunately there was not sufficient time for me to complete my response to the question, which turns out to be a more complex question than it first appeared. Mr. Wasilak was technically correct when he pointed out that both KSI and Duball (which along with Chestnut Lodge were the pipeline projects in the case) are part of the larger Rockville Center “concept plan” that enjoys grandfathered status. But more pertinent to the discussion is the fact that neither KSI nor Duball operate under open-ended 25-year permits. Both projects have use permits with specific short-term expiration dates.
Mr. Wasilak pointed out that approvals for those grandfathered projects involve a two-step process – approval of the concept plan first, with later approval of the specific site plans. This is an important distinction because grandfathered projects that exist simply as “concept plans” do not have specific numbers of students associated with them and thus do not take up any reserved spaces in MCPS calculations. The reservation of capacity doesn’t occur until the point in the process when specific projects within the “concept plan” are granted time-limited use permits. When the “concept plan” for Rockville Center was approved and their APFO approvals were grandfathered (step one), it only gave those projects the right to be placed in the queue at whatever future point that the specific projects are actually granted use permits (step two). No student capacity was being reserved for KSI and Duball until the point in the planning process when specific use permits were granted.
In fact, both KSI and Duball are living on borrowed time. Their use permits were granted the final of two possible time extensions by the Planning Commission, on 12/16/09 for KSI and on 4/28/10 for Duball. The projects were granted an additional two years by the Mayor and Council under “tolling” legislation last spring. If the projects aren’t built soon, the use permits will expire and those reserved spaces will then be released for use by other developers. It is interesting to note that both projects would have expired by now (KSI on 12/7/10 and Duball on 5/23/11) and thus released their reserve capacity, had the Mayor and Council not granted the two-year “tolling” extension, after intense lobbying by the development community. I find it particularly puzzling that while your committee member Mr. Siegel was quite outspoken the other night about how grandfathered projects should not be allowed to sit on unused reserve capacity, it was Mr. Siegel himself who spoke passionately in favor of the tolling legislation at the public hearing on 5/24/10 before the Mayor and Council (you can watch Mr. Siegel’s testimony on the archived video on Channel 11). Were it not for the tolling legislation so effectively advocated by Mr. Siegel, the use permits for KSI and Duball would by now have expired and released their reserve capacity for use by other developers.
If and when the permits for KSI and Duball finally expire, any new site plans within the Rockville Center “concept plan” will require new use permits before school capacity is reserved. Remember, under the APFO, capacity is reserved at the time the use permit is granted - not afterwards, but also not before. The point is, there are no spaces “in the queue” being currently reserved for any grandfathered project that is simply at the “concept” phase, only for projects with current use permits. This distinction seemed to somehow get lost during the discussion.
Please allow me to comment as well on the proposed change from 110% of capacity (meaning 10% overcrowded) to 120% of capacity (20% overcrowded) as the new standard for school overcrowding. The idea that somehow the Maryland Attorney General’s opinion allows Rockville to levy fees that are destined to go into a general County school construction fund is contradicted by both facts and recent events. What Debra Daniel omitted in her memo on this subject was what happened in the intervening years since the Attorney General’s 2004 opinion. Apparently it was the view of the legislators in the Maryland General Assembly that while the Attorney General’s opinion allows municipalities to impose impact fees, it prohibited municipal jurisdictions from levying fees that could not be earmarked directly to the specific property being assessed; such fees would constitute an excise tax and levying such a tax is clearly outside the authority of municipalities under State law. In response to this prohibition, legislators actually proposed a bill in 2008 to grant municipalities such authority. However, that legislation failed! See the attached State of Maryland document, page 13.
This committee is being asked to believe that the City of Rockville has the authority to do something that it clearly cannot do. If municipalities like the City of Rockville already had such authority, legislators in the General Assembly would not have gone to the trouble to draft a bill and put it through committee process, in order to grant us that authority. Further, the attempt to grant such authority failed during the legislative process. It’s one thing to come up with one’s own “opinion,” but an opinion that is contradicted by the Attorney General and Maryland General Assembly simply won’t get very far. The committee may undermine its own credibility by asking the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, and the Mayor and Council to simply take on faith a somewhat dubious contrarian “opinion.” Further, it should be understood that any attempt by the City of Rockville to contravene the laws of the State of Maryland will fail in the inevitable court challenge. Certainly such a random “opinion” should not be relied upon as a basis for loosening the standard for school overcrowding from 110% of capacity to 120% of capacity. The other supposed rationale for weakening the standard to 120% (again, meaning 20% overcrowded) is based on the committee’s speculation as to the effect this proposed change will have on choices the County financial authorities make about new school construction. Who knows what happens in the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and politics involved in County financial decision-making? Who really has the insight or expertise to predict, much less influence, how the County decision makers might or might not respond to any given change in our ordinances?
So it appears that the proposal to weaken the APFO to 120% (and thus allow schools that are 20% overcrowded to be the new standard) is based on, first, flimsy and erroneous legal theorizing and second, on pure speculation about how the County might act in the future with regard to school construction. This is simply not a responsible approach to public policy.
What message would it send to recommend weakening the APFO and allowing schools to become more overcrowded? To the County, it says that Rockville will defer to a County APFO that the committee itself has discovered to be completely ineffectual. The County “standard” has allowed the schools outside Rockville to become so overcrowded that now there aren’t enough resources to go around. It should be the County that explains to the parents of Rockville why it can’t meet its obligations for quality education. The County would do better to have an APFO with some teeth, like Rockville’s, rather than for Rockville to move in the direction of the County’s failed APFO.
And what message will you send to the citizens and parents in our community, who are overwhelmingly concerned about school overcrowding. The difference between 110% of school capacity and 120% of capacity may seem theoretical at the moment, but in future years will make a very real impact at the level of a particular elementary school. An extra ten percent would overcrowd a typical elementary school with over fifty extra students, enough for two additional classrooms (or two additional portables covering the playground!). While some members of the committee have expressed hopelessness that schools will ever return to being (merely) at 110% of capacity, changing the threshold to 120% of capacity will most certainly guarantee that schools will forever be at 120% (20% overcrowded) or above. Regardless of your intent, a recommendation to weaken the APFO’s school standard to allow overcrowding at 120% of school capacity, at this crucial time, will be perceived, loud and clear, as an indication that the committee does not care about school overcrowding. Will that be the legacy of all your hard work?
Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Jack Leiderman Rockville, MD
Testimony Provided by Vicki McMullen
Testimony to APFO Committee June 2, 2011 Good evening, my name is Vicki McMullen and I have lived on North Street, in the West End, since 1975. I was around in the early days of the old Rockville Mall, and I was around during all those years when the Rockville Mall was a miserable failure. When it was being developed, it was said that all the surrounding areas were building enclosed shopping malls, and we couldn’t afford for Rockville to be left behind. So Rockville went ahead and demolished its unique downtown and built its new, sterile Mall. It literally crippled our downtown for decades. So when developers tell us today that we have to build what every other town is building so we’re not left behind, please forgive me if I don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Rockville is not White Flint, Bethesda, or Tyson’s Corner. And it shouldn’t be. Rockville has its own history and its own qualities that need to be respected. In Rockville we cherish our unique residential neighborhoods and our great schools. For a number of years, I was a teacher at what was then called West Rockville Elementary, it’s now Beall Elementary School. I know how we could end up failing our children if we stress our schools with overcrowding. Our Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is our way to collectively do our best to protect our quality of life. The APFO kicks in when things are verging on the point of spiraling out of control. It’s like the canary that coal miners take with them into the mines as the first warning sign of disaster; only a reckless fool would go down in the mines without one. I know that some folks are disappointed that the APFO is keeping their pet project from getting built. And some land speculators are unhappy because they imagine they’re sitting on a gold mine, but the APFO could make them have to wait before they can evict their small business tenants and build something that brings in the big bucks. But anyone who wants to lower our standards for school overcrowding or road congestion should tell us just how much overcrowding and gridlock the residents of Rockville should have to put up with so these guys can get their projects built. Should our children be forced to attend schools that are at 150% of capacity? 175%? 200%? How early in the day should our elementary school kids eat lunch? Ten a.m.? Nine-thirty a.m.? How long should a working person have to sit her car in traffic driving from Town Center to Congressional to run an errand? Twenty minutes? A half an hour? Rockville’s APFO should not be weakened, and it should not be turned into Swiss cheese with this loophole and that exception and yet another waiver. Our APFO is reasonable, sensible, and crucial to our quality of life. It’s doing exactly what we need it to do. Please – just leave it alone. Thank you. Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland 2011 Supplement
DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 2011
Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland
2011 Supplement
Department of Legislative Services Office of Policy Analysis Annapolis, Maryland
January 2011
i Primary Staff for This Report
Scott Kennedy
Other Staff Who Contributed to This Report
Hiram Burch Mindy McConville
For further information concerning this document contact:
Library and Information Services Office of Policy Analysis Department of Legislative Services 90 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Baltimore Area: 410-946-5400 • Washington Area: 301-970-5400 Other Areas: 1-800-492-7122, Extension 5400 TDD: 410-946-5401 • 301-970-5401 Maryland Relay Service: 1-800-735-2258 E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: http://mlis.state.md.us
The Department of Legislative Services does not discriminate on the basis of age, ancestry, color, creed, marital status, national origin, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability in the admission or access to its programs, services, or activities. The Department's Information Officer has been designated to coordinate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Section 35.107 of the Department of Justice Regulations. Requests for assistance should be directed to the Information Officer at the telephone numbers shown above.
