Agenda for Meeting 15-2010
CITY OF ROCKVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
David Hill, Chair
Jerry Callistein Sarah Medearis Kate Ostell Tracy Pakulniewicz Dion Trahan John Tyner
Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:00 p.m. Mayor and Council Chamber City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue
Bridget Donnell Newton, Council Liaison Jim Wasilak, AICP, Staff Liaison
Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Reports online: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-4
I. REVIEW AND ACTION A. Final Record Plat PLT2010-00502, John P. and Mary Lee Hancock – for approval of a plat to consolidate three lots into a single record lot of 10,359 square feet to be known as Lot 49, Block 5 of the Rockville Park subdivision, in the R-60 Zone at 732 Grandin Avenue. Planner: Margaret Hall, 240-314-8226
B. Level 2 Site Plan STP2011-00048, Michael Harris Homes | Attachments: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-9 - For approval of modified home designs in the Chestnut Lodge development, in the PD-CL Zone on Bullard Circle. Planner: Nicole Walters, 240-314-8215
C. Preliminary Subdivision Plan PLT2009-00498, Victory Housing, Inc. – For approval of the resubdivision of Block 2 of the Rockville Heights subdivision into 7 lots and 2 outlots in the MXT Zone, for property bounded by Maryland Avenue, Fleet Street, Monroe Street and the abandoned right-of-way for Mt. Vernon Place. Planner: Cas Chasten, 240-314-8223 II. RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL A. Municipal Growth Element | Memo and Resolution | Revised Draft of Municipal Growth Element (2MB) – for approval of a resolution to recommend to the Mayor and Council a new element of the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan, containing recommendations on future growth and related impacts, development capacity and potential boundary expansion. Planners: David Levy, 240-314-8272 and Manisha Tewari, 240-314-8213
B. Water Resources Element | Memo and Resolution | Revised Draft of Water Resources Element – for approval of a resolution to recommend to the Mayor and Council a new element of the City's Comprehensive Master Plan containing recommendations for future drinking water and wastewater capacity, related infrastructure needs and watershed protection. Planners: David Levy, 240-314-8272 and Manisha Tewari, 240-314-821 III. COMMISSION ITEMS A. Chief of Planning Report 1. July 19 Mayor and Council worksession (agenda and staff report attached) B. Old Business C. New Business D. Minutes E. FYI Correspondence IV. ADJOURN
City of Rockville Community Planning and Development Services Municipal Growth Element Comprehensive Master Plan
Planning Commission Draft
Recommendation to the Mayor and Council August 2010 City of Rockville, Maryland
Municipal Growth Element Comprehensive Master Plan
Mayor and Council of Rockville Phyllis Marcuccio, Mayor John Britton Piotr Gajewski Bridget Donnell Newton Mark Pierzchala
City of Rockville Planning Commission David Hill, Chair Sarah Medearis Steve Johnson Kate Ostell Tracy Pakulniewicz Dion Trahan John Tyner
City Manager’s Office Scott Ullery, City Manager Jenny Kimball, Assistant City Manager
Community Planning and Development Services Susan Swift, Director David Levy, Chief of Long Range Planning
Project Manager Manisha Tewari, Planner
Project Team Long Range Planning and Development Department of Recreation and Parks Police Department Department of Public Works Department of Finance Public Information Office – Printing and Graphics
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 1 Staff Credits
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 2
Table of Contents
1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
2) INTRODUCTION...... 6
3) PURPOSE, AND RELATIONSHIP TO CITY’S LONG-TERM VISION...... 9
4) PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AND APPROVING THE MGE...... 11
5) PAST GROWTH PATTERNS ...... 13
6) LAND USE AND ZONING...... 16
7) DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS (GROWTH PROJECTIONS).... 20
8) IMPACTS OF PROJECTED GROWTH ...... 26 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ...... 27 PUBLIC LIBRARIES ...... 38 POLICE FACILITIES...... 40 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ...... 42 RECREATIONAL LAND AND OPEN SPACE ...... 46 IMPACT ON SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES...... 49 OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 50 FINANCIAL MECHANISMS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH...... 51 9) FUTURE LAND NEEDS AND BOUNDARY EXPANSION ...... 55 FUTURE LAND NEEDS ...... 55 CURRENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANSION/ANNEXATION ...... 55 ROCKVILLE’S MAXIMUM EXPANSION LIMITS ...... 56 10) CONCLUSION ...... 65
APPENDICES...... 67 APPENDIX A: SOURCES...... 67 APPENDIX B: MDP EXTENSION LETTER...... 68 APPENDIX C: LETTER TO MDP ON DCA METHODOLOGY...... 69 APPENDIX D: LETTER FROM MDP APPROVING DCA METHODOLOGY...... 70 APPENDIX E: ROCKVILLE’S FORECASTING METHODOLOGY ...... 71 APPENDIX F: ROCKVILLE LAND USE CATEGORIES ...... 76 APPENDIX G: ROCKVILLE ZONING DISTRICTS ...... 77 APPENDIX H: CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT IN MCPS SCHOOLS THAT SERVE ROCKVILLE’S NEIGHBORHOODS ...... 78
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 i
List of Tables
TABLE 1: FORECASTS FOR ROCKVILLE, COG ROUND 8 ...... 1 TABLE 2: LAND AREA AND POPULATION DENSITY...... 14 TABLE 3: EXISTING LAND USE ...... 18 TABLE 4: ZONING CATEGORIES ...... 18 TABLE 5: ROUND 8 FORECASTS, ROCKVILLE ...... 23 TABLE 6: RESIDENTIAL FORECAST BY HOUSING TYPE, ROCKVILLE...... 24 TABLE 7: ROUND 8 EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS, ROCKVILLE ...... 24 TABLE 8: ENROLLMENT IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ...... 27 TABLE 9: MCPS STUDENTS WITH ROCKVILLE HOME ADDRESSES ...... 28 TABLE 10: MCPS SCHOOLS LOCATED IN ROCKVILLE...... 29 TABLE 11: LICENSED PRIVATE SCHOOL LOCATED IN ROCKVILLE ...... 30 TABLE 12: STUDENT GENERATION RATES IN SOUTHWESTERN MONTGOMERY COUNTY... 35 TABLE 13: ESTIMATED INCREASE IN MCPS STUDENTS IN ROCKVILLE, 2010-2040...... 36 TABLE 14: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED ROCKVILLE CHILDREN IN MCPS, 2040 ...... 36 TABLE 15: ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT- GENERATED ROCKVILLE CHILDREN IN MCPS, 2040...... 37 TABLE 16: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN ROCKVILLE, 2010 ...... 47 TABLE 17: SOURCES OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES, FY09 ...... 52 TABLE 18: SOURCES OF ENTERPRISE FUND REVENUES, FY09 ...... 52 TABLE 19: SOURCES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND REVENUES, FY09 ...... 53 TABLE 20: RESIDENTIAL FORECASTS, ROCKVILLE'S MEL ...... 60 TABLE 21: IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS OF HOUSEHOLD GROWTH WITHIN ROCKVILLE'S MEL, MCPS METHODOLOGY ...... 61 TABLE 22: NEW DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED STUDENTS IN ROCKVILLE MEL, ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY...... 61 TABLE 23: IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES OF POPULATION GROWTH IN ROCKVILLE'S MEL ...... 62 TABLE 24: RESIDENTIAL FORECASTS, ROCKVILLE CITY AND MEL ...... 63 TABLE 25: EXISTING AND FORECASTED EMPLOYMENT, ROCKVILLE'S MEL...... 63 TABLE 26: EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS, COMBINED ROCKVILLE AND MEL...... 64 TABLE 27: ROUND 8 FORECASTS, ROCKVILLE ...... 75
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: ANNEXATION HISTORY ...... 15 FIGURE 2: CURRENT LAND USES IN ROCKVILLE...... 17 FIGURE 3: CITY OF ROCKVILLE ZONING MAP...... 19 FIGURE 4: LOCATION OF FUTURE ROCKVILLE GROWTH ...... 23 FIGURE 5: ENROLLMENT IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS…………….……28 FIGURE 6: SCHOOL WITHIN AND NEAR ROCKVILLE ...... 30 FIGURE 7: RESERVED AND CLOSED SCHOOL SITES IN AND NEAR ROCKVILLE ...... 32 FIGURE 8: HIGH SCHOOL CLUSTER BOUNDARIES ...... 34
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 ii FIGURE 9: LIBRARIES IN ROCKVILLE ...... 40 FIGURE 10: POLICE FACILITIES IN ROCKVILLE AND VICINITY ...... 42 FIGURE 11: FIRE AND EMERGENCY FACILITIES IN ROCKVILLE AND VICINITY ...... 44 FIGURE 12: FIRE/EMS STATIONS WITHIN 10 MINUTES RESPONSE ...... 46 FIGURE 13: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN ROCKVILLE AND VICINITY ...... 48 FIGURE 14: ROCKVILLE'S MAXIMUM EXPANSION LIMITS, EXISTING AND PROPOSED...... 57 FIGURE 15: ROCKVILLE'S PROPOSED MEL - AREA A...... 58 FIGURE 16: ROCKVILLE'S PROPOSED MEL - AREA B ...... 59 FIGURE 17: COG REGION…………………………………………………..…………….71 FIGURE 18: POPULATION/HOUSEHOLD GROWTH, 2005-2040...... 75
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 iii 1) Executive Summary
Introduction/Background In order for Rockville to grow in a manner that will enhance the City’s vitality, while protecting and even improving the quality of life for existing and future residents, it is crucial to assess the potential impacts of projected growth. By doing so, Rockville will have a better foundation for policy decisions and determinations regarding investments in public services and infrastructure. These assessments also need to be understood and integrated into Montgomery County and State of Maryland policies and investments, because those governments provide direct and indirect service to Rockville citizens.
House Bill 1141, passed in 2006, amended Article 66B of the Annotated Coded of the State of Maryland to require that all municipal comprehensive plans in Maryland include Municipal Growth and Water Resources Elements. This document is the Municipal Growth Element (MGE). The MGE includes a Development Capacity Analysis (DCA), which the State of Maryland also newly requires.
The MGE provides projections of population and employment growth in Rockville, including the general locations within the city where this growth is likely to occur. It then assesses the impacts of projected growth on certain public services and infrastructure. As required by the State, areas of analysis include police, fire and emergency medical services, public schools, libraries, and parks and open space. The City recognizes that there are other areas of public services and infrastructure that are affected by growth, including transportation. These other areas are beyond the scope of this document, but will be addressed in the broader revision to the City’s Master Plan that is scheduled to begin in the near future. The City has solicited and received input from the public and many local and State agencies in the development of this document.
In accordance with State requirements, the MGE also discusses potential changes to Rockville’s municipal boundaries.
Growth Projections (Development Capacity Analysis)
Projections for growth in Rockville are as follows:
Table 1: Forecasts for Rockville, COG Round 8 2010 (est.) 2020 2030 2040 % % Change Change 2010- 2010- 2040 2040 Population 62,476 71,874 77,644 83,929 21,453 34% Household 24,327 28,784 31,509 34,509 10,182 42% Employment 74,549 91,600 99,403 105,403 30,854 41%
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 1 These forecasts do not take into account the potential impact of the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), which constrains development if certain public services and facilities are not sufficient to accommodate growth. Assuming that the APFO remains in place in its current form, it is unlikely that the growth projected in Table 1 will occur unless significant investments are made in public schools, fire and rescue services, and transportation.
Impacts of Growth
Public Schools Public schools serving Rockville children are part of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) system. In 2009-2010, 7,863 students with Rockville home addresses were enrolled in MCPS, representing 12.6% of the overall Rockville population.
A significant number of neighborhood/zoned schools that serve Rockville children have enrollment that exceeds MCPS-defined program capacity. Some schools exceed the 110% of program capacity that triggers a moratorium on children-generating development, under the City’s APFO. Development through 2040 is expected to generate significantly more students. Key findings include: • In the school year 2009-2010, 10 of the 20 schools serving Rockville neighborhoods had enrollment of more than 100% of the MCPS program capacity. Six of those schools exceeded 110% of program capacity, with particularly acute situations at Beall Elementary School (ES) (124%) and Ritchie Park ES (128%). • MCPS enrollment projections for 2015-2016 show six schools remaining at more than 110%, with particularly acute situations at Beall ES (125%), Ritchie Park (141%), Twinbrook ES (134%) and Meadow Hall ES (134%). • All of the elementary schools in the Richard Montgomery Cluster are projected to exceed 110% of program capacity, meaning that there will be a moratorium on children-generating development in this cluster unless MCPS rapidly addresses the challenge of program capacity. • Under the MCPS methodology for projecting development-induced enrollment increases, which is based on Student Generation Rates (Table 12), Rockville’s growth through 2040 is expected to generate 1,243 additional MCPS students, representing 5.8% of the city’s population increase. • An alternative approach is to assume that the proportion of MCPS students to the overall Rockville population will remain constant at 12.6%. Under this scenario, growth through 2040 would generate 2,703 additional MCPS students. • MCPS staff has stated that there are sufficient land assets to accommodate either scenario, due to the ability to expand existing schools and to build new schools in sites that have been reserved in newly constructed developments (e.g., King Farm and Fallsgrove). • In general, Rockville requests that MCPS develop a methodology that more accurately predicts MCPS enrollment for periods longer than five years, so that schools will not continue to be over their program capacities.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 2 The City will continue to urge MCPS to invest in addressing the current needs, but to do so in a manner that takes into account future needs. MCPS may need to alter is projection methodology to take into account the other factors that produce overcrowded schools, including generational changes in neighborhoods, immigration, and other factors. Rockville children should not continually be attending schools whose enrollment exceeds capacity.
Public Libraries Public Libraries in Rockville are provided by Montgomery County Public Libraries (MCPL), which has 21 branches. Two of those branches are within Rockville’s boundaries: the Rockville Memorial Library and the Twinbrook Library. There are other branches nearby. In addition, the Library system permits all resources in the system to be accessed from any library, including through use of Internet-based services.
At present, the approximately 90,000 square feet of library facilities in Rockville far exceeds the standard of the American Library Association, which is 1,000 square feet of library space for each 10,000 in population. That standard will still be met if population in Rockville increases to approximately 84,000 in 2040, or if nearby property is annexed into the City.
Police The City of Rockville is currently served by the Rockville City Police Department in conjunction with the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD). Although increased population growth will generate a need for an increase in the number of police officers, the appropriate levels of staffing will depend upon local conditions. Completion of the new headquarters for the Rockville Police Department is expected to provide sufficient space for the department through 2040, including a potential need for an additional 19 officers, if the proportion of officers-to-population remains the same. The City will continue to collaborate with the County to determine and plan for policing needs as factor change.
Fire and Emergency Services Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services (MCFRS) provides fire and emergency services to the City of Rockville. There are currently two fire stations within Rockville, but there are others nearby; and the entire network of stations is available to serve the entire County (and even the region, in cases of extreme need). Both fire stations need expansion and renovation and may be moved as part of that effort. Station 23 on Rollins Avenue, in particular, may be moved toward the White Flint Sector as part of its expansion.
Rockville collaborates with MCFRS to determine that all development applications are compliant with the Fire Code and meet the City APFO requirements. MCFRS analysis shows that all areas of Rockville are within 10 minutes response time by at least 1-2 fire stations, and the vast majority of Rockville can be served by at least three fire stations within 10 minutes.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 3 The City’s APFO prohibits development of certain high-risk uses where there is no ability for three stations to respond within 10 minutes. Those uses are schools, hospitals, nursing homes, places of assembly seating 500, and commercial buildings of more than three stories that do not have sprinklers.
MCFRS is planning for a new station just outside of Rockville at Shady Grove Road and Rt. 28. Another station has been cited as desirable as part of the Shady Grove Master Plan, nearer to the Shady Grove Metro Station. If both are built, all APFO limitations should be addressed. The City will continue to urge MCFRS to make these investments as soon as possible.
In addition, of critical importance is whether increasing traffic congestion will limit the ability for stations to respond within 10 minutes. Rockville will monitor such response times, along with MCFRS.
Recreational Land and Open Space Rockville owns and operates approximately 1,199 acres of parks, open space and recreational land, for a ratio of 19 acres for every thousand residents. If the City’s population grows by approximately 21,000 over the next 30 years, approximately 378 acres would be needed in order to maintain the City’s goal of 18 acres per thousand residents. It will be a great challenge to meet this goal, as there are no readily available parcels. However, there are enormous resources (such as Rock Creek Park) immediately outside the City, owned and operated by other government entities, which are expected to continue to serve the needs of Rockville residents.
A significant challenge in addressing growth will be to define the types of open spaces that are most appropriate in mixed-use redevelopment contexts, as well as to address the local neighborhood-scale deficits that exist at present in certain neighborhoods. The City will continue to collaborate and work with the County and State to ensure that adequate services are available to Rockville residents.
Financial Mechanisms to Accommodate Growth Expansion of public services and infrastructure to accommodate growth is financed by a series of city, county, state and federal sources, as well as through impact fees, additional taxes paid by developers, and fees for City services (e.g., water, stormwater). The City’s goal is that growth should pay for itself and that services to existing residents should not be degraded as a result of growth. In order to achieve that goal, the City will need to coordinate with other levels of government and continually review its policies with respect to fees and taxes.
Other levels of government, in turn, must recognize the importance of investing in the public infrastructure that serves Rockville. Rockville’s position in one of the key growth areas of Montgomery County and Maryland, along the 355/270 corridor, calls for significant investments in order to accommodate that growth. The analysis within this document shows that schools and fire and rescue services are in need of immediate investments, while parks and police will need investment over time as growth occurs. In
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 4 addition, though not covered in this document, such areas as transportation and water resources also need significant investments by other levels of government.
Maximum Expansion Limits After completion of this element, an area may not be annexed into the City of Rockville unless the area has been identified as being with the City’s urban growth boundary, or Maximum Expansion Limits (MEL) in the MGE. The City’s MEL has not been revised since 1970. This document recommends expansion of the MEL to include land just south of Shady Grove Road near the Shady Grove Metro Station, and land south of Montrose Road to the new Montrose Parkway. These areas are logical extensions of Rockville’s existing boundaries and MEL.
The City has no annexation plan and no current intention to aggressively pursue these new properties within the MEL. However, the City would entertain and review petitions from property owners, should they wish to be annexed into Rockville.
Conclusion
Rockville is identified by Montgomery County and the State of Maryland as being in the center of a key growth corridor. The City leaders and residents see value in vitality- enhancing growth, but not at the expense of important quality-of-life measures. The City will continue to invest in service and infrastructure areas for which it has authority, but Montgomery County and Maryland must do the same in their areas of authority and service. The Municipal Growth Element has identified Public Schools, Fire and Rescue Services, Police and PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) as areas needing attention from other levels of governments. Though not part of this document, Transportation and Water Resources are also in need of investments.
The City of Rockville will be proactive on behalf of its citizens in ensuring that their needs are met in these areas. The City will continue to use its core policy tools, which include zoning and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, to achieve its goals with respect to growth and quality of life.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 5
2) Introduction
In order for Rockville to grow in a manner that will enhance the City’s vitality, while protecting and even improving the quality of life for existing and future residences, it is crucial for Rockville to assess the potential impacts of projected growth. By doing so, Rockville will have a better foundation for policy decisions and determinations regarding investments in public services and facilities/infrastructure. These assessments also need to be understood an integrated into Montgomery County and State of Maryland policies and investments, because those governments provide direct and indirect service to Rockville citizens.
The Municipal Growth Element (MGE) is a new requirement of Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland as amended by House Bill 1141 (HB 1141) in 2006. HB 1141 requires the addition of an MGE to a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP).
“The municipal growth element must examine past growth trends and patterns. It shall include a projection of future growth in population and resulting land needs based on a capacity analysis of areas selected for future municipal annexation and growth. It also requires an examination of the effects of growth on infrastructure and natural features both within and adjacent to the present municipality and on future growth areas that may be annexed.”1
Under the new requirements of Article 66B, municipalities must: • Complete an analysis of land capacity available for development, including infill and redevelopment, and document the level of growth anticipated at densities consistent with its zoning ordinance and the CMP;
• Include a Municipal Growth Element in the CMP that specifies where the municipality intends to grow outside its existing corporate limits. Once a comprehensive plan growth element is in place for a municipality, a municipality’s annexation plan, if it has one, must be consistent with the growth element of the municipality2.
• Share with other planning agencies, especially those that are affected and adjacent, an annexation plan that is consistent with its growth element in the CMP.
• Examine the interrelationships between land use and the projections for growth of population and housing, and their impacts on public facilities and services. The MGE needs to address in broad terms the expected impact on the demand for
1 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/PDF/OurProducts/Publications/ModelsGuidelines/mg25.pdf, p. 1. 2 http://www.mdmunicipal.org/documents/pubdocs/MunicipalAnnexationHandbook.pdf (p. 6)
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 6 public services and infrastructure resulting from the projected growth within the municipal growth areas. Subject areas include public schools, public safety, libraries, recreation, and the water elements. Other sections of the CMP provide more detail on plans for enhanced community facilities.
• Identify the infrastructure needed to serve future growth and the anticipated financing mechanisms available to support necessary public services.
This document meets the goals and technical requirements of the MGE, as described in the Annotated Code (Article 66B, §3.05(a)(4)), by incorporating all of the required components in the methodology. Water and Sewer Services and Storm Water Management Systems are addressed separately in the Water Resources Element. The requirement of identifying Rural Buffer and Transition Areas does not apply to the City of Rockville because of its location in an urbanized area.
The initial deadline for meeting the requirement of adopting the Municipal Growth Element for all municipalities in Maryland was October 1, 2009. The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) approved a deadline extension for Rockville until October 1, 2010 (Appendix B), per the City’s request as provided for in the legislation. MDP has informed Rockville that, if this new deadline is not met, Rockville (just as with any municipality) will not be permitted to rezone property until it has submitted the MGE to the State. MDP has clarified that this provision does not apply to zoning appeals, variances and historic designations; it only applies to changes in zoning classifications or comprehensive rezoning.
This document also includes, and serves as Rockville’s compliance with, the State requirement to complete and adopt a Development Capacity Analysis (DCA). “Local governments in Maryland are now committed to conduct and include a development capacity (i.e. build-out) analysis when they update their comprehensive plans.”3
The primary purpose of the DCA is to estimate the growth that is expected in a local jurisdiction, including whether the available land within a jurisdiction can accommodate the projected demand. According to State of Maryland guidance, the DCA is “an estimate of the total amount of development that may be built in an area under a certain set of assumptions, including applicable land use laws and policies (e.g., zoning), environmental constraints, etc.”4
State guidance has provided local governments with flexibility regarding the approach to the DCA. The City developed an approach, which it submitted to the Maryland Department of Planning for approval. Appendices C and D provide the City’s suggested approach, and Maryland Department of Planning’s approval of this approach, which is discussed in more detail later in this document.
3 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/PDF/OurWork/dev_cap/Final_Guidebook.pdf, p. 2. 4 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/PDF/OurWork/dev_cap/Final_Guidebook.pdf, p. 3.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 7 The DCA is the foundation for the MGE in that the DCA provides the growth projections upon which the MGE conducts analysis. The DCA has also been used as a foundation for the Water Resources Element (WRE), in that the analysis within the WRE also relies on the DCA growth projections. The DCA does not represent a recommended level of growth. Instead, it represents a projection of how growth could occur given current zoning and other policies.
This document is organized in accordance with the Maryland Department of Planning’s “Models and Guidelines, Volume 25, Writing the Municipal Growth Element to the Comprehensive Plan”5, which provides guidance on the elements required to be covered, including how the DCA is incorporated into the analysis.
5 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/PDF/OurProducts/Publications/ModelsGuidelines/mg25.pdf
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 8
3) Purpose, and Relationship to City’s Long-Term Vision
There are local and State purposes for the MGE. Rockville’s primary regulatory purpose for completing the MGE is to comply with State requirements, which includes the State- required Development Capacity Analysis (DCA).
More fundamentally, the purpose of the MGE, and its relationship to the City’s long-term vision and plans, is to examine the interrelationships among land use, population growth, employment growth and municipal boundaries; and the related impacts on public facilities and services. From these results, the City will have a stronger basis for setting land use and growth management policies in the future, through a better understanding of the multi-dimensional implications of change.
The broader State purpose of the MGE is to be able to combine the MGE-cited impacts from the various local governments, in order to determine overall impacts that may require State resources as a response. The State of Maryland may, for example, use this information to determine the amount and location of State transportation or park resources needed to serve the growth that is projected.
In addition, conducting the MGE at this point is strategically useful for Rockville. In 2009, Rockville completed the State-required 6-year review of its Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP). A key result of that review was the Mayor and Council’s determination that a broader revision of the CMP is warranted, beginning in 2011. Having a completed MGE, in combination with new 2010 Census data, will provide a strong basis on which to begin the community outreach, visioning and planning process. It will also provide key inputs for analysis that will support revision of other CMP elements, including but not limited to Transportation, Community Facilities, Housing and Economic Development.
One of the most important impacts of growth is how it affects water resources. The DCA’s growth projections have provided key input to the State-required Water Resources Element (WRE), which is being completed in parallel with the MGE.
Furthermore, MGE provides a tool for the City to coordinate with other jurisdictions to understand what is proposed near the City boundaries, and regarding areas where annexation is possible. When all local governments prepare their MGEs, all jurisdictions have a better understanding of the intentions and goals of their neighbors, which offers the potential of better coordination among governments. For Rockville, the MGE is a tool to coordinate better with the City of Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, the State of Maryland and the region; and for Rockville to protect its interests.
In particular, Rockville is identified by Montgomery County and the State of Maryland as being in the center of the key 355/270 growth corridor. Rockville also sees value in vitality-enhancing growth, but not at the expense of important quality-of-life measures. Rockville will continue to invest in service and infrastructure areas for which it has
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 9 authority, but Montgomery County and Maryland must do the same in their areas of authority and service.
The City of Rockville will be proactive on behalf of its citizens in ensuring that their needs are met in these areas. The City will continue to use its core policy tools, which include zoning and the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, to achieve its goals with respect to growth and quality of life.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 10
4) Process for Developing and Approving the MGE
The process for completing the Municipal Growth Element of the City of Rockville’s Comprehensive Master Plan involves a series of discrete steps, which are described in greater detail in their respective sections in this document.
Step 1: Growth Projections and the Development Capacity Analysis - Develop projections for Rockville’s population, household and employment growth up to 2040, based on the approved methodology for conducting the Development Capacity Analysis.
Step 2: Link these projections to potential increase in demands on public services and infrastructure resulting from this growth.
Step 3: Consider areas beyond the current City boundaries where annexation would be considered by the City of Rockville, were property owners to petition the City to be annexed. These areas are known as the City’s Maximum Expansion Limits (MEL). Review existing MEL and determine whether expansion of the MEL is recommended.
Step 4: Estimate population and household growth for the entire MEL.
Step 5: Produce public draft of document and send to the State, surrounding jurisdictions, and the public for comments 60 days in advance of the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Step 6: Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Step 7: Planning Commission review and recommendation to Mayor and Council.
Step 8: Mayor and Council Public Hearing.
Step 9: Mayor and Council review, approval and adoption into the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan.
Step 10: Send completed, approved and adopted Municipal Growth Element to the Maryland Department of Planning.
Prior to the release of the MGE document, Rockville staff met with the Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning staff for discussions on the City’s proposed Maximum Expansion Limits. This document was developed after extensive discussions with staff from Montgomery County Public Libraries, Montgomery County Public Schools, the State and the City of Gaithersburg. These discussions are ongoing and will continue even after the adoption of the document to ensure that the City of Rockville’s Master Plan recommendations are included when any new development plan is proposed within and in the vicinity of City limits.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 11 Public notification and the opportunity to provide testimony on the MGE have been advertised through multiple means that meet and exceed Article 66B requirements. The Public Hearing draft was sent in April to the State of Maryland, various departments in Montgomery County (Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, Montgomery County Parks, Department of General Services and Executive Office), Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Montgomery County Police Department, Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services, Montgomery County Public Schools, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the City of Gaithersburg and other related agencies.
The City has followed all required protocol and has exceeded the requirement for outreach and publicity of the document. The document has been posted on the City's Web site since it was released. The City issued press releases announcing the availability of the document for review, distributed the document using Rockville's listserv, and published an article on this topic in Rockville Reports, the City’s newspaper that is distributed to all Rockville Homes. All Rockville Planning Commission and Mayor and Council meetings on the subject were televised. Since the release of the draft documents, the public has had the opportunity to provide testimony by the following means:
• Online through the Web page, at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/masterplan/elements • Email to [email protected], giving full name and address • Mail to Long Range Planning Division, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850 • In person at the City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850, at the Public Hearing conducted by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 12
5) Past Growth Patterns
The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 estimate of Rockville’s population was 60,734, making it the second largest incorporated municipality in Maryland, behind Baltimore (636,919).6 The Cities of Frederick (59,219) and Gaithersburg (58,744) were the third and fourth largest in Maryland, respectively. Rockville staff’s 2010 estimated population is 62,476.7
Rockville was incorporated as a city in 1860 by an act of the Maryland General Assembly. At that time, Rockville was 73 acres and had a total population of 365. The City is authorized under its enabling authority to annex property. Over the years the city has grown outward from its center through many annexation actions.
Following World War II, the presence of utilities, availability of land, and proximity to Washington, DC, with good road and rail access spurred a population and housing boom in Rockville. The largest single annexation in terms of land area occurred on June 1, 1949, when 2,210 acres were added to the City, followed by large-scale housing development on that annexed land. Rockville’s population grew by 276%, or an average rate of 13.6% each year, during the 1940s and 1950s. Key new communities included Twinbrook, Hungerford Town, Roxboro Estates and Croyden Park.
A series of factors promoted growth west of Rockville Pike (MD Route 355) in the 1960s, including a new interstate highway (I-270) extending north from the Washington Beltway (I-495), the extension of the Watts Branch trunk sewer line west of the interstate, the City’s 1960 Comprehensive Plan and the adoption of a new zoning ordinance. Population growth averaged 5.1% annually during this decade. In accordance with the Plan and Zoning, pre-planned neighborhoods were built at suburban densities. Key new communities included Woodley Gardens, College Gardens, Fallsmead, and New Mark Commons.
Population growth slowed during the 1970s and 1980s. The arrival of Metro stations in Rockville in the early 1980s, however, provided additional connections for Rockville with Washington, DC and the rest of the region. Two large annexations occurred to the northwest part of the city during the 1990s. Rockville annexed Fallsgrove (254 acres, formerly known as Thomas Farm) and King Farm (440 acres) in 1993 and 1995, respectively. Both King Farm and Fallgrove developed in a mixed-use manner, with a mix of single-family, townhouse and multifamily housing; as well as office, retail, schools and open space, all within walking distance of public transportation. By 2000, Rockville had grown to 8,320 acres in size (13.4 square miles) with a population of 47,399, and these projects had not yet been completed.
Population in Rockville has grown by an estimated annual average of 2.7% since the 2000 census. This growth has come from two primary sources: 1) residential
6 U.S. Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Maryland 7 Round 8 Forecast Estimates prepared by City of Rockville, CPDS
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 13 development in areas annexed during the 1990s (King Farm and Fallsgrove), and 2) “infill” development and redevelopment.