ii DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Karl S. Aro Warren G. Deschenaux Executive Director Director xxxxxxxx
January 12, 2011
The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., President of the Senate The Honorable Michael E. Busch, Speaker of the House of Delegates Honorable Members of the General Assembly
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Managing growth continues to be a major issue confronting local governments in Maryland. In order to better manage growth, local governments have several tools which they may use including imposing development impact fees and building excise taxes to raise revenues to fund public facilities or by adopting adequate public facilities ordinances (APFOs) to ensure that the provision of public facilities is sufficient to meet the demands of a growing population.
In January 2008, the Department of Legislative Services prepared a report that reviewed the use of development impact fees and excise taxes among local governments in Maryland and in other states. The report also described how APFOs have been implemented in Maryland. A profile summarizing the uses and history of impact fees and excise taxes in each county that imposes such measures was also provided. The department prepared supplements in December 2008 and January 2010, to reflect updated impact fee/excise tax revenue collections and fee amounts/tax rates. The supplement also included a summary of county and State legislative changes to local development impact fees and excise taxes since the January 2008 report. This 2011 supplement further updates impact fee/excise tax revenue and rate information, providing revenue collections for fiscal 2010 and fee amounts/tax rates for fiscal 2011, and provides an updated summary of county and State legislative changes since the original January 2008 report. The supplement also discusses the distinction between impact fees and excise taxes imposed by Maryland counties.
iiiiii The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., President of the Senate The Honorable Michael E. Busch, Speaker of the House of Delegates Honorable Members of the General Assembly January 12, 2011 Page 2
The supplement was prepared by Scott Kennedy and reviewed by Hiram Burch. Mindy McConville prepared the manuscript. The Department of Legislative Services trusts that the study will be useful to members of the General Assembly and to other persons interested in matters relating to managing local growth in Maryland.
Sincerely,
Warren G. Deschenaux Director WGD/mlm cc: Mr. Karl S. Aro
iv
Contents
Chapter 1. Use of Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes in Maryland ...... 1 Exhibit 1: Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes ...... 2 Exhibit 2: County Development Impact Fees and Excise Tax Rates ...... 5 Exhibit 3: County Development Impact Fees and Excise Tax Revenues ...... 6 Exhibit 4: Governmental Uses of Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes ...... 7
Chapter 2. Local Government and State Legislative Actions ...... 9
Appendix 1. Impact Fees in Anne Arundel County ...... 15
Appendix 2. Excise Taxes in Calvert County ...... 17
Appendix 3. Excise Taxes in Caroline County ...... 19
Appendix 4. Impact Fees in Carroll County ...... 21
Appendix 5. Excise Taxes in Charles County ...... 23
Appendix 6. Excise Taxes in Dorchester County ...... 25
Appendix 7. Impact Fees and Excise Taxes in Frederick County ...... 27
Appendix 8. Impact Fees in Harford County...... 29
Appendix 9. Excise Taxes and Surcharge in Howard County ...... 31
Appendix 10. Impact Taxes in Montgomery County ...... 33
Appendix 11. Surcharges in Prince George’s County ...... 35
Appendix 12. Impact Fees in Queen Anne’s County ...... 37
Appendix 13. Impact Fees in St. Mary’s County ...... 39
Appendix 14. Impact Fees in Talbot County ...... 41
Appendix 15. Excise Taxes in Washington County ...... 43
Appendix 16. Impact Fees in Wicomico County ...... 45
v
vi
Chapter 1. Use of Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes in Maryland
Introduction
Development impact fees and building excise taxes enable local governments to collect revenue from builders for public facilities necessitated by new residential or commercial development. As a result of these development charges, local governments are able to shift the costs of financing new public facilities from existing taxpayers to individuals responsible for the development. In many situations, the use of such development charges may eliminate the need for jurisdiction-wide tax increases. Another benefit of development charges is that local officials can collect the needed revenue for the expansion or construction of new public facilities prior to the construction of any new residential development. In this manner, payment of an impact fee or excise tax may be required by local officials before the issuance of a building permit or approval of a subdivision plat.
For purposes of clarification, county development impact fees and building excise taxes, as referred to and identified in this supplement, are those charges generally termed development impact fees or building excise taxes, or a variation of those terms. Development impact fees and building excise taxes, as characterized in this supplement, however, do not necessarily encompass all charges that are imposed by counties on new development to help pay for new or expanded public facilities. Some jurisdictions, for example, impose water- and sewer-related charges affecting new development, such as connection charges or system development charges, that may serve a similar purpose as impact fees or excise taxes, generating revenue for costs associated with new or expanded facilities. In addition, though not focused on in the 2008 Managing Growth report or this or previous supplements, a number of municipal corporations impose impact fees or similar charges on new development.
Development impact fees and building excise taxes are imposed in 16 counties in Maryland, with one county imposing both an impact fee and an excise tax. Until recently, overall development impact fee and building excise tax revenues were, for the most part, increasing each year. From fiscal 1998 to 2007, county revenues from development impact fees and building excise taxes increased from $31.4 million to $129.1 million as shown in Exhibit 1. Due to the downturn in the real estate market, impact fee and excise tax revenues declined by 30% in fiscal 2008 to $90.7 million and by another 31% in fiscal 2009 to $62.4 million. In fiscal 2010, revenues increased to $79.4 million.
1 2 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland
Exhibit 1 Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes Maryland Counties Fiscal 1998-2010
$140 $129.1 $123.9 $120
$100 $90.7 $84.9 $79.4 $80 $62.4 $56.9 $58.0 $58.2 $60 $55.5 $49.1
$ in Millions in $ $46.7
$40 $31.4
$20
$0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: Maryland Association of Counties; Department of Legislative Services
Development Impact Fee/Excise Tax Distinction
The original 2008 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes in Maryland report defined impact fees as regulatory measures and described a distinction between impact fees and excise taxes based on principles stated in the 1990 Eastern Diversified v. Montgomery County Maryland Court of Appeals opinion and a 2004 Maryland Attorney General opinion. The report indicated that an impact fee must be designed to fund facilities specifically required by new development projects; there must be a reasonable connection between the amount of an impact fee and the actual cost of providing facilities to the property assessed; and the revenue from the fee must be dedicated to substantially benefit those properties. The report indicated that the amount of an excise tax, on the other hand, does not have to be closely related to the actual cost of providing public facilities to serve new development, and excise tax revenue does not have to be spent to specifically benefit the properties that are taxed.
Chapter 1. Use of Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes in Maryland 3
In both the Eastern Diversified and the Attorney General opinions, the impact fees in question were being evaluated with regard to whether they could validly be imposed under the jurisdictions’ regulatory authority. Maryland counties that impose impact fees, however, have specific authority granted by the General Assembly to impose the fees and it is not clear whether, or to what extent, the restrictions stated above apply to impact fees imposed under specific grants of authority.
The specific grants of authority by the General Assembly to code counties, as a group, and other individual counties, for the most part do not explicitly include a level of restrictions similar to those stated above, seeming to leave open a question of whether most counties authorized to impose impact fees are restricted in that manner when imposing the fees. The code counties’ authorization from the General Assembly, for example, states simply that a county “may fix, impose, and provide for the collection of development impact fees for financing, in whole or in part, the capital costs of additional or expanded public works, improvements and facilities required to accommodate new construction or development.” The General Assembly authorizations for most of the other counties authorized to impose impact fees use similar language.
A number of counties that impose development impact fees, however, indicate that they view themselves as subject to restrictions not explicitly stated in the General Assembly authorizations for the fees. Similarly, when asked about their understanding of the legal distinction between impact fees and excise taxes, a number of planning officials and county attorneys in Maryland counties that impose development impact fees and/or excise taxes indicated an understanding of the distinction between impact fees and excise taxes that was generally consistent with, or similar to, the distinction made in the 2008 Managing Growth report. The officials in general indicated that impact fees are based upon and used to mitigate the impact of a given development (or development within a certain area) on public facilities, while excise taxes are comparatively free of restrictions on their amount or use.
Therefore, whether or not they may have broader authority and discretion, the counties appear to generally seek to conform to the principle that the amount and use of impact fees be in some manner connected to the impact of the development paying the fee on public facilities. One county official also indicated that using a formula-based methodology to establish the basis for the county’s impact fees has the benefit of providing justification for what are substantial charges.
The extent of the authority the General Assembly has granted counties to impose impact fees may also not be the sole limitation on the counties’ discretion in implementing the fees. Legal challenges, for example, have also been brought against impact fees alleging that the fees amount to takings of private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The question of whether and how takings law applies to impact fees, and what restrictions it may impose on them, however, appears to be unresolved (see, for example, Michael B. Kent, Jr., Theoretical Tension and Doctrinal Discord: Analyzing Development Impact Fees as Takings, 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1833 (2010)).
4 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland
Local Rates and Revenues by County
Expected revenue collections for individual counties in fiscal 2010 range from approximately $130,000 in Caroline County to $17.8 million in Prince George’s County. On a per capita basis, revenue collections range from $4 in Caroline County to $43 in Calvert County with the statewide average (among counties that impose impact fees and/or excise taxes) at $20 per capita. Exhibit 2 shows the development impact fees and building excise tax rates applicable to single-family development for each county in fiscal 2009 through 2011. A more detailed listing of the fee amounts and tax rates for fiscal 2011 is provided in the appendices. Exhibit 3 shows the revenue collections for fiscal 2009 and 2010. Information for fiscal 2011 is not complete as of the publication of this supplement.
Governmental Uses
Public services funded by development impact fees and building excise taxes include public school construction, libraries, community colleges, transportation, public safety, parks and recreation, and utilities. In fiscal 2010, approximately 76.0% of development charges were targeted to education-related projects while 21.7% were targeted to transportation projects – the two leading governmental uses for these revenues. Education-related projects include funding for public schools, libraries, and community colleges. Exhibit 4 shows the governmental uses for both development impact fees and building excise taxes for fiscal 2010.
Chapter 1. Use of Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes in Maryland 5
Exhibit 2 County Development Impact Fees and Excise Tax Rates
Fee/Rate Per Dwelling1 County Type FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Anne Arundel2 Impact Fee $1,795 $3,590 $8,976 Calvert Excise Tax 12,950 12,950 12,950 Caroline3 Excise Tax 5,000 5,000 5,000 Carroll Impact Fee 6,836 6,836 6,836
Charles Excise Tax 11,598 12,625 12,097 Dorchester4 Excise Tax 3,671 3,671 3,671 Frederick5 Impact Fee/ Excise Tax 13,733 14,283 15,185 Harford Impact Fee 8,269 6,0006 6,000
Howard7 Excise Tax/ Surcharge See note See note $2.15/sq. ft. Montgomery8 Impact Tax 31,105 33,331 33,331 Prince George’s9 Surcharge 20,638 20,494 20,945 Queen Anne’s Impact Fee $4.05/sq. ft. $4.25/sq. ft. $4.36/sq. ft.
St. Mary’s Impact Fee 4,500 4,500 4,500 Talbot10 Impact Fee 5,684 5,957 6,113 Washington Excise Tax $3.00/sq. ft. $3.00/sq. ft. $3.00/sq. ft. Wicomico Impact Fee 5,231 5,231 5,231
1 Rates listed are generally those applicable to single-family detached dwellings and are per dwelling unless otherwise indicated. 2 Rates for a 1,500-1,999 square foot residential unit. These rates are those applicable in the second half of fiscal 2009, 2010, and 2011, the result of increases effective January 1 in each of those years. Residential rates vary by the square footage of a unit. 3 A $750 development excise tax for agricultural land preservation is also imposed on new lots created by subdivision in a “rural district.” 4 A slightly higher rate, $3,765 per dwelling, applies outside of the Cambridge and Hurlock areas. 5 The rates shown only reflect the public school and library impact fee total. The roads tax (unchanged for all three fiscal years) is $0.10/sq. ft. or $0.25/sq. ft. (depending on the square footage), with the first 700 square feet not taxed. 6 Effective December 4, 2009. 7 Fiscal 2011 amount represents roads tax of $0.99/sq. ft. and school surcharge of $1.16/sq. ft. In fiscal 2009 and 2010, the roads tax was $400 for the first 500 sq. ft. and $0.90 and $0.95, respectively, for sq. ft. in excess of 500 sq. ft. The school surcharge was $1.14/sq. ft. in fiscal 2009 and 2010. 8 Fiscal 2010 and 2011 amounts represent $11,411 for transportation and $21,920 for schools. Fiscal 2009 amount represents $10,649 for transportation and $20,456 for schools. The school excise tax is increased by $2 for each square foot between 3,500 and 8,500 gross square feet. Different transportation rates apply in the Metro Station and Clarksburg impact tax districts. 9 Fiscal 2011 amount represents $14,227 for school facilities and $6,718 for public safety. A lower school facilities rate ($8,299 in fiscal 2011) applies inside the beltway and a lower public safety rate ($2,240 in fiscal 2011) applies inside the “developed tier” as defined in the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. 10 A lower rate ($5,281 in fiscal 2011) applies to “in-town” development.
Source: Department of Legislative Services
6 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland
Exhibit 3 County Development Impact Fees and Excise Tax Revenues
FY 2009 FY 2010 Revenue County Actual1 Estimated2 Increase/Decrease % Change
Anne Arundel $5,319,888 $6,508,553 $1,188,665 22.3% Calvert 2,922,226 3,802,793 880,567 30.1% Caroline 107,808 129,574 21,766 20.2% Carroll 869,347 1,304,575 435,228 50.1%
Charles3 4,623,006 5,370,374 747,368 16.2% Dorchester 472,224 436,811 (35,413) -7.5% Frederick 7,570,953 8,681,461 1,110,508 14.7% Harford 2,436,848 3,499,446 1,062,598 43.6%
Howard 7,509,092 11,564,874 4,055,782 54.0% Montgomery 10,323,805 15,072,029 4,748,224 46.0% Prince George’s 14,592,417 17,849,427 3,257,010 22.3% Queen Anne’s 991,107 1,165,813 174,706 17.6%
St. Mary’s 1,867,455 1,941,566 74,111 4.0% Talbot 514,311 543,809 29,498 5.7% Washington 1,766,019 1,027,065 (738,954) -41.8% Wicomico 480,267 476,252 (4,015) -0.8%
Total $62,366,773 $79,374,422 $17,007,649 27.3%
1 Some of the fiscal 2009 revenue numbers have been updated/modified since the 2009 supplement was finalized.
2 Due to the timing of the survey from which the fiscal 2010 revenues were compiled, some counties identified their fiscal 2010 revenue numbers as unaudited or otherwise not final and numbers for other counties may also be unaudited or otherwise not final.
3 In Charles County, the excise tax is collected annually over a period of 10 years at level, amortized payments of principal and interest. The excise tax became effective in fiscal 2004 and revenues have been steadily increasing as annual payments from properties on which the tax was assessed in previous fiscal years continue to be collected while new developments begin payments each year.