The 12.5-acre Rockville Town Square is a key example of the second type. The project was completed in 2007, in implementation of the City’s Town Center Master Plan. This mixed-used project included 644 dwelling units, retail/restaurants, offices, and public and non-profit uses. The project is transit-oriented, as it is immediately across MD Route 355 from the Rockville Station that serves Metro, MARC, Amtrak and Ride-One bus service. Other examples of infill redevelopment included The Fitz and Congressional Village, both adding housing along MD Route 355.
This mixed-use redevelopment of properties, which had primarily been single-story commercial uses, with higher densities resulted in an increase in overall population density. Whereas population density in Rockville had for the entire 20th century been under 4,000 people per square mile, the estimated 2010 population density is approximately 4,600. Rockville’s overall density clearly establishes it as an urban area according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition, which judges 1,000 persons per square mile in the “core census block groups” to be urbanized density.8 Rockville exceeds this density for the entire city. Since 2000, several small-scale annexations have occurred bringing Rockville’s total square miles to 13.54 or 8,665.5 acres in 2010.
Table 2: Land Area and Population Density
CITY OF ROCKVILLE-LAND AREA AND POPULATION DENSITY YEAR POPULATION LAND AREA (ACRES) CITY LAND POPULATION DENSITY AREA IN MILES PER SQ MILE 1860 365 73 0.2 1,825 1870 660 134 0.2 3,300 1880 688 139 0.22 3,127 1890 1568 228 0.35 4,480 1900 1,110 354 0.55 2,018 1910 1,181 354 0.55 2,147 1920 1,145 354 0.55 2,082 1930 1,422 354 0.55 2,585 1940 2,047 466 0.73 2,804 1950 6,934 2,753 4.3 1,613 1960 26,090 4,473 6.99 3,732 1970 42,739 7,047 10.9 3,921 1980 43,811 7,146 11.16 3,926 1990 44,835 7,744 12.1 3,705 2000 47,388 8,320 13.4 3,536 2010 62,476* 8,665 13.5 4,628* Source for Population Data: US Census for 1860-2000 Source for Land Area data is from City sources. *CPDS Round 8 Estimate for 2010
8 http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 14 Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of the growth history for Rockville’s municipal boundaries.
Figure 1: Annexation History
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 15
6) Land Use and Zoning
This section provides a summary of how land is currently used in Rockville, and a summary of the zoning that will guide how land will be used in the future.
Considering that there is very little developable land that does not already have some level of development, the vast majority of all growth in the foreseeable future is expected to come from redevelopment and increased density. In an effort to manage this type of future growth, the City recently updated and revised its Zoning Ordinance. The new Ordinance was adopted in December 2008 and incorporates land use concepts that emerged during the development of both the most recent version (2002) of the overall Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP), and a series of local plans that were adopted into the CMP, including Town Center, East Rockville, Lincoln Park and Twinbrook. The Ordinance is designed to help shape a city that is maturing toward full development, while maintaining the high quality of life that the residents of Rockville desire.
Protecting the integrity of the residential neighborhoods where single-family housing is predominant has been a consistent goal of previous City and neighborhood plans and will remain a primary goal. With this goal in mind, the single-unit residential zones have been retained in the new Ordinance, with minor modifications.
Seven new mixed-use zones, representing approximately 15% of the City’s land area, have replaced the former single-use commercial zones. These new zones allow a mix of residential, office and other commercial uses, and a range of densities, according to location. The highest levels of density are proposed for areas adjacent to Metro stations and other public transit. Also, land use flexibility was codified in specific areas while doing away with optional and overlay zoning categories.
Figures 2 and 3, together with Tables 2 and 3, provide information regarding Land Use and Zoning in Rockville. Land Use describes how land is being used currently, regardless of zoning. Zoning describes the permitted uses for future development projects. Though Land Use and Zoning are frequently the same on a given property, such as for the majority of properties zoned exclusively Residential, there are times when the current Land Use is different than the Zoning. For example, the Land Use category for an existing shopping center along Rockville Pike is listed as “Commercial (Retail/Wholesale)”, while the Zoning category is mixed use.
Figure 2 and Table 2 provide a summary of current Land Use categories. Figure 3 and Table 3 provide a summary of Zoning under the new Ordinance. Appendices F and G provide more details regarding the Land Use and Zoning Categories.
The largest land use is Residential, which covers nearly 50% of the City’s land area. More than 22% of Rockville’s land area is protected forest, wetlands, or parkland, and these environmentally sensitive areas will remain undeveloped.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 16 Figure 2: Current Land Uses in Rockville
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 17
Table 3: Existing Land Use
LAND USES - 2007 ACRES % OF TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL (ALL TYPES) 4,275 49.3% UNDEVELOPED (FOREST, 1,913 22.1% WETLAND & PARKLAND) INSTITUTIONAL 811 9.4% INDUSTRIAL 694 8.0% COMMERCIAL 628 7.2% (RETAIL/WHOLESALE) TRANSPORTATION 232 2.7% COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE 114 1.3% TOTAL 8,667 100.0% SOURCE: CITY OF ROCKVILLE, CPDS
Table 3 gives a brief overview of the amounts of land under the particular zones, and Figure 3 shows the distribution of zones across the City.
Table 4: Zoning Categories CURRENT ZONING ACRES %OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (ALL TYPES) 3,653 51.4% PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL & 1,315 18.5% COMMERCIAL) MIXED-USE 1,022 14.4% PARK 856 12.0% LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 184 2.6% NO ZONE 80 1.1% TOTAL 7,110 100.0% SOURCE: CITY OF ROCKVILLE, CPDS, 2008 ZONING MAP Notes: The current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 2008. Public rights-of-way, including roads, are not included in zoning figures. This accounts for the difference between land use and zoning totals.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 18 Figure 3: City of Rockville Zoning Map
Additional information, on the zoning ordinance, including a full copy the zoning ordinance and map and a description of zoning categories, is available at www.rockvillemd.gov/zoning.
In this document, both the current land use and the zoning are crucial to estimating Rockville’s growth, because most of Rockville’s growth will come from redevelopment. Redevelopment frequently involves eliminating the current land use to replace it with a use or mix of uses that are now permitted under the new zoning ordinance. The growth will, then, be the incremental growth – the “new” development minus the “old” development.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 19
7) Development Capacity Analysis (Growth Projections)
The core information upon which the Municipal Growth Element (MGE) relies is the projection for growth within the existing city limits and within the areas where the expansion of municipal boundaries could occur (Maximum Expansion Limits). The State of Maryland requires that municipalities prepare a Development Capacity Analysis (DCA) to determine the amount of growth that can be absorbed, and that the DCA be used as the base for the MGE to anticipate the impacts and needs arising from that projected growth. This section fulfills this requirement.
It is very important to understand that growth projections presented in this document do not represent recommended growth or recommendations for a particular type of development pattern. They represent, instead, a forecast of what may occur based on existing laws and assumptions that are discussed below.
Projection Methodology in an Uncertain World City staff proposed to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) an approach for preparing the DCA that rests on the City’s existing methodology for projecting growth. MDP approved this proposal in May 2009 (Appendices C and D).
The City’s existing methodology has been employed as part of Rockville’s participation in the regional cooperative forecasting effort that the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) coordinates. The most recent forecast developed by the City was COG Round 8, the results of which the City submitted to Montgomery County and COG in October 2010. The COG Board of Directors adopted the overall regional forecast in January 2010.9
The core of the methodology relies, first, on “baseline” data that estimates the current amount of employment, population and households. The baseline comes from both the U.S. Census Bureau and in-house staff work. In preparation for the DCA, MGE and MWCOG Round 8, staff did a comprehensive count of all residential units in the City, and a thorough review of employment-generating square footage (e.g., offices, industrial buildings, etc.) in an attempt to develop a better baseline.
After the baseline was established, growth was estimated based on the amount of development that is projected to occur. In the near term, usually within 10 years, forecasts rely mostly on individual projects that are underway, are approved by the appropriate authority (e.g, Planning Commission, Mayor and Council), or are expected to occur. A key step to this exercise is to project the 5-year period when certain projects will be completed and when the new buildings will be occupied. The City’s population (or employment) will only be projected to increase when a building is projected to be occupied.
9 This section provides a brief summary of the City’s forecasting methodology and its relationship to the COG Cooperative Forecasting efforts. A more-detailed description is provided in Appendix E.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 20 On a regular basis, staff must adjust these projections based on project-specific changes and, especially over the past two years, changes in the market for real estate and the overall economy. Due to the dramatic change in the real estate market over the past 2-3 years, quite a few development projects that were expected to be complete and occupied by now have been delayed, modified or cancelled. As a result, near-term growth projections have been modified downward.
For projection periods beyond 10-15 years into the future, there are very few specific development plans upon which staff can rely in making projections. Staff must rely, instead, on zoning, master plans, and qualitative assessments of development potential. It is fully recognized that forecasts become more speculative the longer into the future one attempts to forecast.
In addition to the lack of specific projects upon which to rely, there are many other factors that will contribute to determining the amount and location of growth in Rockville. They include government policies and investments, as well as market factors.
Government policies and investments at the city, county, state and federal level can and do affect growth in Rockville. The City’s Zoning Code, for example, has a significant impact on the amount of growth that can occur; and changes in it could potentially make large changes to the trajectory of growth. The City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), adopted in 2005, also provides policy that can potentially affect growth in Rockville. The APFO constrains growth if public facilities do not meet Rockville’s standards. The impact of the APFO has not been incorporated into these projections because there is no existing methodology to do so. Any growth constraints related to the APFO, such as a local school exceeding capacity, can be relaxed by policies and investments that would once again permit there to be growth.
Rockville is also affected by County and State policies and investments in infrastructure. Particular importance should be placed on transportation investments, which can greatly affect the extent and location of population and employment growth. In this National Capital region, decisions the U.S. government makes regarding federal buildings and functions can have an impact on Rockville.
Perhaps the most important factors affecting growth are those that have impacts on the broader regional and national economy and the resulting market for real estate. Those factors include interest rates, demographic trends, immigration, consumer tastes, and many other factors over which the City of Rockville has virtually no power.
As a final point, which combines both market and policy factors, the City’s growth can also be affected by what happens in the City’s immediate vicinity. Most importantly, it is unclear at this point how the large amount of projected growth over the next 30-40 years in neighboring portions of unincorporated Montgomery County (White Flint Sector and Gaithersburg West), or in the neighboring City of Gaithersburg, will affect the City’s growth; but the impact may very well be large.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 21 For the purposes of the MGE, and in order to generate forecasts, this document assumes that there will be general continuity of policy over the next 30 years, and that there will be sustained economic growth similar to historic patterns over the past two decades. The extent to which this assumption is true over time will have a direct impact on the accuracy of the projections.
Generating Numbers from Development Projections Household growth projections come from estimating the number of residential units that are expected to be built over the next 30 years, and applying assumptions regarding the number of people that tend to live in certain housing types.10 Staff then diminishes the estimates of total residential population, both current and future estimates, by applying a vacancy rate to multifamily units.11
Employment growth comes from estimating the amount of square footage of employment space (offices, industrial space, retail, etc.) that is expected to be built, and applying assumptions regarding the number of employees that work in certain types of employment spaces.12 Staff diminishes these total numbers by applying a vacancy rate. The vacancy rate for 2010 has been elevated based on the difficult economic circumstances. Future vacancy rates are based on historical averages for the past two decades.
Round 8 Forecasts for Rockville – Results of the DCA The Table, below, provides the Rockville Round 8 estimates of population, households and employment by 10-year increments, for the period 2010 through 2040. Highlights of the changes from 2010 to 2040 are as follows:
• Population is projected to increase by 34%, from 62,476 to 83,929 • Households are projected to increase by 42%, from 24,327 to 34,509 • Employment is projected to increase by 41%, from 74,549 to 105,403
10 Assumptions were developed in-house based on input from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and results from Census household size for the City. Rockville assumes that 2.095 people live in each unit multifamily unit (e.g., apartments and condominiums); 2.597 people live in single- family attached homes (e.g., townhouses); and 2.915 people live in single-family detached homes. 11 Vacancy rates are taken from Census 2000 and Census Update Surveys 2005 12 Based on input provided by COG and Maryland National Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC). Assumptions are: one employee per 250 square feet in office space; one employee per 400 square feet in retail space; one employee per 450 square feet in industrial space; and one employee per 500 square feet in other space. The number of employees has been investigated for specific cases that do not fit neatly into any of these categories, such as schools.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 22 Table 5: Round 8 Forecasts, Rockville 2010 (est.) 2020 2030 2040 % % Change Change 2010- 2010- 2040 2040 Population 62,476 71,874 77,644 83,929 21,453 34% Household 24,327 28,784 31,509 34,509 10,182 42% Employment 74,549 91,600 99,403 105,403 30,854 41%
Areas available for growth in Rockville are virtually all infill locations, where projects will involve redevelopment of previously developed sites. At present, these areas are overwhelmingly single-use commercial or single-use office/laboratory spaces, where the zoning and market are likely to support mixed-use redevelopment.
The map, below, identifies locations where this growth is expected. In general, growth will be concentrated along the MD Route 355 and I-270 corridors, with individual sites as exceptions in other locations throughout the City.
Figure 4: Location of Future Rockville Growth
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 23 None of these growth areas are amenable to single-family housing, because of both zoning and other site characteristics. As a result, the vast majority of new housing in Rockville is expected to be multifamily apartments or condominiums. As reflected in the table below, multifamily projects are expected to be 98% of all residential development in the City of Rockville over the next 30 years.
Table 6: Residential Forecast by Housing Type, Rockville Housing Type Existing (2010) Forecast (2040) Change Units # Population Units # Population Units # Population Multifamily 9,496 19,893 19,473 40,795 9,977 20,902 Single Family Attached 3,440 8,934 3,586 9,313 146 379 Single Family Detached 11,391 33,205 11,450 33,377 59 172 Others* 444 444 0 0 Total 24,327 62,476 34,509 83,929 10,182 21,453 *Others include the assisted living category such as the National Lutheran Home, which is classified as group quarters by the census
Between 2010 and 2040, Rockville’s population is estimated to increase from 62,476 to 83,929, an increase of 21,453. The number of households is projected to increase by more than 10,000 from 24,327 to 34,509 from 2010 to 2040. Since the majority of the growth is in multifamily housing, which consistently has, on average, fewer people per household as compared to single-family housing, it is expected that average household size in Rockville will decline over the next 30 years.
The following table presents the estimated existing and projected employment growth in Rockville by type of employment.
Table 7: Round 8 Employment Forecasts, Rockville Existing Forecast Change 2010 2040 Jobs Jobs Jobs Office 47,835 71,372 23,537 Retail 12,138 15,025 2,887 Industrial 5,564 6,743 1,179 Others 9,011 12,263 3,252 Total's 74,548 105,403 30,855
The total number of jobs in the City of Rockville also referred to as “at-place employment” is estimated to increase by approximately 31,000 jobs from 2010 to 2040, within the existing boundaries. A large percentage of Rockville’s workforce currently is and expected to be in the office sector.
Most of Rockville’s current employment is along Rockville Pike, Research Boulevard area, and I-270. The industrial jobs are along Gude Drive and Norbeck Road. Over the
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 24 next 30 years, employment growth will be concentrated along MD Route 355 and at Tower Oaks, King Farm and Fallsgrove.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 25
8) Impacts of Projected Growth
One of the key purposes of the MGE is to explore the impacts of growth on a set of public services and infrastructure, to begin the process of planning for the long-term future of the city. This section makes these linkages.