Source: Department of Legislative Services
in Maryland Taxes Excise Feesand Impact Development Use of 1. Chapter
Exhibit 4 Governmental Uses of Development Impact Fees and Excise Taxes Fiscal 2010 Total Estimated Per Capita County Education Transportation Public Safety Recreation Other Revenues Revenues Allegany $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 Anne Arundel 1,470,223 4,863,836 174,494 0 0 6,508,553 12.49 Baltimore City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Baltimore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Calvert 1,737,249 1,361,359 0 589,366 114,818 3,802,792 42.63 Caroline 115,874 0 0 0 13,700 129,574 3.88 Carroll 1,185,583 0 0 118,992 0 1,304,575 7.67 Cecil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Charles 5,370,374 0 0 0 0 5,370,374 37.76 Dorchester 410,330 0 26,481 0 0 436,811 13.63
Frederick 7,620,207 1,061,254 0 0 8,681,461 38.08 Garrett 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Harford 3,499,446 0 0 0 0 3,499,446 14.43 Howard 5,905,301 5,659,573 0 0 0 11,564,874 41.03 Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Montgomery 11,473,071 3,598,958 0 0 0 15,072,029 15.51 Prince George’s 17,752,053 0 97,374 0 0 17,849,427 21.39 Queen Anne’s 852,201 0 195,879 117,733 0 1,165,813 24.31 St. Mary’s 1,528,050 191,966 0 221,550 0 1,941,566 18.85 Somerset 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Talbot 267,153 152,198 0 38,636 85,822 543,809 15.00 Washington 658,008 339,213 0 0 29,844 1,027,065 7.04 Wicomico 476,252 0 0 0 0 476,252 5.05 Worcester 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Total $60,321,375 $17,228,357 $494,228 $1,086,277 $244,184 $79,374,421 $19.97 Share of Total 76.0% 21.7% 0.6% 1.4% 0.3% 100.0%
7
Source: Department of Legislative Services
8 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland 8
Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland Taxes Excise Building Feesand Impact Development Use of The Growth: Managing
Chapter 2. Local Government and State Legislative Actions
Local Government Actions
Since the publishing of the 2008 Managing Growth report, Anne Arundel and Washington counties have made notable changes to the structure of their impact fee and building excise tax ordinances. Harford County reduced its public school development impact fee to provide an economic stimulus for the local housing market and made an earlier revision to a fee exemption. The Washington County Commissioners also adopted a temporary residential construction stimulus plan allowing for reductions in excise taxes and a temporary job attraction and creation program allowing for certain businesses to pay excise taxes over three years. St. Mary’s, Montgomery, and Frederick counties also made changes described below.
Anne Arundel County
After lengthy consideration of a change to Anne Arundel County’s impact fees, to better account for the costs of new development, the county enacted an ordinance in 2008 that, among other things, initially lowered both the residential and nonresidential impact fees for 2009 but increased them in 2010 and 2011 to eventually be, on average, noticeably higher than they were in 2008. The ordinance restructured the fees for residential development to be imposed at different rates depending on the total square footage of the finished area of a residential unit. The ordinance also removed a provision that made refunds of impact fees available if the fees were not utilized within six years. The ordinance also specifies exemptions for low-to-moderate income housing constructed by, or under a program sponsored by, a nonprofit entity in existence for at least three years and assisted living facilities, hospice facilities, hospitals, and nursing homes that will be owned and operated by a nonprofit entity in existence for at least three years. The General Assembly approved legislation at the 2008 session (Chapter 509) that authorized the county to grant exemptions for nonprofit development.
Anne Arundel County also adopted a new transportation impact fee district map in 2009 that creates a smaller district around Arundel Mills, ensuring that impact fees collected in that area, including any fees collected from development of a video lottery facility, are used for projects in the area.
Harford County
Effective December 4, 2009, the Harford County public school development impact fees were each reduced from $8,269 for a single-family detached home, $5,720 for a townhouse/duplex, and $1,637 for all other residential dwellings to $6,000, $4,200, and $1,200, respectively, returning the fee amounts to those applicable in fiscal 2006, when the fees were first imposed. The reduction was enacted as emergency legislation “necessary to protect the welfare of the citizens by reducing the Public School Development Impact Fee during the current economic recession to provide an economic stimulus for the local housing market[.]” 9 10 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland
In 2008, Harford County revised an exemption from payment of the public school development impact fee for redevelopment, reconstruction, or replacement of structures, establishing more specific criteria for the exemption.
Washington County
As mentioned in the 2008 Managing Growth report, legislation adopted at the 2007 session (Chapter 277) required the Washington County Commissioners to appoint a task force to study and make recommendations concerning the excise tax rates and structure for residential development. The task force undertook an expanded scope of study at the direction of the county commissioners, addressing the entire building excise tax ordinance. Task force recommendations included eliminating the matrix of per square foot tax rates for nonresidential construction in favor of a flat rate and basing the tax rate for residential construction on square footage rather than dwelling units.
During the 2008 session, the General Assembly approved legislation (Chapter 533) that modified the county’s authority to impose a building excise tax. The county commissioners subsequently repealed and reenacted the county’s building excise tax ordinance citing changes in conditions, developments since the original adoption of the ordinance (in 2003), and changes in the authorizing legislation (Chapter 533), as making it necessary to update the ordinance. The new ordinance establishes a base building excise tax for residential construction of $3 per square foot of habitable gross square footage. The rate for residential addition construction is one-half that amount. Similar to the old ordinance, in a single subdivision or development for which 25 building permits for new residential dwelling units have been issued in a fiscal year, in specified instances, the building excise tax is doubled for the twenty-sixth or any subsequent units that a building permit is applied for in the same fiscal year.
The new ordinance establishes flat rates of $3 per square foot for nonresidential, retail construction and $1 per square foot for nonresidential, nonretail construction. These rates are also shown in Appendix 15.
In October 2009, the Washington County Commissioners approved a temporary residential construction stimulus plan that allowed for reductions in the excise tax, recordation tax, and permit fees applicable to specified residential construction. The commissioners also approved a temporary job attraction and creation program in December 2009 that, among other things, allowed for the excise tax on construction or expansion of a facility by certain businesses to be paid on a three-year payment plan beginning a year after the issuance of the building permit.
Other Changes
Modifications were made in September 2008 to the St. Mary’s County impact fee waiver/deferral program to reflect changes under Chapter 321 of 2006 to the State law
Chapter 2. Local Government and State Legislative Actions 11 authorization for the waivers/deferrals. The modifications to the program included making it a permanent program and increasing the number of waivers and deferrals that may be issued per CountyProfiles 2. Chapter fiscal year. In Montgomery County, as part of a revision to the county’s development district law, a credit against the transportation impact tax for the amount of a development district special tax, special assessment, fee, or charge paid was eliminated, effective January 2009. The county also made a number of other changes affecting transportation impact tax credits through two bills in late 2010. Lastly, following the enactment of Chapter 386 and 387 of 2008 (described below), Frederick County, in late 2010, established an impact fee exemption for specified affordable housing.
State Legislative Actions
At the 2008 session, the General Assembly approved several bills relating to development impact fees and building excise taxes including a statewide measure that authorizes local jurisdictions to waive or modify development fees for low-income housing units. Bills that affected Anne Arundel, Prince George’s, and Washington counties were also approved. The General Assembly did not approve legislation that would have enabled municipalities to impose building excise taxes. In 2009, a bill that would have increased the amount of impact fees Prince George’s County is authorized to impose for transportation projects was passed by the Senate, but was not acted on by the House. Prince George’s County does not currently utilize
the transportation impact fee authority.
Statewide Exemptions for Low-income Housing Units
Chapters 386 and 387 of 2008 authorize a county or municipality to waive or modify
building permit or development impact fees and charges that are not mandated under State law, for the construction or rehabilitation of lower-income housing units in order to support, foster, or promote an affordable housing program. The amount of the fees and charges that may be waived must be in proportion to the number of lower-income housing units of a development.
The lower-income housing units must be financed, in whole or in part, by public funding that requires mortgage restrictions or recorded covenants restricting the rental or sale of the 11 housing units to lower-income residents in accordance with specific government program requirements; or be developed by a nonprofit organization that has been exempt from federal taxation under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code for at least three years and requires the homebuyer to participate in the construction or rehabilitation of the housing unit.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) was required to report to the General Assembly by October 1, 2010, on the counties and municipalities that waived or modified permit or development fees; the number and type of housing units for which fees were waived or modified; and the amount of fees waived and collected in accordance with the enactment. The legislation terminates September 30, 2011.
12 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland
DHCD submitted the required report in October 2010, finding that fee waivers since the enactment of Chapters 386 and 387 had a meaningful impact on 15 projects in the State (consisting of 1,119 housing units), resulting in a total of $4.4 million in waived fees. The waivers were largely of fees other than the impact fees/excise taxes focused on in this report. The DHCD report recommended continuing local governments’ authority to provide fee waivers for lower-income housing.
Exemptions for Nonprofit Entities in Anne Arundel County
Chapter 509 of 2008 authorizes Anne Arundel County to grant exemptions from or credits against development impact fees for development by nonprofit entities that have been in existence for at least three years. The county council must adopt an ordinance that sets the amount of the exemptions or credits, establishes conditions of eligibility, and adopts application procedures.
Exemptions for Replacement Dwellings in Prince George’s County
Chapter 108 of 2008 provides that the Prince George’s County school facilities surcharge does not apply to a single-family dwelling unit to be built or subcontracted by an individual owner to replace, on the same lot, a previously existing single-family dwelling unit destroyed by fire, explosion, or a natural disaster. The new dwelling unit must be similar to the previously existing dwelling unit and owned and occupied by the same individual.
Modification to Building Excise Tax in Washington County
Chapter 533 of 2008 made several changes to the Washington County building excise tax with the most significant change being the modification to the building excise tax rate limits. In addition, a school capacity limit, which authorizes a higher building excise tax on specified residential subdivision development of more than 25 units in a school district that exceeds the limit, was adjusted from 85% to 90% of State rated school capacity. The county’s existing authorization to impose up to twice the building excise tax on residential units, in specified instances, was amended to apply specifically where 25 building permits have been issued by the county for new residential units in a single subdivision within a fiscal year. The exemption for the first 50,000 square feet of nonresidential additional construction was repealed along with an authorization for the county commissioners to waive building excise taxes for certain nonresidential building types or uses. An authorization for the county commissioners to provide for additional exemptions was also repealed. Finally, the building excise tax credit for workforce housing was eliminated.
Chapter 2. Local Government and State Legislative Actions 13
Authority for Municipalities to Impose Building Excise Taxes CountyProfiles 2. Chapter
Legislation was introduced at the 2008 session (Senate Bill 791/House Bill 663) that would have enabled a municipality to impose a building excise tax on any building construction within its jurisdiction and provide for tax credits against and exemptions from the building excise tax. The legislation received an unfavorable report from the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. The House Committee on Ways and Means did not take action on the bill.
Under the Maryland Constitution, a municipality must have the express authorization of the General Assembly before it may impose any type of new tax or fee. In an opinion from 2004, the Maryland Attorney General concluded that a municipality could impose an impact fee as a valid regulatory measure. However, to constitute a valid regulatory fee, the municipality would need to show a reasonable connection between the new development and infrastructure as well as a reasonable connection between use of the resulting revenues and benefit to the property assessed. Pursuant to this legislation, these conditions would not have to be met since the legislation authorizes the imposition of a building excise tax instead of an impact fee.
Increased Cap for Prince George’s County Impact Fee Proposed
Legislation was introduced at the 2009 session (Senate Bill 1043) that, as amended by the Senate, would have increased the limit on the amount of an impact fee that the Prince George’s
County Council is authorized to impose on single-family residences to finance transportation projects. The county council does not currently impose the impact fee. The current $1,000 per unit limit would have been increased to $3,000 per unit in the developed tier, as defined in the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan, and $5,000 per unit in the developing tier or the rural tier. Based on statements from two county sources at the time, the $1,000 per unit
limit was too low to, at least in certain cases, allow an equitable share of funding for transportation projects to be obtained from new development.
13
14 Managing Growth: The Use of Development Impact Fees and Building Excise Taxes in Maryland
Appendix 1
Impact Fees in Anne Arundel County Effective January 1, 2011 – June 30, 20111 Land Use Type Levy Transportation Schools Public Safety Total Residential Under 500 feet per unit $1,259 $1,903 $85 $3,247 500-999 feet per unit 2,065 3,502 138 5,705 1,000-1,499 feet per unit 2,681 4,802 180 7,663 1,500-1,999 feet per unit 3,111 5,657 208 8,976 2,000-2,499 feet per unit 3,433 6,296 229 9,958 2,500-2,999 feet per unit 3,682 6,807 246 10,735 3,000-3,499 feet per unit 3,872 7,232 259 11,363 3,500-3,999 feet per unit 4,050 7,596 271 11,917 4,000-4,499 feet per unit 4,211 7,915 282 12,408 4,500-4,999 feet per unit 4,355 8,197 291 12,843 5,000-5,499 feet per unit 4,479 8,452 299 13,230 15 5,500-5,999 feet per unit 4,583 8,683 307 13,573
6,000 feet and over per unit 4,637 8,791 310 13,738 Amusement, recreation, place of assembly per req’d parking space 886 0 35 921 Hotel/Motel per room 4,266 0 109 4,375 Industrial per 1,000 sq. ft. 3,680 0 136 3,816 Mini-warehouse per 1,000 sq. ft. 606 0 30 636 For-profit hospital per bed 4,801 0 144 4,945 For-profit nursing home per bed 1,068 0 117 1,185 Marinas per berth 1,210 0 43 1,253 Office space Less than 100,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. 5,951 0 290 6,276 100,000-199,999 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. 5,154 0 325 5,444 200,000 sq. ft. or more per 1,000 sq. ft. 4,589 0 266 4,855 Mercantile per 1,000 sq. ft. 6,200 0 827 7,027
1In recent fiscal years, Anne Arundel County’s impact fees have changed twice a year, at the beginning of the calendar year and the beginning of the fiscal year. Pursuant to an ordinance enacted in 2008, the rates have changed on January 1 of 2009, 2010, and 2011, phasing in an overall increase in rates. The fees, however, are also adjusted at the beginning of each fiscal year in accordance with changes in the 20-City Annual National Average Construction Cost Index from the Engineering News-Record.
Source: Anne Arundel County
Appendix 2
Excise Taxes in Calvert County Fiscal 2011
Land Use Type Levy Schools Recreation Roads Solid Waste Total Excise Tax
Single-family detached per unit $7,800 $1,300 $3,500 $350 $12,950 Single-family attached per unit 5,175 1,300 3,500 350 10,325 Manufactured home per unit 3,900 1,300 3,500 350 9,050 16
Apartment per unit 2,600 1,300 3,500 350 7,750 Bona fide elderly unit per unit N/A 1,300 3,500 350 5,150 Commercial, industrial, or institutional per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A 0.11 0.11
Source: Calvert County
Appendix 3
Excise Taxes in Caroline County Fiscal 2011
School Agricultural Land Use Type Levy Construction Land Preservation
Residential subdivision Single-family development (including mobile homes) per lot $5,000 N/A Other residential per unit per lot 5,000 N/A
Subdivision of land in a rural district per lot N/A 750
Source: Caroline County
17
Appendix 4
Impact Fees in Carroll County Fiscal 2011
Land Use Type Levy Impact Fee
Residential Single-family per unit $6,836 Townhouse per unit 7,610 Multifamily per unit 2,787 Mobile home per unit 3,599
Source: Carroll County
18
Appendix 5
Excise Taxes in Charles County Fiscal 2011
Land Use Type Levy Excise Tax
Single-family per unit $12,097 Townhouses per unit 11,473 Multifamily (including mobile homes) per unit 8,730
Source: Charles County
19
Appendix 6
Excise Taxes in Dorchester County Fiscal 2011 Cambridge/Hurlock Total Land Use Type Levy Schools Communication Systems Sheriff Excise Tax Residential Single-family per unit $3,555 $87 $29 $3,671 Multifamily per unit 2,510 72 22 2,604 Nonresidential Commercial/shop. ctr.* per sq. ft. 0.029-0.044 0.029-0.044 Office* per sq. ft. 0.047-0.057 0.047-0.057 Business park per sq. ft. 0.041 0.041
20 Manufacturing per sq. ft. 0.024 0.024
Warehousing per sq. ft. 0.017 0.017
Other Municipalities/Unincorporated Total Land Use Type Levy Schools Communication Systems Sheriff Excise Tax Residential Single-family per unit $3,555 $87 $123 $3,765 Multifamily per unit 2,510 72 108 2,690 Nonresidential Commercial/shop. ctr.* per sq. ft. 0.029-0.044 0.502-0.725 0.531-0.769 Office* per sq. ft. 0.047-0.057 0.085-0.333 0.242-0.390 Business park per sq. ft. 0.041 0.188 0.229 Manufacturing per sq. ft. 0.024 0.056 0.080 Warehousing per sq. ft. 0.017 0.073 0.090
* Rates vary according to the total square footage of the development.
Note: Additional rates exist for day care, hospital, light industrial, lodging, medical/dental office building, mini-warehouse, and nursing home land uses.