This section makes linkages only to those categories of impacts from growth that are specified in the Maryland Department of Planning Guidance Document on the MGE.13 Specifically listed are schools, libraries, police facilities, fire and emergency services, and recreational land. Examples of areas not required, and therefore not covered in this document, are social services and transportation.
Transportation, in particular, is of great importance to a Comprehensive Master Plan; and there is no question that growth has a significant impact on the demand for transportation resources. Furthermore, the type of expected growth, multifamily and commercial development in a mixed-use redevelopment context, is likely to require a changing emphasis for transportation than was the case when residential growth was predominantly in single-family, single-use neighborhoods. In particular, this type of growth will offer opportunities to expand multi-modal transportation opportunities; though the City expects the automobile to remain the predominant use for the foreseeable future and limits the traffic generated through development through the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO).
The scope and complexity of transportation is far beyond the scope of the MGE. Furthermore, decisions about the direction for transportation in Rockville will require an exploration of the city’s values and goals in this regard. The City’s plan to engage in broader revisions of the Comprehensive Master Plan beginning in 2011 offers the context for this discussion.
This section also does not attempt to project the impact of growth in either the existing Maximum Expansion Limits (MEL) or the areas that are proposed for MEL expansion, which are discussed in the next section of this document. The City does not have an assertive annexation plan. Instead, the City will respond if a property owner petitions the City to be annexed. Were such a petition to occur, the City would conduct an analysis of the impacts, both benefits and costs, involved in such an annexation, in order to decide whether to respond positively to the petition. There is no need or purpose to conduct a broad-based analysis for the entire MEL, because there is no current expectation that the entire MEL will become part of the City in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, maps in this section include the existing and proposed expanded MEL.
The City also is carefully monitoring the growth that is projected immediately outside of its borders, whether within the MEL or not. The large-scale growth being promoted in the newly approved plans for the White Flint Sector and Great Seneca Sciences Corridor,
13 MDG Guidance document cites page number.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 26 as well as projected growth in the City of Gaithersburg, may, if not carefully implemented, have strong impacts on the quality of life of Rockville residents. Though this document does not include analysis of the impacts of this growth, as it is not required by State guidance, these factors should be taken into account in the upcoming broader revision to the Comprehensive Master Plan.
Public Schools
Summary of Schools and Enrollment Public schools serving Rockville children are part of the Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) System. MCPS is the 16th largest school district in the United States.14 The total number of students enrolled in the entire system in the 2009-2010 school year was 141,777. This number reflected an increase of 2,540 over 2008-2009, in which there were 139,237 enrolled. From 2002-2003 through 2008-2009, there had been stability in the MCPS enrollment totals, with minor fluctuations.
Table 8: Enrollment in Montgomery County Public Schools School-Age Children Montgomery Children In Registered As County Montgomery MCPS Being Home Year Population* County*** Enrollment** Schooled**** Data Not Data Not 2009 957,200 Available 141,777 Available 2008 948,700 164,617 139,237 2,365 2007 940,100 161,659 137,667 2,590 2006 936,500 165,919 137,746 2,242 2005 929,078 170,364 139,311 2,461 2004 918,562 168,251 139,310 2,268 2003 905,630 169,403 139,098 2,201 2002 891,789 167,704 138,879 2,034 * Estimates are from M-NCPPC, at http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/research/data_library/estimates_population.shtm ** MCPS enrollment data is for the school year that begins in the year listed. Thus, 2009 refers to the 2009-2010 school year. Data is from Schools at a Glance for each school year, on MCPS’ Web site, http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/ *** Estimates derived from U.S. Census, American Community Survey ****Data from MCPS Long-Range Planning Division. Neither MCPS nor Rockville has comparable data on private school enrollment, because there is no requirement that MCPS be alerted when a child is enrolled in a private school.
This relative stability of MCPS enrollment follows a long-term trend of increased enrollment, as shown in Figure 5. MCPS is also projecting renewed increases in overall enrollment in the next five years.
14 http://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 27
Figure 5: Enrollment in Montgomery County Public Schools
Montgomery County Public Schools Actual (1982-2009) and Projected (2010-2015) Enrollment
155,000 150,000 145,000 140,000 135,000 130,000 Projected 125,000 120,000 115,000 110,000 105,000 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Source : MCPS, Division of Long Range Planning, October 2009
The number of Rockville children enrolled in MCPS in 2009-2010 is shown in Table 9, below:
Table 9: MCPS Students with Rockville Home Addresses Total # Of Grade Level Students Pre-K 189 Elementary 3,599 Middle 1,054 High 3,021 Total 7,863 Source: Data extracted by MCPS staff, May 2010
School boundaries for neighborhood schools do not match city boundaries. As a result, some Rockville children attend their “neighborhood” schools outside of the city, and some non-Rockville children attend their “neighborhood” schools inside of the city. Rockville children in MCPS attend the following: - Neighborhood/zoned schools located within Rockville - Neighborhood/zoned schools located outside of Rockville
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 28 - Schools with special programs in which students are not bound by their neighborhood/zone.
MCPS schools located within the city limits are presented in Table 10, below.
Table 10: MCPS Schools Located in Rockville School Type School Name High schools Richard Montgomery Rockville Thomas S. Wootton Middle Schools Julius West Robert Frost Elementary schools Beall College Gardens Fallsmead Lakewood Maryvale Meadow Hall Ritchie Park Twinbrook Special Needs Schools Carl Sandburg Learning Center Rock Terrace School Blair G. Ewing Center – Variety of Programs for Pupils with Special Needs
Figure 6 provides a map of the MCPS schools within and near Rockville. Appendix H, which will be discussed in more detail below, provides a full list of all the neighborhood/zoned schools that serve Rockville’s children, with associated data.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 29
Figure 6: School Within and Near Rockville
As indicated in Table 8, in 2008 approximately 25,000, or 15%, of the more than 164,000 school-age children in Montgomery County did not attend MCPS schools. Neither MCPS nor Rockville has data on enrollment in private schools, but Rockville assumes that most of those non-MCPS students attend private schools. A much smaller percentage is home schooled.
Within Rockville’s city limits is a set of strong private schools, which are attended by both Rockville and non-Rockville children. Private schools within Rockville serving K- 12 students, include the following:
Table 11: Licensed Private School Located in Rockville SCHOOL NAME Christ Episcopal Day School Early Childhood Center First Baptist Church WEE Center King David Nursery School Children of The Cross Preschool Rockville Nursery School and Kindergarten Rockville Presbyterian Coop Nursery School St Elizabeth School
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 30 Georgetown Hill ECC Woodley Gardens Campus Good Shepherd Montessori School St Mary’s School Aspen Hill Cooperative Nursery School St Raphael Catholic School Rockville Community Nursery School Community School of MD Twinbrook New Day Preschool Goddard School Rockville Twinbrook Christian Academy Karma Academy for Boys Charles E Smith Jewish Day School Source: This list is generated from Montgomery County DTS-GIS data. City staff does not guarantee that this list is complete.
Rockville children also attend private schools outside of the city limits. Some children are also are educated through Home Schooling, as listed in Table 8.
MCPS Enrollment and Program Capacity MCPS staff coordinates on a regular basis with the Cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg and M-NCPPC (Montgomery) in an attempt to incorporate projections for new development into the MCPS enrollment projections; and to plan for new schools or facilities, or to increase capacity as needed.
Figure 7 shows sites that have been reserved for future schools within the new Rockville communities of King Farm and Fallsgrove, and the City of Gaithersburg; and sites identified for future schools in Montgomery County’s Shady Grove Master Plan. An additional site has been identified south of White Flint Mall in the White Flint Sector Plan. Other sites have been discussed as potentially being needed, including in Montgomery County’s recently approved Great Seneca Sciences Corridor Master Plan.
Figure 7 also includes sites/buildings previously used as schools within Rockville and still owned by Montgomery County, as these sites could, with significant renovation, potentially once again be used as schools.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 31
Figure 7: Reserved and Closed School Sites in and near Rockville
Appendix H provides data regarding all of the MCPS neighborhood/zoned schools attended by Rockville children. It shows overall enrollment, which includes Rockville and non-Rockville children; program capacity, as defined by MCPS; and information regarding whether school enrollment is over or under the program capacity.
In 2009-2010, 10 of the 20 school serving Rockville’s neighborhoods had enrollment of more than 100% of the MCPS program capacity for those schools, with 6 being more than 110%. Of particular note were Beall ES and Ritchie Park ES, at 124% and 128%, respectively; as well as Meadow Hall ES and Wootton HS, both of which were 116%.
The remaining 10 schools were under 100% of program capacity, with Tilden MS and Rockville HS notable for being under 80%. MCPS projects increased enrollment for both of these schools over the next 5 years, though the schools are both expected to remain under 90% of program capacity.
MCPS projections for 2015-2016 show a similar story, with an exacerbation of certain school situations. MCPS projects 6 schools to be over 110% of program capacity in that school year, but the following schools are projected to be even more highly over-capacity
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 32 than they are at present: Beall ES (125%), Ritchie Park (141%), Twinbrook ES (134%) and Meadow Hall (134%).
MCPS’s policies regarding when expansion and/or modernization of schools occurs are as follows: • When a school is over its program capacity by 92 seats, or four classrooms, the study process is triggered. • The MCPS Demographer looks at the school grade-by-grade and year-by-year to determine projected growth patterns. • If warranted by projected growth, a Feasibility Study is scheduled into the 6-year CIP. This study is conducted to determine what the needs for the school are. • Planning and construction money will then be allocated through the CIP, based on the results of the Feasibility Study.
Appendix H shows that four schools that serve Rockville neighborhoods are currently more than 92 students over program capacity: Beall ES, Ritchie Park ES, Wootton HS and Frost MS. MCPS projections are that, in 2015-1016, five schools will have met the 92-student trigger. They include the four elementary schools and one middle school in the Richard Montgomery HS Cluster, plus Wootton HS. Meadow Hall ES is projected to be 91 students over capacity.
MCPS’s Long-Range Planning Division reports that funds for facility-planning Feasibility Studies have been approved for additions to Beall, Ritchie Park and Twinbrook Elementary Schools, and that construction funds are likely to follow the planning efforts. Until construction funds are approved, however, no increased capacity is shown in MCPS projections.
At the overall cluster level, both the Richard Montgomery cluster (108%) and the Wootton cluster (112%) are significantly above the program capacity. MCPS projects the Wootton cluster enrollment/capacity ratio to improve by 2015-2016 (down to 102%), but projects the Richard Montgomery cluster to deteriorate to 112%, as all of four of the cluster’s elementary schools and the one middle school (Julius West MS) are projected to be more than 110% of program capacity.
Moreover, there is demand for residential growth in Rockville, especially as the economy emerges from the recent recession. Under the City of Rockville’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), development projects that are likely to generate new children in the community may not be approved if the local elementary school is projected to exceed 110% of program capacity in the “test year” (two years into the future). As a result, the entire Richard Montgomery HS Cluster is entering into a condition of moratorium for family-serving residential development.
As can be seen in Figure 8, which shows the boundaries of the various clusters, the Richard Montgomery Cluster covers much of the areas in Rockville that are projected to absorb the city’s household and population growth (see Figure 4) over the next 30 years. Assuming that the City’s APFO stays in place in its current form, the projected growth as
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 33 presented in the MGE’s Development Capacity Analysis, including in the near term, will take place only if MCPS provides sufficient school capacity in this cluster.
Figure 8: High School Cluster Boundaries
City concerns are consistent with the concerns highlighted on page 3 of a letter from Dr. Jerry Weast, Superintendent of Schools, to the Montgomery County Board of Education. This letter served as the introduction to the Superintendent Recommended FY 2011 Capital Budget and the FY-2011-2016 Capital Improvements Program. The letter states that “The Richard Montgomery Custer faces a possible development moratorium because greater than anticipated enrollment projections in the cluster will increase the elementary utilization rate above the 120 percent threshold. The Recommended FY 2011-2016 CIP includes funding in the Facility Planning to conduct feasibility studies at Beall, Ritchie Park, and Twinbrook elementary schools to determine the scope and cost of the proposed additions at these schools. The unfortunate reality is that this cluster not only faces a residential moratorium as a result of the county’s school test, but also due to the City of Rockville’s test, which is an even stricter test. Upon completion of the feasibility studies, funding can be considered for inclusion next year in the Amended FY 2011-2016 CIP to address the over utilization in this cluster.”
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 34 MCPS must make addressing capacity issues in Rockville a very high priority. Considering that 1) the Feasibility Studies for these schools are not yet completed; 2) studies and construction can take years; 3) projected overall MCPS enrollment increases, and 4) current MCPS budgetary challenges, Rockville is extremely concerned that the highly over-capacity conditions in these schools will remain for many years to come.
Household Growth and Growth in Student Enrollment Assuming that MCPS is able to address the capacity challenges in Rockville-serving schools, and growth occurs as projected in the Development Capacity Analysis, new students will be added to MCPS schools. The MCPS process for estimating future student enrollment that can be attributed to new housing units employs standard “Student Generation” factors. These factors vary based on the region of Montgomery County and on the type of housing unit, with the categories being “single-family detached,” “town house,” “multi-family garden,” and “High-Rise/Mid-Rise.”
Table 12, below, provides the factors that MCPS uses for the Southwestern Region of the county, which includes four of the five Rockville-serving high school clusters (Richard Montgomery, Wootton, Rockville and Walter Johnson), as well as clusters in Bethesda, Potomac and Wheaton (the Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Churchill, Einstein, Wheaton, and Whitman clusters). It does not include the Gaithersburg HS cluster, which serves the far northern section of Rockville.
Table 12: Student Generation Rates in Southwestern Montgomery County Factors (Number of students generated per housing unit) Housing Type Elementary Middle High Total (K-12) Single Family 0.341 0.136 0.099 0.575 Detached Town House 0.254 0.112 0.127 0.493 Multi-Family Garden 0.119 0.034 0.043 0.196 High-Rise/Mid-Rise 0.042 0.039 0.033 0.114 W/Structured parking (Countywide Rates) Source: 2008 Census Update Survey, M-NCPPC Department of Park and Planning
As indicated in Table 12, rates for High-Rise/Mid-Rise development are countywide, rather than being specific to a specific portion of the County. Since all of the projected Rockville development that will be served by the Gaithersburg HS cluster is in the High- Rise/Mid-Rise category, the countywide rates are valid in this portion of the city.
The forecasted total increase of housing units in Rockville from 2010 to 2040 is 10,182. Applying the factors from Table 12, by Housing Type, produces the results in Table 13.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 35
Table 13: Estimated Increase in MCPS Students in Rockville, 2010-2040 Increase in Increase in Total # of Elementary Middle Increase in Increase in Housing School School High School MCPS Housing Type Units Students Students Students Students Single Family Detached 59 20 8 6 34 Single Family Attached 146 37 16 19 72 Multi-Family Garden 0 0 0 0 0 High-Rise/Mid-Rise W/Structured parking 9,977 419 389 329 1,137 Totals 10,182 476 413 354 1,243
This methodology, which MCPS uses for assisting M-NCPPC in its neighborhood planning efforts that require projections beyond 5 years, produces a projected addition of 1,243 Rockville students to the MCPS system by 2040. This total represents approximately 5.8% of the projected population increase of 21,453.
At present, 12.6% (7,863) of the City’s estimated 2010 population (62,476) is enrolled in MCPS. Under the MCPS methodology, in 2040, 9,106 (10.8%) of Rockville’s population of 83,929 is projected to be enrolled in MCPS (Table 14).