Source: Dorchester County
Appendix 7
Impact Fees and Excise Taxes in Frederick County Fiscal 2011
Impact Fees Total Land Use Type Levy Public School Library Impact Fee
Single-family detached per unit $14,426 $759 $15,185 Townhouse/duplex per unit 12,380 709 13,089 All other residential (including manufactured homes) per unit 2,368 477 2,845
Excise Taxes Land Use Type Levy Tax
Residential* First 700 gross sq. ft. per sq. ft. $0.00 701 sq. ft.-1,400 sq. ft. per sq. ft. 0.10 In excess of 1,400 sq. ft. per sq. ft. 0.25 Nonresidential per sq. ft. 0.75
* Any gross square footage of multifamily residential construction not within a dwelling unit is allocated on a pro rata basis to each dwelling unit within the building.
Source: Frederick County
21
Appendix 8
Impact Fees in Harford County Fiscal 2011
Land Use Type Levy Impact Fee
Residential Single-family detached per unit $6,000 Townhouse/duplex per unit 4,200 All other residential (including mobile homes) per unit 1,200
Source: Harford County
22
Appendix 9
Excise Taxes and Surcharge in Howard County Fiscal 2011
School Transportation Facilities Land Use Type Levy Excise Tax Surcharge Total
Residential per sq. ft. $0.99 $1.16 $2.15 Office/retail per sq. ft. 0.99 0.00 0.99 Distribution/manufacturing per sq. ft. 0.50 0.00 0.50 Institutional/other per sq. ft. 0.50 0.00 0.50
Source: Howard County
23
Appendix 10
Impact Taxes in Montgomery County Fiscal 2011
1 2 Transportation Public Schools
Land Use Type Levy General Metro Station Clarksburg Countywide Residential Single-family detached per unit $11,411 $5,706 $17,116 $21,920 Single-family attached per unit 9,337 4,669 14,005 16,503 Multifamily residential (except high rise) per unit 7,261 3,630 10,891 10,431 High-rise residential per unit 5,186 2,593 7,781 4,422 Multifamily senior
24 residential per unit 2,075 1,037 3,112 0 Nonresidential Office per sq. ft. 10.40 5.20 12.50 N/A Industrial per sq. ft. 5.20 2.60 6.20 N/A Bioscience facility per sq. ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Retail per sq. ft. 9.30 4.65 11.20 N/A Place of worship per sq. ft. 0.55 0.30 0.75 N/A Private elementary and secondary school per sq. ft. 0.85 0.40 1.10 N/A Hospital per sq. ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Social service provider per sq. ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Other nonresidential per sq. ft. 5.20 2.60 6.20 N/A
1The transportation impact tax is imposed on each property according to which of the three subcategories in which it is classified. 2The public school impact tax on any single-family detached or attached dwelling unit is increased by $2 for each square foot of gross floor area that exceeds 3,500 square feet, to a maximum of 8,500 square feet.
Source: Montgomery County
Appendix 11
Surcharges in Prince George’s County Fiscal 2011
Location of Development Levy School Facilities Public Safety
Outside of the Capital Beltway* per unit $14,227 $0 Inside of the Capital Beltway per unit 8,299 0 Outside of the developed tier per unit 0 6,718 Inside of the developed tier per unit 0 2,240
* The school facilities surcharge for certain developments that abut an existing or planned mass transit rail station site is $8,299.
Source: Prince George’s County
25
Appendix 12
Impact Fees in Queen Anne’s County Fiscal 2011
Public Parks and Total Land Use Type Levy Schools Fire/EMS Recreation Impact Fee Residential All residential per sq. ft. $3.56 $0.41 $0.39 $4.36 Nonresidential Commercial/shop. ctr.* per sq. ft. N/A 0.96-1.39 N/A 0.96-1.39 Office* per sq. ft. N/A 1.62-1.94 N/A 1.62-1.94 Business park per sq. ft. N/A 1.52 N/A 1.52 Light industrial per sq. ft. N/A 1.11 N/A 1.11 Warehousing per sq. ft. N/A 0.62 N/A 0.62 Institutional per sq. ft. N/A 0.38 N/A 0.38
*Rates vary according to the total square footage of the development.
Note: There is a 50% reduction on development impact fees imposed on nonresidential development within a designated growth area or within an incorporated municipality. The impact fees on all other nonresidential development are reduced by 25%.
EMS = Emergency Medical Services
Source: Queen Anne’s County
26
Appendix 13
Impact Fees in St. Mary’s County Fiscal 2011
Parks and Total Land Use Type Levy Schools Roads Recreation Impact Fee
Residential per unit $3,375 $450 $675 $4,500
Source: St. Mary’s County
27
Appendix 14
Impact Fees in Talbot County Fiscal 2011
Outside Municipalities Parks and Public Community General Total Land Use Type Levy Library Recreation Schools College Government Transportation Impact Fee Residential Single-family detached per unit $499 $966 $2,712 $106 $1,014 $816 $6,113 Other residential per unit 382 742 1,900 80 778 562 4,444 Nonresidential Commercial/shop. ctr.* per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.30-0.42 2.30-3.55 2.60-3.97 Office/Institutional* per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.49-0.62 1.06-1.79 1.55-2.41 Business park per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.45 1.02 1.47 Light industrial per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.35 0.54 0.89 Manufacturing per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.28 0.30 0.58 Warehousing per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.21 0.39 0.60 Inside Municipalities Parks and Public Community General Total Land Use Type Levy Library Recreation Schools College Government Transportation Impact Fee Residential Single-family detached per sq. ft. $511 $327 $2,712 $108 $807 $816 $5,281 Other residential per sq. ft. 384 246 1,900 81 606 561 3,778 Nonresidential Commercial/shop. ctr.* per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.21-0.28 2.29-3.55 2.50-3.83 Office/Institutional* per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.31-0.38 1.06-1.79 1.37-2.17 Business park per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.29 1.02 1.31 Light industrial per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.23 0.54 0.77 Manufacturing per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.16 0.30 0.46 Warehousing per sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.10 0.39 0.49
* Rates vary according to the total square footage of the development.
Source: Talbot County
28
Appendix 15
Excise Taxes in Washington County Fiscal 2011
Land Use Type Levy Excise Tax
Residential development (units 1-25) per sq. ft. $3.00
Residential Addition Construction per sq. ft. $1.50
Large residential development (over 25 units)* per sq. ft. $6.00
Nonresidential Nonretail Construction** per sq. ft. $1.00
Nonresidential Retail Construction** per sq. ft. $3.00
*Excise tax imposed beginning with the twenty-sixth unit under specified circumstances.
**The same rate applies to nonresidential addition construction.
Source: Washington County
29
Appendix 16
Impact Fees in Wicomico County Fiscal 2011
Land Use Type Levy Impact Fee
Single-family detached (including manufactured homes) per unit $5,231 Other residential per unit 1,524
Source: Wicomico County
30 Minority Report by Soo Lee-Cho
If the City is truly interested in addressing school overcrowding in the MCPS schools serving the City, it must do much more than simply stand behind its current school standard. Doing so has proven ineffective in preventing further overcrowding in Rockville schools during the last 6 years since the City’s enactment of the APFO.
Not everyone on the Committee may have been pleased with my efforts to bring to the table various representatives from the County. But considering the fact that the County holds the purse-strings re school construction, I believe the first step must be for the City to better understand what drives the County’s decision-making process relative to school construction funding and what the County is anticipating will occur in the coming years relative jobs/housing growth in the County that might impact Rockville.
Comments/Thoughts Re Information Received from County
The County’s utilization of its APFO to leverage infrastructure improvements and other facility benefits from private development appears to be more rigorous than the City. With regard to the County’s school standard, they collect a School Facilities Payment from developments choosing to move forward in a cluster that fall between 105%-120% program capacity at any grade level. The payment is calculated based on an estimated cost of physically creating a ‘seat’ for each student at each grade level generated by the project, which must then be applied/used within the affected cluster. This payment is in addition to the “school impact tax” which is collected from all residential developments (except senior housing) even where there is adequate program capacity.
Some might argue (including a few on the Committee) that ‘the monetary contribution amounts that can potentially be collected under the County’s APFO are wholly insufficient to cover the cost of new school construction and that making a contribution doesn’t equate to creating capacity. As such, unless development projects are able to help realize or provide actual school capacity, they should simply be stopped from moving forward until such time as the State, County and MCPS can all get their collective acts together and come up with the necessary funding to put the needed capacity in place.’
If all that is involved in the County’s approach is to allow development in order to collect contributions for school construction, I might have to agree. It would likely not be sufficient. But what we heard from the County is that the collection of impact taxes and facility payments is really one component of a much larger equation.
The front-end contributions collected by the County are not insubstantial by any means, but the back-end revenue derived year after year from these developments in the form of property taxes and income taxes is what ultimately funds necessary school construction as well as other infrastructure needs in the County. This point was made clear to the Committee in the presentation by M-NCPPC Planning Director. (Relevant portions of the presentation have been attached as Exhibit I to the Report.)
The reality appears to be that without new development to increase the tax base from which the County can derive increased revenue, the burden would fall squarely on existing residents to fund ongoing operating expenses, facility upgrades and modernizations of not only the County’s public schools, but maintenance and replacement costs of all other aging infrastructure. It is not hard to imagine that having such a tremendous burden placed on existing residents would likely result in people fleeing Montgomery County in droves.
Maintaining Current School Standard Brings No Real Benefit to the City
There are those that argue simply preventing new development will result in less overcrowding in the schools. But when evaluated more closely, we find that in fact preventing new development actually did not keep school capacities from far exceeding the City’s maximum levels. Enrollment figures in the City have only increased since the APFO’s enactment in 2005 and are expected to continue upward, even without any new residential projects approved in that timeframe. (See Appendix B, Richard Montgomery Cluster and Rockville Cluster). We can’t even blame so-called “unfettered development occurring just outside of Rockville” for the high capacity figures at schools with service areas that are entirely within Rockville, such as Beall Elementary and Meadow Hall Elementary.
The fact is that the days of the King Farm and Fallsgrove type developments are over. In the coming years, the more likely type of development proposals will be redevelopment of the strip centers on Rockville Pike into mid-to-high-rise mixed-use projects, which fall under the lowest of all the student generation rates.
Nonetheless, there are those that assert allowing no new development in the City until the County alleviates school overcrowding to levels below the City’s lower thresholds, would be better for the schools. But is that realistic to expect?
We all know that the City has no direct control over school construction funding. The County, on the other hand, holds all the cards with regard to school funding decisions and is struggling to balance a much larger countywide budget despite significantly reduced revenues. Under these circumstances, how can the County justify allocating more of its limited resources to Rockville so that levels of school overcrowding are alleviated below the City’s maximum threshold of 110% program capacity per school, when there are so many other clusters in the County in desperate need of allocations to get their capacity utilization below the County’s standard of 120% program capacity averaged by grade level within a cluster? They wouldn’t be able to.
Moreover, do those that advocate for sticking to the City’s current schools test standard really believe that when making resource allocation decisions, the County or MCPS would do so based on Rockville’s schools test? The most recent recommendations by the Superintendent for the FY 2013 Capital Budget and FY2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program prove otherwise. (See attached).
The recommendations only briefly allude to the fact that the City and County operate under different standards. But it appears that the County’s standard serves as the basis for the Superintendent’s recommendations. It is evident that when it comes to making decisions on issues that have a direct impact on the quality of the educational experience provided to students in Rockville schools, such as new facility funding, it is the County’s methodology that serves as the standard.
Superintendent’s Recommended FY 2013 Capital Budget and the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
By Montgomery County Charter, all CIP projects are considered with a full review by the County Executive and the County Council in odd-numbered fiscal years. As such, MCPS, Fiscal Year 2013 will entail this full review. For even numbered fiscal years, only amendments are considered where changes are needed in the second year of the six-year CIP.
MCPS is the largest school system in Maryland and continues to experience growth, with MCPS facing record enrollment of nearly 146,600 students for the 2011-2012 school year. This number represents an increase of over 8,800 students since 2007. MCPS is faced with a tremendous challenge of balancing the needs of overcrowded schools and aging facilities with the fiscal constraints and projected revenue shortfalls due to the current economic climate.
The County Council Adopted FY 2012 Capital Budget and the Amendments to the FY 2011–2016 CIP totaled $1.359 billion for the six-year period, a decrease of $26.97 million over the previously approved CIP, and included an FY 2012 expenditure of $221.3 million.
Below is a summary of the CIP for schools in clusters that include Rockville. Richard Montgomery Cluster: • The CIP recognizes that the elementary schools in the Richard Montgomery Cluster are, combined, at over 120 percent utilization; and that the middle school is expected to exceed 120% next year. By both the County and City standards, this numbers result in a moratorium on new housing (except senior housing).that will generate children. • The CIP supports the recommendation of a stand-alone elementary school, scheduled to open in August of 2015, on the former Hungerford Park Elementary School site, at 332 W. Edmonston Avenue. • Based on revised enrollment projections for Richard Montgomery clusters, the CIP recommends that the new elementary school will be sufficient to address the projected enrollments and therefore is not recommending additions to Ritchie Park, Beall and Twinbroook elementary schools. • A modernization project is scheduled for Twinbrook ES with a completion date of January 2021. FY 2016 expenditures are programmed for facility planning for a feasibility study to determine the scope and cost of the project. • Julius West Middle School enrollment is projected to exceed capacity by over 300 students by the end of the six-year CIP planning period (2017-2018). FY2014 expenditures are recommended for planning funds to begin the architectural design of a classroom addition. The scheduled completion date for the addition is August 2016. Rockville Cluster: • The CIP recommends collocating the Carl Sandburg Learning Center, a special learning school, currently at 451 Meadow Hall Drive, on the Maryvale elementary school site after the completion of Maryvale modernization, scheduled to be completed in August of 2018. The Board of Education will take action on this recommendation on Nov 17, 2011.
1
• Projections indicated enrollment at Meadow Hall ES will exceed capacity by four classrooms or more by the end of the six-year period. An FY 2013 appropriation is recommended for facility planning to determine the feasibility, scope and cost for classroom addition. A date for the addition will be considered in the future CIP and relocatable classrooms will be utilized until then. • Although Lucy V. Barnsley ES is outside City limits, Rockville students attend the school because of special programs offered at the school. Projections indicate that enrollment at Barnsley ES will exceed capacity by four or more classrooms by the end of the six-year period. An FY 2013 appropriation is recommended for facility planning to determine the feasibility, scope, and cost for a classroom addition. A date for the addition will be considered in the future CIP and relocatable classrooms will be utilized until additional capacity can be added. • Overall, the elementary schools in the Rockville Cluster are now at 120% utilization, and are projected to exceed 120% through 2016-2017. (Page 4-99 shows utilization as exceeding 120%, while the table on page 2-3 does not include Rockville Cluster elementary schools in that category.) Gaithersburg Cluster • Gaithersburg HS (Not in Rockville, but attended by Rockville students in the northern part of the city): A replacement facility is scheduled for this school. The scheduled completion data for the modernization of the facility is August 2013 with the restoration of the site scheduled for completion in August 2014. Walter Johnson Cluster: • Tilden MS (Not in Rockville, but attended by Rockville children): A modernization project, which was scheduled for this school with a completion date of August 2017, has been delayed by a year (August 2018) due to fiscal constraints. The plan is to renovate the current Tilden Holding Facility, to be used as Tilden Middle School. Tilden school is currently located in the Woodward facility on Old Georgetown Road. Thomas S. Wootton Cluster: • Wootton HS: A modernization project was scheduled for this school with completion date of August 2018. However due to fiscal constraints in the County, the completion date for this project has been delayed by one year to August 2019 for the site and August 2020 for restoration of the site. Wootton HS’s current utilization is 110%, with estimates of 108- 111% for the entire projection period. The two-year planning horizon required by the City’s APFO is 109%, which means that development of significant scale would likely place the cluster into moratorium.
Special Education Centers • The Rock Terrace School (Martins Lane) is a countywide school facility that had a facility assessment done in 2010-2011. FY13 funds are recommended for facility planning, which would potentially result in a future CIP recommendation for facility improvements. • The Carl Sandburg Learning Center (Meadow Hall Drive) is recommended for modernization in the context of collation with Maryvale ES (discussed above), with a scheduled move to the new facility in the fall of 2018.
2
Holding Facilities: • Broome Holding Facility. The Amended FY 2011–2016 CIP includes funds to reopen the former Broome Middle School facility located at 751 Twinbrook Parkway within the City, as a middle school holding facility for the county. This facility is currently owned by Montgomery County and will require significant modifications to support a middle school program. Tentative Schedule: October 28, 2011 Board released FY2013 Capital Budget November 2, 2011 Montgomery County Board of Education work session November 10 and 14, 2011 Public hearings November 17, 2011 The Board of Education takes final actions Late November 2011 County Council schedule a work/action session Mid-January 2012 County Executive publishes CIP recommendations Early February 2012 County Council hearings March and April 2012 County Council work sessions May 2012 Adopt the FY 2013 Capital Budget and the FY 2013-2018 CIP
The Public Hearing for the Richard Montgomery Cluster is scheduled for November 14, 2011 at 7 p.m. Action on Co-locating Carl Sandburg at Maryvale is also scheduled for the same day.