Table 14: Estimated Number of Additional Development-Generated Rockville Children in MCPS, 2040 Rockville Projected Population Growth – 2010-2040 21,453 Projected Added Number of Rockville Children in MCPS, by 1,243 2040, based on MCPS Student Generation Rates Rockville students enrolled in MCPS – 2009-2010 7,863 Projected Total Number of Rockville Children in MCPS, 2040 9,106 (7,863 + 1,243) Note: Projected Total Uses MCPS Student Generation Rates for SW Montgomery County
For various reasons, it is possible that the assumptions underlying the forecasts could be incorrect. A particularly important assumption is the lower level of children that MCPS projects to be generated from High-Rise/Mid-Rise residential buildings as compared to other types of housing. The Student Generation Rates for this category in Table 12 are derived from countywide existing conditions and recent development projects, according to staff in the MCPS Long-Range Planning Division. The rates are used for their 5-year forecasts. For a 30-year forecast, however, this factor may change. As Montgomery County becomes more densely populated, and new High-Rise/Mid-Rise buildings increase as a proportion of overall development, it is possible that families with children will choose increasingly to reside in High-Rise/Mid-Rise housing units.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 36 An alternative scenario is that MCPS enrollment, as a proportion of overall Rockville population, would remain similar to that which exists currently – 12.6%. If that were the case, projected growth would be calculated as follows:
Table 15: Alternative Estimated Number of Additional Development-Generated Rockville Children in MCPS, 2040 Rockville Projected Population Growth – 2010-2040 21,453 Assumed % of Rockville Population in MCPS 12.6% Alternative Projected Added Number of Rockville Children in 2,703 MCPS, by 2040 Rockville students enrolled in MCPS – 2009-2010 7,863 Alternative Projected Total Number of Rockville Children in 10,566 (7,863 + 2,703) MCPS, 2040 Note: Alternative Projected Total assumes constant ratio of Rockville children in MCPS to overall Rockville population, 2010-2040.
MCPS Long-Range Planning staff informed the City of its opinion that, over time, it can meet the expansion needs of either of these two scenarios – an additional 1,243 or an additional 2,703 students. This opinion is based on the combination of two factors: 1) the ability of existing schools to expand, and 2) the existence of sites reserved for future schools. The City is also aware of buildings in Rockville within Montgomery County’s ownership that were formerly used as schools, as shown in Figure 7.
MCPS informed the City that its policy is to expand elementary schools up to a maximum of approximately 740 students, as long as the sites are sufficiently large. Under this policy, for example, the two reserved elementary school sites could, alone, provide 1,480 student positions. In the Richard Montgomery HS cluster, expanding the four over-capacity elementary schools to 740 students each would provide a total of 828 additional positions. The projected 2015-2016 deficit in that cluster is 565 positions, meaning that expansion should be able to respond to the projected capacity deficit.
Addressing capacity needs appears to be a challenge of cost, budgeting and scheduling rather than the availability of property. Certain Rockville schools, especially in the Richard Montgomery HS cluster, but also Wootton HS and Meadow Hall ES, need investments now; but schools in Rockville will need even more investments in order to accommodate projected growth. The City’s APFO will prevent children-generating development in large portions of Rockville unless these investments are made.
It is also important to note that factors other than new development play a large role in actual student enrollment. MCPS Long-Range Planning staff has informed the City that the large majority of the growth in student enrollment in recent years has come from existing homes, rather than new development. Broader demographic changes, including generational change within neighborhoods, fertility rates and immigration, can influence enrollment trends.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 37 Policy changes within MCPS also affect the program capacity within schools. Recent changes have included reductions in class size in certain schools for certain grades, and the shift from half-day to full-day kindergarten. Both of these changes have had the effect of reducing program capacity relative to overall enrollment.
The City of Rockville strongly urges MCPS to develop better projections models that take into account factors other than new development, especially for periods beyond its current 5-year forecasting horizon. Otherwise, situations such as what has occurred at College Gardens ES and Richard Montgomery HS will be repeated. In both of these schools, recently completed construction projects have been followed soon after by enrollments that exceed program capacity.
Higher Education The City of Rockville has a great interest and concern about the ability of Montgomery County and the State of Maryland to continue to expand its offerings of colleges and universities consistent with the growth in population. There is one college within the city limits of Rockville, and there are two additional university resources just outside of the city.
Montgomery College’s Rockville Campus is located on MD Route 355 north of Rockville Town Center. This highly diverse and popular campus, which is part of a broader County community college system, has an enrollment of approximately 15,000 per semester15. The Campus serves students through Montgomery County. The College is in the process of developing an updated 5-year facilities plan that will attempt to address at least some of the large demand for its services.
Just across the border from Rockville toward the northwest is the Universities of Maryland at Shady Grove, which is an amalgam of “satellite” programs from universities in other parts of the state. Their offerings do not constitute a complete university. Nearby is the Montgomery County campus of Johns Hopkins University, which offers various academic programs, with a focus on biosciences, engineering, education and business. It also has long-term plans to build a large Life Sciences Center focusing on research and biosciences.
The County and the State must invest long-term resources to expand higher-education opportunities as the populations of Rockville and Montgomery County continue to grow. Montgomery County has no complete four-year university that serves its growing population.
Public Libraries Public Libraries in Rockville are provided by Montgomery County. The Montgomery County Department of Public Libraries (MCPL) system consists of 21 branches serving more than 950,000 county residents. Two library branches are in the City of Rockville;
15 http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/rprovost/annualreports/AnnualReport2008.pdf 16 http://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/about/ 17 http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/rprovost/annualreports/AnnualReport2008.pdf
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 38 the Rockville Regional Library (65,000 square feet) in Rockville Town Center, and the Twinbrook Library (25,000 square feet) on the east side of the City. Other library branches within five miles of Rockville include Aspen Hill (16,100 square feet), Davis (16,000 square feet), Potomac (16,000 square feet) and Quince Orchard (17,500 square feet). In general, MCPL attempts to have branches be at least three miles apart, though the Rockville and Twinbrook libraries are slightly closer to each other than that standard.
The American Library Association Standard states that there should be 1,000 square feet of library space for each 10,000 in population. The two libraries in Rockville, with a total of approximately 90,000 square serving a population of just over 62,000, have more than 14 times this standard within the City. MCPL does not have its own defined square- footage standard for provision of library facilities and services, but uses information such as circulation of holdings to determine if additional facilities or services are needed.
Discussions with MCPL staff indicated their belief that current library services in Rockville would accommodate the needs in Rockville for the foreseeable future, especially considering the recent opening (2007) of the new Rockville Library. As a result, there are no plans for a new library branch to be developed within the City’s boundaries. Preliminary discussions have been held, however, for two potential new library sites in Rockville’s vicinity to accommodate future growth, in the Shady Grove Sector planning area and in the White Flint Sector planning area.
MCPL is also aware of the evolving nature of how people use libraries. With the advent of electronic media and the Internet, it is highly likely that libraries will be changing away from their core historic model of being a collection of printed material toward a different model that has different emphases. At present, circulation of printed material remains quite high, meaning that this evolution has not yet replaced the historic model. This future is unclear, which makes it difficult to project future needs in terms of square footage. During the next 10-20 years, however, it is unlikely that there will be a need for a new library facility to be constructed in Rockville.18
18 Rockville is appreciative of the assistance provided for this section by Rita Gale, Public Services Administrator in charge of Strategic Management for MCPL.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 39 Figure 9: Libraries in Rockville
The library needs will be discussed again as during the revision of the Community Facilities Section of the Comprehensive Master Plan. The City will continue to work with Montgomery County Public Libraries to ensure that City residents are served adequately by Public Libraries.
Police Facilities The City of Rockville is currently served by the Rockville City Police Department in conjunction with the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD). County Police District 1 serves Rockville, though the resources of the entire County Department are available if needed. The City has a Memorandum of Understanding with the County outlining priorities and responsibilities.
Rockville Police Department is currently located at in City Hall. In 2008, the City completed acquisition of a former U.S. Post Office property in Rockville Town Center, one block from City Hall, for adaptive reuse as the City Police Department. Completion of the construction is expected in 2011.
As of the date of this report, the Rockville Police Department has 57 sworn officers, serving the estimated 2010 Rockville population of 62,476, for a ratio of 0.91 officers per 1,000 residents. In 2009 the Montgomery County Police Department reported in its
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 40 Performance Plan that it maintains a ratio of 1.2 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.19 As a result, the City of Rockville has at its disposal, should it be needed, an effective ratio of 2.11 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
The national standard of the International Association of Chiefs of Police is a ratio of 2.6 officers per 1,000 residents, though deployment based on local needs is more important than meeting that national standard. As compared to large counties in the Washington, DC region, Rockville is relatively well served, especially considering its low level of major crimes. According to the Montgomery County Police Department Performance Plan, Prince George’s County Police Department has 1.7 and Fairfax County (VA) Police Department has 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
Rockville’s projected increase in population of approximately 21,000 residents by 2040 is expected to increase the required number of police officers. Were the Rockville Police Department to maintain its ratio of .91 officers per 1,000 residents, there would be a need for 19 additional sworn officers by 2040. Maintaining the overall City-County effective rate of 2.11 would require the County to add sworn officers at a rate that would maintain its current ratio of 1.2 as the County population grows, while at the same time the City maintained its own proportionate growth.
The Rockville Police Department cautions against establishing a planning approach that relies too strictly on formulae of this nature. Many factors will affect staffing needs, and are impossible to predict over a 30-year period. One important consideration is that, while Rockville’s past growth has had a predominance of single-family detached housing in residential neighborhoods, much of the recent, and the large majority of future, population growth is expected to occur in multifamily housing in more of a mixed-use context. It is as yet unclear how this change will affect staffing needs over time.
Furthermore, the future geography and demographics of crime cannot be accurately predicted. There have been large swings in crime levels in the last 20 years, both in Maryland and around the country. In addition, technology has helped to increase the efficiency of each police officer in recent years, and this trend is expected to continue.
As a result, while Rockville expects that increased population will generate a need for an increased numbers of police officers, the appropriate levels of staffing for the two police departments will depend upon locally tailored solutions to meet local conditions at that time. Completion of the new headquarters for the Rockville Police Department is expected to provide sufficient space for the department through 2040, even with an increase in staffing proportionate to its current size. The City will continue to collaborate with Montgomery County Police Department and the State and strive to maintain excellent levels of service in the future for Rockville residents.
19 http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/EXEC/stat/pdfs/mcpd_performance_plan_09.pdf, p. 5
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 41 Figure 10: Police Facilities in Rockville and Vicinity
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
The Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services (MCFRS) provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, as well as rescue and related services to Rockville. Rockville does not provide this service as part of its municipal government. Since fire, rescue and emergency medical services transcend municipal boundaries and are provided to an area larger than the City itself, service levels are impacted not only by development within the City but also by development throughout the service areas. Over the next 30 years, a great deal of development is projected both within and just outside of the city. As a result, Montgomery County has determined that both fire stations currently within the city need either renovation or replacement; and that a new station is needed just outside of the city.
The two fire stations within Rockville boundaries are Station 3 at 380 Hungerford Drive and Station 23 at 121 Rollins Avenue, though other stations are available to supplement service in Rockville, as needed.
Station 3 is in the center of Rockville and serves mostly Rockville, though it is available to support other County efforts as needed. There is an existing plan to expand and
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 42 renovate this fire station City staff has worked in partnership with Fire and Rescue personnel to find a suitable site for a new station in or near Rockville Town Center for the best response times for the Station 3 service area. To date, no suitable site has been found at a reasonable cost. This challenge can be viewed as reflective of the general resources challenge of retrofitting and/or expanding existing infrastructure to accommodate the goals of infill development.
Station 23 is near the southern border of the City and serves primarily the southern portion of Rockville plus the high-density unincorporated White Flint sector and the surrounding residential and office districts; though it, too, is available for support countywide. The recently completed revision to Montgomery County’s White Flint sector plan is expected to facilitate a large increase in residential and office population over the next three decades. Montgomery County is studying how best to adjust Fire and Emergency Medical Services in response both to these increases and the growth that Rockville is projecting along the city’s portion of the Rockville Pike (MD Route 355) corridor. Under consideration is a new and expanded station in a different location, perhaps south of the city, which would enhance services to the broader area.
Montgomery County also expects a significant amount of residential and office growth immediately beyond the Shady Grove Road border of Rockville, to the northwest of the city. As part of that planning, Montgomery County had proposed, in its FY 11-16 CIP Budget, construction of a new fire station at the northwest corner of Darnestown Road and Shady Grove Road. This new station, which would be very close to the city boundary, would serve nearby Rockville neighborhoods, as well as the existing and new communities in unincorporated Montgomery County. Furthermore Montgomery County’s Shady Grove Master Plan calls for another new fire station in the vicinity of the intersection of Shady Grove Road and MD 355. Once built, this station will provide improved response times to northern sections of Rockville, which are now served by two of the busiest sections, one in downtown Rockville and the other in Gaithersburg.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 43 Figure 11: Fire and Emergency Facilities in Rockville and Vicinity
As a result of this service being Montgomery County’s responsibility, and of the amount of expected growth surrounding Rockville being much larger than the expected growth within Rockville, the City does not have a formula for calculating how the projected approximately 21,000 increase in Rockville’s population over the next 30 years will affect service needs in terms of either number of stations or apparatus and equipment. Rockville has provided its projections to Montgomery County and participates in the process of solving targeted problems within its municipal responsibilities.
However, Rockville’s authority with respect to land use provides the municipality the ability to ensure that new developments have sufficient fire service before approving the project. Of primary importance for performance measurement is the amount of time it takes to respond to an emergency. Rockville uses its Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), which was adopted on November 1, 2005, to ensure that new “higher-risk” developments have sufficient service. The provision states: “Certain higher-risk uses shall be allowed only where a full response from 3 stations within 10 minutes is possible. Such uses would include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of assembly seating more than 500.”21 To date, no project has been denied based on this standard. A recent analysis conducted by the MCFRS shows the areas in the City
20 City of Rockville Adequate Public Facilities Standards, Adopted November 1, 2005, p. 9. 21 City of Rockville Adequate Public Facilities Standards, Adopted November 1, 2005, p. 9.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 44 that are served by 1-2 Fire Stations and areas that are served by 3-7 Fire Stations. The areas served by 1-2 Fire Stations are a concern because uses such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of assembly seating more than 500 ill be prohibited under the current APFO. These areas of concern, as shown in Figure 12, can be eliminated if the proposed fire station at the intersection of Shady Grove Road and MD 355 is constructed and operational, for which the City is recommending that the County approve funding in its CIP budget. The City will continue to work with MCFRS, to monitor response times and equipment capabilities. The City will also continue to implement its APFO on new developments to ensure that short response time and adequate level of service level is maintained or improved over time.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 45 Figure 12: Fire/EMS Stations within 10 Minutes Response
Recreational Land and Open Space
Existing Conditions Rockville contains a large amount of public and private recreational land and open space, both within the city limits and in the immediate vicinity. There are 1,199 acres of parks, open space, and recreational land within Rockville, according to the City of Rockville’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, which was approved by Mayor and
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 46 Council on March 15, 2010. This number includes 164 acres for school sites within Rockville.
The City’s goal for open space is 18 acres for every 1,000 residents. The City is presently exceeding that goal, with a total of 19 acres per 1,000 residents, based on an estimated population of 62,476 in 2010. Furthermore, most Rockville homes are less than one-quarter mile and/or within a 10-minute walk from a city park or open space.