Recommendations: - Confirm with Richard Montgomery Cluster PTA leadership that they are aware that the additions to Ritchie Park, Beall and Twinbroook are no longer contemplated in the CIP; and that all capacity concerns at the elementary school level will be addressed through the proposed new elementary school at the location of the former Hungerford Park school. (The CIP does not discuss how decisions will be made regarding school boundaries for the new elementary school.)
- Strongly support the new elementary school and expedited planning for the addition to Julius West MS.
- Urge that Twinbrook modernization move earlier than 2021.
- Support a solution to the Rockville Elementary School cluster, as its total utilization exceeds 120%, with special focus on Meadow Hall ES (in Rockville) and Lucy Barnsley ES, which serves a significant number of Rockville students.
- Advocate for a response to the persistent over-capacity condition at Wootton HS.
- Continue to make a compelling case to our State leaders to increase construction funds and provide Montgomery County with its fair share of construction funds.
- Advocate for County funding to be provided at the levels recommended in the CIP for all projects in the Rockville clusters, so that they can be completed on schedule.
3
Minority Report by Eric Siegel
At present, there are approximately five projects in the City that are grandfathered upon passage of the APFO in 2005, which means that they have been deemed to have satisfied all of the APFS tests. These grandfathered projects include in excess of 1,000 potential residential units. At present, it is unclear whether any or all of these projects will go forward. Nonetheless, their vesting of compliance with the APFO prevents other projects from coming to fruition because they cannot obtain a place in queue for immediate or near-term development. Those grandfathered projects possess reserved school capacity, which does not expire.
One suggestion to address this impediment to development is to allow those seeking building permits in the near-term to effectively pay compensation (an amount of which would be determined by the market) to those commercial stakeholders with approved grandfathered projects who wish to sell their place in the development queue, including their reserved school capacity. In consideration for this payment, the grandfathered stakeholder defers proceeding with development until such time as school capacity is available; the grandfathered stakeholder does not lose previously-granted approvals by deferring development.
Another approach is to require each grandfathered stakeholder to submit on an annual basis a declaration of intent to develop the project. If the stakeholder commits to develop during the year but fail to honor that declaration, the stakeholder receives a "second chance" in the second year to declare his or her intention again. If the stakeholder commits to develop during the second year but fails to honor that declaration, at that point the grandfathered stakeholder is deferred in proceeding with development until such time as school capacity is available. This will allow immediate or near-term projects to proceed.
Minority Report by Roald Schrack
The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) was adopted by a 4 to 1 vote of the Mayor and Council on November 1, 2005. The purpose of the ordinance was “to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided concurrent with new development and redevelopment.” The mechanism developed to ensure adequate school facilities was the adoption of a threshold of 110% of school capacity would trigger a moratorium on residential construction. Unfortunately the ordinance has no provision in it restricting it to growth caused by new development or redevelopment.
The City of Rockville was founded 150 years ago but only started to grow to its present size in 1950. For the next twenty years the city grew at the rate of about 2000 new residents a year. After this early growth period, it grew more slowly and by 2005, 99.9% of available land had been occupied. By this time there were about 20 thousand housing units built. An APFO is generally considered useful during the growth period of a city. There was no apparent crisis that led to the suddenly perceived need for an APFO when the city was essentially completely built.
In about 1990 there was a radical shift in the demography of the city. What had been a relatively stable population, mostly White with about 10% Black suddenly began to include Asian and Hispanic residents. This change in demography had a marked effect on the student population both in ethnic composition and rate of growth. In addition to the natural birthrate, there is a very large turnover in population in Rockville because of the transient nature of some government associated jobs. The registered voter list shows that every year about 4000 adults come into the city and about 3000 leave. The leaving population releases about 1000 homes for resale every year, and many more are available due to the housing crash. The adults in the leaving group have an average age of 52, and the entering group has an average age of 40. Although there is no data on the number of children coming and going in the registered voter lists, the entering younger age group will almost certainly boost the child production rate. There will be a natural reduction each year in the elementary schools population as students graduating elementary school enter a middle school. The balance of new students and graduating students determines whether the elementary school population grows or diminishes.
Rockville elementary student body growth from 2006 to 2010 gives an idea how this balances out. Leaving aside the effects of the previous construction of Fallsgrove (Ritchie Park elementary), and the importation of programs into College Gardens elementary, the total student increase over this period was 315. That would include 55 expected new students from the construction of 846 units. Absent any increase from construction, the natural growth rate would be about 1.4% or 65 students per year while the growth from construction was 14 per year. Six projects were approved before the adoption of the APFO five years ago and have not been built yet. Theoretically, spaces for these students are reserved. Construction of the approved projects will depend on when financing becomes available and the market for them exists. If all the projects currently approved were built, it would add a total of 93 students spread over up to 20
years or however many years it takes to construct these 6 approved (grandfathered) projects. After the completion of the grandfathered units, the APFO imposed moratorium prohibits any further residential construction if student overcrowding is then over 110% -- but the study body will still grow, as before, from the natural factors that the APFO cannot control.
The schools section of the APFO should be completely dropped. It has not worked and cannot work as a mechanism of student body growth control. If the Threshold- Moratorium model cannot reduce the growth of the student population nor block the sale of used properties, why does it have so much support?
1) It has support from most people because they do not understand that the source of new students is not dependent on new housing construction. During the period 2006- 2010, 85% of the student growth was natural and uncontrolled. The number of available resale units is so large that sales of new construction units will always be a small fraction of the resale market.
2) There is a glut of single family homes available in Rockville. The market value of the average Rockville home has dropped 27% from its peak 2006 value. Many homeowners owe more than their home is now worth. Additional new residential properties on the market would further depress existing home prices and make it more difficult for the real estate industry to market the abundance of used homes.
3) Many people now see rental properties as more appropriate during difficult economic periods. Eleven per cent of single family homes are available on the rental market, but young people during a more mobile period of their lives, see apartments are more desirable than single family homes that require more capital and commitment. If more rental apartments are built, it will further reduce the demand for existing homes
4) Financial institutions are now wary of risking loans on anything, construction included. Many banks hold mortgages that are in trouble and are holding off foreclosures that would further depress the market.
5) A campaign was carried out to cause homeowners to fear that the construction of affordable housing in their neighborhood would reduce the property values on their homes. The APFO was used very effectively to deny the construction of this project called Beall’s Grant II. Fear of the construction of this project is still being used as justification for the retention of the APFO, even though the project may never be built. Although these fears may be unsupported by the facts, it is very difficult to ease these fears once developed.
6) Owners of projects that are grand fathered, and thus have the right to develop whenever they can get adequate financing within the next 20 years, find their properties have greater potential value because of the development rights and thus they may desire the retention of a moratorium that denies development rights to competitors.
Because of these multiple factors, the Threshold-Moratorium solution to school overcrowding has found popular support and political backing. As an advertised solution to school overcrowding, it is at best misleading and diverts attention from possible solutions. Several factors are probably required to reduce the political support for the Threshold-Moratorium model, they are: 1) a markedly improved housing market and general economy, 2) The development of all existing grand fathered projects, 3) a non-confrontational relationship between the city and the county that removes a political advantage from those supporting moratoriums.
The county is experiencing the same or greater growth as the city, but neither the city, nor the county has absorbed the concept that the student growth now experienced, is not dependent on new construction and not just a brief upswing. They have avoided building new schools by installing portable classrooms to house the new students. The county school system now has over 500 portable classrooms that house 9% of the school population. While the use of portable classrooms may not inhibit academic instruction it certainly imposes other restrictions on school operations and uses available playground space. The current course of action is not sustainable, and the time for temporizing is over.
If moratoriums can’t work what will? Up to now the school system has allocated about $250 million a year for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for school construction and upgrades. With current construction practices, this has not been adequate to keep up with the need. MCPS needs to focus on a more efficient and effective construction program and financial resources to provide adequate and affordable school facilities for all the students in Montgomery County. In addition, the City needs to maintain constant vigilance to assure that Rockville students consistently receive the resources in manpower and facilities they deserve. A great step in this direction was taken by the Mayor and Council on September 12 when a strategy was adopted to work cooperatively with the Montgomery County government to achieve needed school construction projects in the city. This program, if properly implemented will achieve what the confrontational approach of the APFO cannot achieve.