Table 18: Parks and Open Space in Rockville, 2010 Parks and Open Space Number of Sites Acreage Citywide 14 407 Neighborhood 36 152 Athletic 7 122 Open Space 12 354 School Sites 17 164 Total 86 1199 Source: City of Rockville’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, 2010
As a practical matter, however, Rockville residents do not consider the jurisdictional boundaries as providing their only local parks and open space resources. There are very large resources of this nature in the stream valleys and forests surrounding Rockville, including the 1754-acre Rock Creek Park abutting the eastern border of the City and stretching south into Washington, DC; the 540-acrea Cabin John Regional Park just south of city; and the 438-acre Watts Branch Park, which has a portion in the City but the majority of which continues beyond the city limits to the southwest. There are also many smaller local parks in very close proximity to Rockville, of which Rockville residents take advantage. These resources are owned by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which also has a local service-delivery responsibility. Together, both jurisdictions provide resources that greatly exceed Rockville’s target and are able to meet the broader State of Maryland’s target ratio of 30 acres of parkland per 1,000 people, with a minimum of 15 acres being owned by the local jurisdiction itself. In addition, the entrance to the 6,300-acre Seneca Creek State Park is 8 miles from downtown Rockville.
The greatest current deficit is in particular areas of the city, identified through the PROS Plan process, as being underserved in terms of local parks within walking distance of homes. These neighborhoods include East Rockville, Twinbrook, portions of Town Center, and residential developments along Rockville Pike.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 47 Figure 13: Parks and Open Space in Rockville and Vicinity
In addition to parks and open spaces, the City also provides and maintains indoor facilities, including the Rockville Municipal Swim Center, and seven activity and community centers. A full listing of these resources can be found in the PROS Plan. In addition, many neighborhoods operate privately owned facilities (e.g., resource centers, swimming pools, ball courts and clubhouses), providing further recreational amenities. Having an adequate park infrastructure is essential to maintain the quality of life for City residents. Future growth in the outskirts of the City will exert additional pressure on existing parklands in the City. The City will continue to collaborate with the County and State to ensure that the PROS standards are met and Rockville resident’s quality of life is not compromised.
Future Needs If Rockville’s population grows by approximately 21,000 by 2040, as projected, the City would need to add 378 acres to its inventory of parks and open spaces in order to continue to meet the City target of City-owned 18 acres per 1,000 people. This standard is a significant challenge given the scarcity and cost of vacant land in the City. The Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan recommended that the City would need to add 142 acres of parkland and open space by 2030.22 There are no current opportunities for
22 City of Rockville Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, September 2009
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 48 large-scale cost-effective acquisition in this mostly built-out City. It is expected that the above-mentioned MNCPPC resources immediately outside of Rockville will continue to service the citizens of Rockville, thereby providing substantial local and regional park resources. It is important to recognize, however, that Montgomery County is also projecting significant population growth in unincorporated areas near Rockville. Rockville and MNCPPC will both need to keep track of park usage and resident demands as the population grows and usage patterns change.
The most pressing need in the context of mixed-use redevelopment is expected to be ensuring the availability of open space within walking distance of multifamily homes. Some of the goals can be met by Rockville’s requirement, with exceptions, that a proportion of the land area on development parcels be dedicated for open space. However, this approach is not always the most appropriate or strategic way to provide open space. First, not all sites can accommodate this set-aside. Furthermore, assembling larger parcels can frequently provide a far better resource for the community than a series of small plots. As a result, Rockville is working to establish a system by which some developers may contribute a fee to the City, in lieu of providing the open space, to provide some funding for open space acquisition. It is not expected that this source will be sufficient to meet all of the needs.
Another approach is to continue to construct pocket parks and open space throughout the City such as Courthouse Square Park, which has been very successful, and offer opportunities to develop “paper” streets, rights-of way and street corners into usable open spaces.
Rockville is prepared to be innovative, but recognizes that there will be a great challenge to provide open space in the context of growth through infill development. As a result, the City will need additional resources, from the City, County and State.
The challenge to provide additional neighborhood-scale open space is even greater in the more-established and mostly built-out neighborhoods of East Rockville and Twinbrook, where there are very few realistic opportunities for property acquisition.
Impact on Sensitive Environmental Features
There is no expectation that population and employment growth in Rockville will have a significantly detrimental effect on sensitive environmental features beyond impacts that already exist. As previously noted, the large majority of future development will take the form of redeveloping existing single-use properties in commercial areas; and Rockville has no plan to permit expansion of the extent of development beyond areas that have already been developed.
In fact, a goal that is increasingly codified in Rockville ordinances is that the environmental performance of redevelopment sites can be enhanced through the redevelopment process. The City is committed to developing in an environmentally sustainable manner. In addition to complying with all State regulations, Rockville
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 49 adopted the “Strategy for a Sustainable Rockville” in October 2007. The Strategy lays out an eleven-point program aimed at incorporating sustainable practices into City policies and programs. A new Zoning Ordinance incorporating sustainable land use practices was adopted in December 2008, and the City is in the process of developing a building code with greatly enhanced “green” features.
Information on these topics can be found at the Sustainable Rockville Web site, at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/environment/index.html.
Of primary importance for Rockville are the three watersheds within the City boundaries: Watts Branch, Rock Creek, and Cabin John Creek. Each watershed has a management plan that is reviewed and updated on a regular basis, which can sometimes result in changes to regulations. Stream-valley parks incorporating natural stream buffers are a feature of many neighborhoods; and the John G. Hayes Forest Preserve preserves 120 acres of forestland and open meadows. Rockville is a gold member partner of the Chesapeake Bay restoration initiative and participates in the Lower Potomac Tributary Team sponsored by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
There are no agricultural lands either within the City’s borders, or in the surrounding areas.
In summary, Rockville is very cognizant of the environmental impacts of growth, and is committed to developing and enforcing a set of policies that will minimize the impact of growth on the environment.
Other Public Services and Infrastructure As discussed, other public services and infrastructure are also greatly affected by growth. They are mentioned briefly in this section.
Water and Sewer Facilities Rockville residents are served by the City of Rockville and Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission to meet their water and sewer needs. The Water Resources Element (WRE), prepared in conjunction with the MGE, indicated that Rockville has adequate drinking water available for its current and future populations projected for 2040. However, Rockville is taking substantial steps to upgrade the water treatment plant and distribution system as well as curbing per capita water consumption. At this time, there are no anticipated wastewater capacity issues for the City or WSSC.
Rockville is part of three sub-watersheds, the Rock Creek, Cabin John Creek and Watts Branch. Rockville has stringent regulatory controls to prevent water quality degradation in these sub-watersheds. A detailed discussion of water capacity, sewer treatment capacity and availability of drinking water supply sources is contained in the Water Resources Element.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 50 Transportation Although it is recognized that growth and transportation are interlinked, estimating the effects of growth on transportation infrastructure, roads and public transit is beyond the scope of this document. The subject will be addressed more broadly in the context of the broader revision of Master Plan, where such complex issues as traffic congestion, road and parking areas, pedestrian movement, cycling areas, trip generation, transit systems and other areas of concern within Rockville need to be incorporated within the context of quality-of-life, growth and mobility goals.
Financial Mechanisms to Accommodate Growth
The infrastructure and services required in order to accommodate the projected growth in Rockville will require significant financial resources from a variety of sources. Services and infrastructure in Rockville are funded by the City, Montgomery County and the State of Maryland, depending on the responsibility. This section will discuss in general terms the financial mechanisms that are available to Rockville.
City of Rockville Funds The City’s Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget together serve as the annual financial plan for the City. As the City's population grows and new development or redevelopment occurs, the City's revenue and expenditure budgets will likely increase, assuming that tax rates and fees remain in a similar range as they are at present, controlling for inflation.
The City's total budget is divided into twelve operating funds. The City's largest fund is the General Fund, which is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund (special revenue fund or enterprise fund). Many of the City's administrative functions are supported through this fund. The major revenue sources for the General Fund are property tax, income tax, hotel tax, tax duplication payments from Montgomery County, and charges for services.
The City strives to develop and maintain a diversified and stable revenue stream to avoid becoming overly dependent on any single type of revenue and to minimize the effects of economic fluctuations on revenues. The major General Fund revenue sources that are directly related to increases in new development and increased population include property tax (both real and personal), income tax (which is included in the category “Revenues from Other Governments” in the Table, below), and charges for services. The City's largest source of General Fund revenue is real property tax. Residential properties make up approximately 60% of real property tax revenue, while commercial properties make up approximately 40%.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 51 Table 19: Sources of General Fund Revenues, FY09 General Fund Revenues Actual FY09 % of Total Property Taxes coming to Rockville 34,526,050 55% Licenses and Permits 1,606,198 3% Revenues from Other Governments 17,801,482 28% Charges for Services 5,473,186 9% Fines and Forfeitures 648,477 1% Use of Money/Property 330,784 1% Other Revenue 2,451,549 4% Total 62,837,728 100%
The City’s six enterprise funds, Water, Sewer, Refuse, Parking, Stormwater Management, and Red Gate Golf Course, operate and account for their transactions in a way similar to private businesses. On an annual basis, the City sets fees and rates for the enterprise funds at levels that fully cover debt service requirements as well as operations, maintenance, administration and capital improvement costs, except where the City is not the sole provider of the service and competitive rates must be taken into consideration. The main source of revenue for enterprise funds is from charges for services. The revenue from charges for services will increase as a result of increased rates over time, and new properties being added each year. Services with charges include water and sewer, recycling and refuse collection, and storm water management fees. For systems that require capital investments to accommodate growth, a combination of development construction and impact fees, along with long-term fees, provide resources for these investments.
Table 18: Sources of Enterprise Fund Revenues, FY09 Enterprise Fund Revenues Actual FY09 % of Total Charges for Services 19,486,364 85% Other Revenue 2,246,183 10% Transfers In 1,073,000 5% Total 22,805,547 100%
The Capital Projects Fund, the primary fund that supports the CIP, is used to account for financial resources used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities and general capital construction, including: streets, parks, and public buildings (other than those financed by enterprise funds). The Capital Projects Fund budget is mainly funded from four components over a five-year period: debt, cash ("pay-go" transfer from the General Fund), government grants, and developer contributions.
The City strives to maintain a high reliance on pay-go financing for its capital improvements in order to maintain debt within prudent limits. When issuing debt is
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 52 prudent or necessary, each debt issue is accompanied by an assessment of the City’s capacity to repay the debt. This assessment addresses the effects on the current operating budget, as well as identifies the resources that will be utilized to repay the debt over time. In addition, it is the City's policy that long-term borrowing will not be used to finance current operations or normal maintenance and will only be considered for significant capital and infrastructure improvements.
Table 19: Sources of Capital Projects Fund Revenues, FY09 Capital Projects Fund Revenues Actual FY09 % of Total Grants/Gov’t Revenue 4,349,929 32% Use of Money/Property 191,096 1% Other Revenue 374,110 3% Transfers In / Pay-go 8,533,695 63% Total 22,805,547 100%
Montgomery County Montgomery County has primary responsibility for funding key areas related to growth, such as public schools, libraries, Fire and Emergency Services, portions of Transportation, and many other services beyond the scope of this document (e.g., health, social services).
Funding comes from a similar mix of funds as for the City, from the General Fund, service charges, transfers from other governments (State and Federal), impact fees charged to developers, and other sources. Fire and Emergency Services receives additional human resources through its inclusion of volunteers in its service provision.
Rockville provides growth projections to Montgomery County for it to use in long-term projections for service and infrastructure demands. Those projections are key also inputs to the County’s capital improvements program.
State of Maryland A series of State programs are available to assist Rockville in providing and ensuring services in the context of regional and local growth. They include Program Open Space; Transportation resources for both State Highways and transit; funding for education; infrastructure grants for water protection; and much more.
Rockville will continue to work closely with State counterparts to identify opportunities for State participation.
Private Resources and Public-Private Partnerships Recent large-scale developments in Rockville have included requirements that the developers deliver new infrastructure along with the private development. Fallsgrove, King Farm and Twinbrook Station all included construction of roads, water, sewer lines, stormwater management facilities, open space, and other infrastructure and amenities. The City has complemented their investments with public investments. In King Farm,
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 53 the City complemented the new private development with the new Mattie Stepanek Park, which opened in 2008. In Fallsgrove, Rockville also built the Thomas Farm Community Center, which opened in 2009.
As Rockville’s growth moves toward redevelopment, it is anticipated that the development community will incur a significant portion of the costs of upgrading or replacing inadequate infrastructure, and will dedicate land for public facilities and open space.
Some of these private resources will also come through the impact taxes that Montgomery County imposes to fund both schools and traffic mitigation. As a municipality within Montgomery County, the City of Rockville does not have the responsibility of funding school construction or fire and rescue facilities.
In summation, the future growth of Rockville should be based on policies that attempt to ensure that growth pays for itself. The City of Rockville can remain financially stable during future growth periods by working with developers, Montgomery County, and the State of Maryland to ensure that all parties carry their appropriate responsibility for continuing the high quality of life in Rockville.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 54
9) Future Land Needs and Boundary Expansion
Article 66B requires that the Municipal Growth Element discuss the potential for expanding municipal boundaries. Once the element has been completed, any plan for annexation must be consistent with the MGE. The City does not, at present, have an annexation plan. Property owners may engage the City for their desire to be annexed into the municipality, however the City of Rockville does not seek out individual properties to be annexed. Furthermore, State law requires that, in most cases, the property owner be the initiator of any annexation. The Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 23 A, Section 19, prescribes procedures for enlarging municipal boundaries.23
Nonetheless, Rockville has a long history of expanding its boundaries. This section provides a framework for how Rockville will consider potential expansion, organized as follows: - State-required discussion of future land needs related to projected residential demand.24 - Current opportunities for annexation - The City’s existing and recommended new Maximum Expansion Limits
Future Land Needs At present, the City of Rockville does not have any identified future land needs that require expansion of municipal boundaries. The growth in residential, commercial and other development in Rockville that is projected is based on the City’s existing land, current zoning and other factors, and can be accommodated within the existing City limits. There is no demand-based approach that would project growth beyond the City’s current boundaries.
Current Opportunities for Expansion/Annexation Recently passed State legislation associated with House Bill 220 and Senate Bill 350 permits municipalities with an opportunity to unilaterally annex unincorporated properties if the land proposed for annexation is 5 acres or less and partially within the City boundaries. The City is currently reviewing the small area annexation provisions to consider annexing eligible parcels along Twinbrook Parkway, and along E. Gude Drive and Southlawn Lane.
The City is also reviewing existing stipulations regarding the unincorporated Hectic Hill enclave, which is entirely surrounded by land within Rockville, to determine whether there is an opportunity to annex these properties, as well as both the benefits and costs of doing so.
23 http://www.mdmunicipal.org/documents/pubdocs/MunicipalAnnexationHandbook.pdf. Municipalities may annex unincorporated territory contiguous to and adjoining the municipal boundaries, but may not annex land within another incorporated municipality. An annexation also should not create an unincorporated enclave within the City that is surrounded on all sides by property within the municipality. 24 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/PDF/OurProducts/Publications/ModelsGuidelines/mg25.pdf, p. 7.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 55 Rockville’s Maximum Expansion Limits Rockville uses the term Maximum Expansion Limits (MEL) to describe areas outside of, but adjacent to, the City’s jurisdictional boundaries where the City would consider annexation should a property owner petition the City to annex the property. A property’s being part of the City’s MEL does not mean that the City is targeting that property for annexation.
The concept of Maximum Expansion Limits was an important element of the City’s first comprehensive plan in 1960. The purpose was to allow the city to enlarge in an orderly way and guide development, roads, community facilities and utility capacity needed for the population growth that was forecasted at that time. The MEL concept has been a part of every CMP since then.
The 1970 Master Plan established five criteria for expansion25: • The boundaries should be at generally equal distances from the center of the City, but the total size would be consistent with the philosophy of a responsive government. • The outer boundaries should be physically identifiable. • The MEL should contain natural drainage areas that can be efficiently served with City water and sewer. • The establishment of reasonable and attainable MEL must recognize those existing conditions that make future annexations to the City improbable. • The MEL should not divide logical neighborhood limits.
The policy to annex properties that are only capable of being efficiently served by Rockville water and sewer was reversed in the 1993 Master Plan. This change permitted annexation and development of King Farm and Twinbrook Station. City water and sewer serve only a portion of King Farm, and none of Twinbrook Station is so served. However Washington Suburban and Sanitary Commission (WSSC) serve these areas, for water and sewer facilities.
The 2002 Comprehensive Master Plan retained the 1993 Master Plan MEL boundary recommendations. Those limits can be viewed in Figure 10, below, defined by the red boundary lines, contain approximately 2000 acres of land.
Changes to Maximum Expansion Limits During development of the MGE, a review was conducted of the existing MEL and areas adjacent to the existing MEL, in terms of potential MEL expansion. Analysis was conducted in terms of the above-listed criteria, but also in terms of the potential fiscal, economic, and other impacts. The result is two areas recommended for MEL expansion.
The areas identified for inclusion in the MEL are indicated as “Area A” and “Area B” in the following map.
25 Approved and Adopted Master Plan, City of Rockville, 1993
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 56 Figure 14: Rockville's Maximum Expansion Limits, Existing and Proposed
The benefits of including those parcels to the City include positive fiscal impacts, more control over development anticipated in those areas, and allowing for a logical expansion of City boundaries. For the residents within the area, benefits include enhanced local representation, City police protection, City maintenance and snow removal, and access to public utilities.
Once again, it must be emphasized that inclusion of any area within the MEL does not commit the City or any property owner to annexation.
Area A Area A is approximately 225 acres, consolidating the MEL on the south side of Shady Grove Road, and provides a more continuous eastern boundary with the existing MEL and the City line, further to the south. It includes three parcels immediately to the east of MD Route 355 west of the train tracks, and south of Shady Grove Road, and the land around the Shady Grove Metro Station owned mostly by Montgomery County. This entire area is currently covered under Montgomery County's Shady Grove Plan, similar to the status of King Farm before it was annexed by Rockville. Staff knows of no current plan for any of the property owners to petition the City to be annexed. Inclusion of these properties in the MEL would be consistent with the set of criteria that has been used in the past.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 57
Figure 15: Rockville's Proposed MEL - Area A
The primary benefits of including Area A in the MEL include: • In combination with the existing MEL, it would consolidate a logical area for potential City expansion. It would consolidate areas that are adjacent to the City and the existing MEL south of Shady Grove Road. • There are potentially positive fiscal impacts for Rockville, were owners of the redevelopment sites in the Shady Grove Master Plan to petition to become part of Rockville. Rockville would also potentially be able to have a greater influence over development that occurs.
Area B Area B contains approximately 101 acres. This proposed new area, along the southern side of the City, is a mix of office, retail and residential uses. It follows the line of the newly constructed Montrose Parkway until its connection with Randolph Road just east of Rockville Pike.
Staff knows of no current interest by property owners to petition Rockville for annexation. Montgomery County Council adopted the comprehensive master plan amendment for this area, North Bethesda/Garret Park, in November of 1992. Staff from MNCPPC-Montgomery has indicated that they may initiate a revision to the plan when the White Flint Sector plan has been completed.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 58
Figure 16: Rockville's Proposed MEL - Area B
The primary benefits of including Area B in the MEL are: • Annexation of any privately owned parcels as they develop/redevelop would increase the City’s tax base, with a likely positive fiscal impact to the City. • The City could potentially have more influence and control during the development process, if any portion of this area were redeveloped as part of the City of Rockville. • Using the new Montrose Parkway as a boundary allows for a logical expansion of City boundaries, allowing for a better-defined service and delivery area. Montrose Road has served this purpose in the past. • There are many property owners in this district who already use Rockville as an address, indicating identification with Rockville.
Growth Projections in Rockville’s Maximum Expansion Limits (MEL) The projections for growth outside the City boundaries, but within the City’s existing and new MEL, were obtained from Montgomery County’s Round 7.2 projections.26 An estimated 10,514 people live within Rockville’s MEL (existing and new). Montgomery
26 The County’s Round 8 numbers for the MEL areas were not available at the time that this document was being prepared.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 59 County projects growth of 19,645 people in that area over the next 30 years, to reach a total of 30,159.
Table 20: Residential Forecasts, Rockville's MEL Housing Type Est., 2010 Forecast, 2040 Change, 2010-2040 # Units Population # Units Population # Units Population Multifamily 4,180 8,757 13,388 28,048 9,208 19,291 Single Family Attached 258 670 364 945 106 275 Single Family Detached 353 1,087 400 1166 47 79 Totals 4,791 10,514 14,152 30,159 9,361 19,645 Note: Data comes from MNCPPC-Montgomery, COG Round 7.2 Projections
Just as within the City of Rockville, the large preponderance of growth in households is projected to be in multifamily units. Population in Rockville’s MEL in 2040 is projected to increase more than 180 percent over 2010.
There is no expectation that all areas within the existing and the proposed MEL will be annexed into the City in the foreseeable future. Therefore, projecting the impacts on City services of this growth will not provide a meaningful view of future City service needs. However, to respond to a State request, Table 24 was generated to show the potential impacts on Public Services and Facilities of future growth in the MEL. The assumptions used to generate the impact numbers are consistent with the standards used for projecting services within the City. It should be noted that the County solely provides the schools, libraries and the Fire and Emergency services, and the City shared the responsibility of providing recreational and open space and the police services with the County and State. Detailed impacts by individual projects will be analyzed by the City on case-by-case basis as a part of annexation process.
The residential projections for the MELs were provided by Montgomery County, and therefore are already incorporated into the County’s own projections for County-provided infrastructure and service needs. As discussed in the previous sections, Montgomery County Public Library staff has informed staff that there are potential discussions for two new library sites in Rockville’s vicinity to accommodate future growth, one of which is in the Shady Grove Sector Planning Area. Similarly, the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services have also proposed a new Fire Station in the Shady Grove Sector Plan area to meet the needs of additional growth.
Table xx represents the anticipated impacts to public services and infrastructure based on additional 9,361 housing units and 19,645 residents projected in the City’s Maximum Expansion Limits.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 60
Table 21: Impacts on Schools of Household Growth within Rockville's MEL, MCPS Methodology Student # of Additional School Category Generation Housing Units Impacted Rate Additional Students
High- Rise/Mid-Rise W Structured Parking 9,208 Elementary 0.042 387 Students 9,208 Middle 0.039 359 Students 9,208 High 0.033 304 Students Town House 106 Elementary 0.254 27 Students 106 Middle 0.112 12 Students 106 High 0.127 13 Students Single Family Detached 47 Elementary 0.341 16 Students 47 Middle 0.136 6 Students 47 High 0.099 5 Students Total - 1,129 Students
Table 24 uses MCPS’ methodology for these projections. Rockville does not have existing data on the current proportion of students to the existing population in order to replicate the alternative methodology presented above in Table 15. However, an approximation of the alternative projection can be derived by using the ratio of the results of the Alternative Methodology to the MCPS Projection Methodology, from the analysis of student growth within Rockville’s existing borders. The results are in Table 25, and show that the Alternative Methodology would project 2,450 students in the Rockville MEL.
Table 22: New Development-Generated Students in Rockville MEL, Alternative Methodology # New Students 2010- # New Students 2010-2040 2040 Within Current Within Rockville Mel Rockville Borders MCPS Methodology 1,243 1,129 (Table 24) Alternative Methodology 2,703 2,450 (Derived) (Table 15) Ratio of Alternative to 2.17 2.17 MCPS
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 61
Because there is no expectation that the entire MEL will be annexed, Rockville has not conducted an analysis of school capacity relative to projected enrollment. Rockville would do so in the context of any annexation petition.
Table 23: Impacts on Public Services and Facilities of Population Growth in Rockville's MEL Impact Public Services and # of Additional Standard or Facilities People* Ratio Impact on Service Provider This population growth in the MEL would theoretically add 1,964 sq. ft of demand for additional library space, though Public Libraries – 1,000 Sq. ft. Rockville’s current Library Service Provided by 19,645 needing per 10,000 supply far exceeds the ALA Montgomery County MCPL service persons** standard. 27 additional Rockville Police Officers would be required in order to maintain the current Current ratio of ratio if the entire MEL were Police – Service 30,159 needing 0.91 Rockville annexed. Actual coverage provided by both Police services, Police officers would be determined by Rockville and including City per 1,000 circumstances and coordination Montgomery County Police. persons with Montgomery County. Montgomery County is planning for this growth 19,645 through the new planned Fire and EMS – additional MCFRS and stations. Rockville’s APFO Service provided by persons needing APFO would apply to development Montgomery County MCFRS service standards applications. 30,159 needing City goal of 18 PROS acres of City- Approximately 543 acres of Parks, Recreation and resources, owned PROS City-owned would be needed in Open Space – Service including those resources per order to maintain the City goal. Provided by multiple provided by 1,000 (Total MEL is approximately governmental entities Rockville persons*** 2000 acres.) * For services provided entirely by Montgomery County (Libraries and Fire/EMS), the impact that is measured is the 19,645 new residents expected beyond the existing estimated 10,514. When services are provided by the City, and there is a relevant City standard or ratio (Police and PROS), the projected 2040 population of the entire MEL is used for estimating impacts on City services. **American Library Association Standard ***Rockville's Goal for Open Space
As with Public Schools, no additional analysis has been done because there is no expectation that the entire MEL will be annexed. Analysis of these factors, and others (e.g., Transportation) would be conducted in the context of any annexation petition.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 62
Additional Forecasts for the MEL and the Combination of Existing Rockville and MEL
The following forecasts have been provided in order to be compliant with the requirements of State guidance, though, again, there is no expectation that the entire area of the MEL will be annexed into Rockville in the foreseeable future.
The table, below, shows the results of combining Rockville and the MEL residential forecasts.
Table 24: Residential Forecasts, Rockville City and MEL Housing Type Est. Existing (2010) Forecast (2040) Change (2010-2040) Units # Population Units # Population Units # Population Multifamily 13,676 28,650 32,861 68,843 19,185 40,193 Single Family Attached 3,698 9,604 3,950 10,258 252 654 Single Family Detached 11,744 34,292 11,850 34,543 106 251 Others 444 444 Totals 29,562 72,990 48,661 113,644 19,543 41,098
Existing employment and projected growth within the Rockville MEL are shown in the table, below.
Table 25: Existing and Forecasted Employment, Rockville's MEL Est. Existing (2010) Forecast (2040) Change (2010-2040) Jobs Jobs Jobs Office 17,689 19,317 1,628 Retail 4,786 5,118 332 Industrial 6,820 8,080 1,260 Others 1,467 1,242 -225 Totals 30,762 33,757 2,995 Source: M-NCPPC (Montgomery)
The table, below, shows the results of combining data regarding existing and forecasted employment for Rockville within its current boundaries and the MEL.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 63 Table 26: Employment Forecasts, Combined Rockville and MEL Est. Existing (2010) Forecast (2040) Change (2010-2040) Jobs Jobs Jobs Office 65,524 90,689 25,165 Retail 16,924 20,143 3,219 Industrial 12,384 14,823 2,439 Others 10,478 13,505 3,027 Totals 105,310 139,160 33,850
To repeat, however, there is no expectation that Rockville will annex the entire extent of the MEL.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 64
10) Conclusion
Summary of MGE and DCA Results By 2040 the population of Rockville within the existing boundaries is projected to have risen to nearly 84,000 people, living in nearly 35,000 households. Employment is projected to have grown to more than 105,000.
Areas available for growth in Rockville are virtually all infill locations, where projects will involve redevelopment of previously developed sites, mostly along the MD355 and I-270 corridors. At present, these areas are mostly single-use commercial or single-use office/laboratory spaces, where the existing zoning and the future market are likely to support mixed-use development; though the past decade has already begun to see changes. None of these growth areas are suitable for large amounts of single-family housing. As a result, the vast majority of new homes in Rockville are projected to be multi-family apartments and condominiums.
Rockville maintains prudent budgeting and investment policies and has adjusted quite well, historically, to its projected growth; but Rockville does not control all of the services and facilities that will be needed. Montgomery County and the State of Maryland are also important service providers in accommodating growth. Rockville Montgomery County, and Maryland will, at minimum, need to be prepared to provide resources for schools, higher education, recreational facilities, police personnel, facilities for fire/emergency service, and transportation infrastructure. Rockville and Montgomery County will also need to maintain policies by which developers provide appropriate levels of infrastructure, or resources that help to fund such investments, as part of their projects.
The projected growth in Rockville can be accommodated within Rockville’s existing municipal boundaries, as long as the public facilities and infrastructure are available. Therefore, there is no demand-generated need for Rockville to expand its municipal boundaries. However, there may be positive benefits to opportunistic expansion, if an owner adjacent to Rockville expresses the desire to become part of the City. Furthermore, there may be benefits to expanding Rockville’s Maximum Expansion Limits (MEL), in order to open the possibility for the positive fiscal benefits and some control over future development in areas that already affect Rockville. The document recommends expanding the MEL to include the broader area around the Shady Grove Metro Station (Area A), and certain areas immediately south of the City boundary in the area of the new Montrose Parkway and a portion of Executive Boulevard (Area B). Expanding the MEL to these areas does not constitute an annexation plan.
Rockville is identified by Montgomery County and the State of Maryland as being in the center of a key growth corridor. Rockville also sees value in vitality-enhancing growth, but not at the expense of important quality-of-life measures. Rockville will continue to invest in service and infrastructure for which it has authority, but Montgomery County and Maryland must do the same in their areas of authority and service. The Municipal
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 65 Growth Element has identified Public Schools, Fire and Rescue Services, Police and PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) as areas needing attention from other levels of governments. Though not part of this document, Transportation and Water Resources are also in need of investments.
The City of Rockville will be proactive on behalf of its citizens in ensuring that their needs are met in these areas. The City will continue to use its core policy tools, which include zoning and the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, to achieve its goals with respect to growth and quality of life.
Next Steps Once adopted by the Mayor and Council, the Municipal Growth Element will become part of the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP). Based on the recently completed 6-year review of the CMP, the City plans to initiate a broader revision of the CMP over the next two-three years. The Municipal Growth Element and Development Capacity Analysis, together with the Water Resources Element, will serve as key data and analysis for that broader effort and will assist the community as it revisits its goals for Rockville into the future.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 66 Appendices
Appendix A: Sources
Maryland Department of Planning, Estimating Residential Development Capacity: A Guidebook for Analysis and Implementation in Maryland. August 2005
City of Rockville, Adequate Public Facilities Standards, Rockville Maryland, Adopted November 1, 2005”
City of Rockville, Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Adopted March 2010
Maryland-National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, Approved and Adopted Shady Grove Master Plan, March 2006
City of Rockville, Approved and Adopted Master Plan, October1993
City of Rockville, Comprehensive Master Plan, Approved and Adopted, 2002
Maryland Department of Planning, Managing Maryland’s Growth: Writing the Municipal Growth Element; Models and Guidelines Series. http://www.mdp.state.md.us/pdf/OurWork/mg26supp.pdf
The Maryland Municipal League, Municipal Annexation Handbook http://www.mdmunicipal.org/documents/pubdocs/MunicipalAnnexationHandbook.pdf
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 67 Appendix B: MDP Extension Letter
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 68 Appendix C: Letter to MDP on DCA Methodology
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 69
Appendix D: Letter from MDP Approving DCA Methodology
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 70
Appendix E: Rockville’s Forecasting Methodology
The process for preparing the Development Capacity Analysis, as approved by the Maryland Department of Planning (see Appendices C and D), rests on the process for growth forecasting currently employed by the City of Rockville’s Department of Community Planning and Development Services (CPDS). This Appendix provides more detail on the City’s process of preparing projections.
Rockville generates forecasts for city employment, population and households as part of Cooperative Forecasting, a process by which the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) coordinates forecasts by local governments throughout the COG region.27 The COG region can be seen in the map, below.
Figure 17: Region of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)
27 The jurisdictions included in the Cooperative Forecasts for the region are: Washington, DC; the Virginia Counties of Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford; the Virginia Cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax, Manassas and Manassas Park; the Maryland Counties of Montgomery, Prince George’s, Calvert, Charles and Frederick.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 71 COG’s Cooperative Forecasts provide key data for the COG transportation model, which is developed to determine the region’s conformity with the EPA air quality regulations. The forecasts are also used by COG to conduct regional land use analyses. Representatives from each jurisdiction prepare their forecasts independently, but a COG forecasting group convenes monthly to discuss methodologies and assumptions. This group is a subcommittee to the COG Planning Directors Technical Advisory Committee. The cooperative forecasts are a major component of COG’s work, and the forecasts are used by public and private entities for various purposes.
The Cooperative Forecasting Process For every new COG effort to forecast population, households and employment, two parallel processes are conducted: 1) COG produces forecasts for the region as a whole, and 2) COG member jurisdictions produce their local forecasts. The jurisdictions transmit their forecasts to COG, which sums the jurisdictional forecasts and compares the jurisdictional totals to the Regional forecasts. Rockville and Gaithersburg, the only Montgomery County municipalities that participate in COG forecasting, coordinate with Montgomery County in the submission of forecasts.
As a control to the jurisdictional forecasts, COG requires that the sum of the jurisdictions forecast be within three percent of the COG regional forecasts. If the sum of the jurisdictional forecasts does not fall within three percent of the COG Regional Forecasts, the forecasts are reconciled, which sometimes involves jurisdictions being asked to adjust their own forecasts. After reconciliation and adoption by various COG committees, the COG Board of Directors adopts the sum of the jurisdictional forecasts as the official COG cooperative forecasts for the region.
Major “rounds” of cooperative forecasts (e.g., Round 6, Round 7, Round 8) generally are produced about every three to four years when new data from the US Census Bureau or other sources is available. Minor rounds (e.g., Round 6.1, Round 7.1) are produced annually or bi-annually, in which jurisdictions make adjustments to forecast series taking into account revised land use plans or pipeline projects, changes to underlying assumptions, or new data.
The forecast used for the Development Capacity Analysis is Round 8, which is the ongoing almost-completed COG Round. The forecast previous to Round 8 was Round 7.2, which was adopted by the COG Board in June 2009. The Round 7.2 forecast had a 2005 base year and forecasts were in five-year intervals through 2040. It was the first forecast to go beyond 2030.
Round 8 was conducted in 2009 and 2010 and also worked off of a base year of 2005. A new and updated econometric/demographic model has produced the 5-year Regional control totals through 2040. This econometric model was developed with the help of John McClain, Deputy Director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University.
All COG forecasts are organized by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), which is the standard approach for assembling data for traffic projections. Prior to Round 8, COG
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 72 coordinated a process to create a new set of TAZ boundaries throughout the region. Staff from CPDS and DPW’s Traffic and Transportation Division provided key input to the restructured traffic zones in Rockville. Rockville now has 30 TAZs, which is an increase from the 24 that previously were in Rockville. Across the region, the number of TAZs increased from 2,000 to 3,600. Staff then revised Rockville’s 2005 base year estimates to reflect the restructured traffic zones, to facilitate comparisons across years.
Rockville submitted its Round 8 forecast to Montgomery County and COG in October 2009, and the reconciliation process is underway. Both Montgomery County and COG staff have accepted Rockville’s totals, though various COG committees and subcommittees continue to review the forecasts. Round 8 is scheduled for presentation to the COG Board of Directors in July 2010.
How Rockville’s Forecasts are Prepared
The “Baseline” In general, forecasts of population, households and employment start with “baseline” data from a prior year, and then project forward based on expected development in the city. As the forecasts were conducted in 2009, the first 5-year period for Round 8 was 2005- 2010. As a result, all participating jurisdictions needed to establish a “base” for 2005, off of which forecasting could be conducted.
In preparation for Round 8, Rockville City staff conducted an intensive effort to verify the 2005 base of households and commercial/institutional square footage in the city. Every housing unit was counted and the non-residential square feet were updated through the City’s Geographic Information System, the State Department of Assessments and Taxation and other sources.
Whereas the DCA projection period for this document is 2010-2040, the City’s Round 8 Cooperative Forecast period is for 2005-2040. For the DCA, City staff has used the same numbers for 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 as were used for Round 8.
Development Projections City staff uses three types of expected development projects for the projections: 1) projects currently in progress; 2) projects approved for development by the appropriate authority (e.g., City Council or the Planning Commission), which are known as “pipeline projections;” and 3) estimates of future development based on existing zoning, master plans, and staff assessment. In general, there is more confidence in the nearer-term projections, as they are based on “real” projects. Staff has less confidence in the longer- term projections. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to conclude that no growth would occur, especially considering that Montgomery County and the entire COG region projects growth in the longer term.
The population estimates are derived, for each individual assumed development, by multiplying the number of residential units by the average household size, taking into
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 73 account differences for housing type. Average household sizes used in Rockville’s projections are: 2.095 people in a multifamily unit, 2.597 people in a Single-Family Attached Unit, and 2.915 for a Single-Family Detached Unit. These averages are consistent with Montgomery County’s and COG’s assumptions for this portion of the region.
Assuming a vacancy rate for multifamily units diminishes the population totals. A vacancy rate of 3.5% has been attributed to the 2005 base for multifamily units, based on an extrapolation of Census 2000 data. A vacancy rate of 5% is assumed for the 2005- 2010 period, based on the difficult 2009 market conditions, and in-house knowledge of the vacancy rates in new developments in Rockville. For periods beyond 2010, vacancy rates are not assigned, which is consistent with the methodology deployed by Montgomery County.
The number of jobs (employment) is derived, for each individual assumed development, by multiplying the amount of square feet the average space (in square feet) an employee occupies per a type of non-residential space. This approach, also, is consistent with that of Montgomery County. The assumptions for space are: 250 square feet for an office employee, 400 square feet for a retail employee, 450 square feet for an industrial employee, and 500 for other uses. Specialized knowledge is also used for buildings were staff has specific knowledge, such as for schools or City government buildings.
The number of Office jobs has been reduced by assumed vacancy rates that come from data developed by the CoStar Group. The average office vacancy rate in the City of Rockville was 8% based on a review of annual Costar data from 1993-2006. An 8% office vacancy rate has therefore been assumed for all projection periods except for 2005- 2010, for which market conditions led staff to assume a 15% office vacancy rate. Consistent with Montgomery County, the current methodology does not at present account for vacancies in retail and or “other” non-residential uses.
The following other key assumptions have been used in generating projections for Round 8: • Projects that are approved for development by the approving authority (e.g., City Council, Planning Commission, staff) will move forward, sooner or later. • Calculations of projected uses and densities in the longer term are based on the 2008 adopted zoning ordinance. No assumption is made that zoning will change in the future. • Uses discussed in adopted master plans, such as those for Town Center and East Rockville, are considered as part of the forecasting process. • It is normal for larger projects to take more than one year to be fully occupied by either the residential or non-residential occupants, after completion of the construction. Therefore, increases in jobs and population for larger projects are assigned to more than one year. • Staff has projected moderate growth in the latter parts of the 30-year forecasting periods, under the assumption of continued demand for housing and employment
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 74 in the greater Washington, DC region, limited in Rockville by the scarcity of available undeveloped land. • No change of use is anticipated for the very large Lakewood, Woodmont, or Redgate golf courses.
Forecast Results Table 17 summarizes the Round 8 estimates and forecasts of population, households and employment for the period of 2005 through 2040.
Table 27: Round 8 Forecasts, Rockville 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Change Percentage 2005- Change 2040 2000-2040 Population 59,618 62,476 67,341 71,874 74,503 77,644 80,786 83,929 24,311 40.8% Households 22,982* 24,327 26,644 28,784 30,034 31,509 33,009 34,509 11,527 50.2% Employment 76,597 74,549 83,596 91,600 96,783 99,403 102,403 105,403 28,806 37.6%
* The detailed count of residential units for the 2005 base determined that there were 23,736 households in the City in 2005. Diminishing by the assumed 3.5% vacancy in multifamily units results in 22,982 households.
Population and Household growth is displayed graphically, below.
Figure 18: Population/Household Growth, 2005-2040
Population/Household Growth (2005-2040)
Population Households
83,929 90,000 77,644 80,786 80,000 71,847 74,503 67,341 70,000 59,618 62,476 60,000 50,000 40,000 31,509 33,009 34,509 26,644 28,784 30,034 30,000 22,982 24,327 20,000 10,000 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Round 8 Projections, CPDS
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 75 Appendix F: Rockville Land Use Categories
Land Use Distinguishing Features Low-density residential Under 3 dwelling units per acre or less Medium-density residential 3 – 25 dwelling units per acre High-density residential More than 25 dwelling units per acre Undeveloped land Parks, forest preserve, stream valleys, golf courses Commercial – Retail and wholesale Low to medium-density retail, wholesale, service, services office, laboratory etc. Mixed Use Commercial Higher density retail, office, service and residential uses in areas served by public transit Industrial Light industrial, office, laboratory, services and limited retail etc. Institutional Government and community facilities including offices, courts, schools, recreation centers etc.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 76 Appendix G: Rockville Zoning Districts
Name of Zone Type of Zone Distinguishing Feature R-400 Residential Estate 40,000 sq ft minimum lot area R-200 Suburban Residential 20,000 sq ft minimum lot area R-150 Low Density Residential 15,000 sq ft minimum lot area R-90 Single unit Detached 9,000 sq ft minimum lot area Dwelling, Restricted Residential R-75 Single unit Detached Residential Single unit Dwellings 7,500 sq ft minimum lot area Dwelling, Residential (detached and semi-detached) R-60 Single unit Detached 6,000 (or 5,000) sq ft minimum lot area Dwelling, Residential R-40 Single unit Detached 4,000 sq ft minimum lot area Dwelling, Residential RMD-10 Residential single unit (detached, semi- 20,000 sq ft minimum tract area; allows single-unit Residential Medium Density detached and attached) detached, semi-detached, and townhouses up to 10 du/acre RMD-15 Residential single unit and multiple 1-acre minimum tract area; allows detached, attached, Residential Medium Density unit dwellings and multi-unit residential dwellings up to 15 du/acre RMD-25 Residential Medium Residential single unit and multiple 2-acre minimum tract area; allows detached, attached, Density unit dwellings and multi-unit residential dwellings up to 25 du/acre MXC Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Low-density retail, service, office and residential uses within or in close proximity to single-unit residential uses PD Planned Development Planned Developments Prior to March 16, 2009, Planned Developments that allowed a variety of development standards and types of uses were approved. Please see Zoning Ordinance section 25-14-07 for details on individual PDs I-L Industrial Light Industrial Lower impact industrial zone allowing live-work units I-H Industrial Heavy Higher impact industrial zone PARK (“PZ”) Park Placed on all City parks and recreation areas to provide for open space, recreational, and other compatible uses MXT Mixed Use Transition Low-density multi-unit, attached and townhouse residential development, may include other neighborhood-serving uses for areas located between moderate or high-density development and single-unit detached residential neighborhoods MXNC Mixed Use Low to moderate density retail, service, office and Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use residential in areas that are in close proximity to single- unit detached residential. Not intended for major employment. MXB Mixed Use Business Retail, service, light industrial, office and residential uses at a range of densities in areas convenient to both high- density mixed use and single-unit residential areas. MXE Mixed Use Employment Medium density office, light industrial, retail and residential. Mix of uses, including live-work/work-live is encouraged. MXCD Mixed Use Corridor Medium density retail, office and residential uses in areas District along major highways. Flexible site requirements. MXTD Mixed Use Transit High-density retail office and residential in areas near District Metro stations.
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 77 Appendix H: Capacity and Enrollment in MCPS Schools that serve Rockville’s Neighborhoods Gaithersburg HS 16-room addition completed in 2006. Rosemont ES 16-room addition completed 2004. Walter Johnson HS modernization completed 2009. completed modernization HS Johnson 2004.Walter completed addition 16-room ES 2006.Rosemont in completed addition 16-room Gaithersburg HS approximatelyreduced to 18 sizes withGrade class in K-2, reductions size have hadthat class schools indicates "CSR" Changesalready thatcapacityaffect made program table into incorporated - Notes Facility planning funds have been approved for planning additions at Beall, Ritchie Park, and Twinbrook Elementary Schools. However, no additional capacity is shown by MCPS until construction funds areapproved. funds However,shown construction byuntil is MCPS and TwinbrookSchools. noadditionalcapacity Park, Elementary have planning Ritchie beenfunds approved Facility Beall, at planningfor additions 2011.in completion for projected is ModernizationES Farmland of 2013.in completion for projectedModernization is Gaithersburg HS of capacityaffect program table changesthatinto will incorporated - Planned full-day2006.Lakewoodofferingkindergartenfull-day 2007.offeringkindergarten began began August ES August ES Fallsmead 2008. completed modernization2007.College Garden ES completed modernizationRichard2006.Montgomery HS completed addition 8-room ES Farmland Walter Johnson Walter Gaithersburg Montgomery High School School High AllClusters Rockville Wootton Richard Cluster Attend Neighborhood/Zoned College Gardens ES (CSR) CollegeGardensES Rockville Children who who Children Rockville Serving Schools MCPS RichardMontgomery HS Twinbrook ES (CSR)Twinbrook ES oeotE CR 8 7 180% 271 489 (CSR) ES Rosemont Walter Johnson HS Johnson Walter lse oas30 27101% 3277 3309 Totals Cluster lse oas31 5390% 3573 3216 Totals Cluster lse oas38 0319 5932 769%8 3738 7 1 3237 9 406 89% 3778 3372 119 97% 3486 3367 86 98% 3706 3620 -569 119% 3013 3582 Totals Cluster lse oas52 4013 5058 0316 2456 0518 3959 0512 -622 112% 5075 5697 -389 108% 5075 5464 -284 106% 5003 5287 -560 113% 4460 5020 Totals Cluster lse oas46 2910 4742 1919 3744 2912 4345 2912 -103 102% 4249 4352 -493 112% 4249 4742 -367 109% 4159 4526 -427 110% 4239 4666 Totals Cluster GaithersburgHS MeadowES Hall Ritchie Park ES Park Ritchie Julius West MS West Julius Beall ES (CSR) ES Beall Forest Oak MS Oak Forest Fallsmead ES Fallsmead LakewoodES Farmland ES Farmland Rockville HS Rockville MaryvaleES Wootton HS Wootton Tilden MSTilden Wood MS Wood Frost MS Frost Schools Totals Enrollment 9731,6 0%-,3 0092,9 0%1 9922,6 0%8 0472,6 0%-1 100% 20,466 20,467 80 100% 20,062 19,982 19 100% 20,098 20,079 -1,231 107% 18,562 19,793 1410 121% 1800 2174 011044 1061 961562 1916 251134 1205 392050 2349 931901 1973 241633 1224 0 504 601 8 377 476 381 484 7 497 577 6 3 130% 433 564 7 630 577 3 425 535 7 943 772 8 339 1030 385 985 2 571 622 1 942 919 Actual School Enrollment & Program Capacity Program & ActualEnrollment School Published Published Capacity 2004-2005 School Year 2004-2005Year School % of Capacity%of 119% 102% 123% 101% 102% 116% 106% 126% 115% 104% 114% 109% 82% 92% 75% 96% 98% Schools that Serve Rockville Children in Neighborhood/Zoned in Children Schools Rockville Serve that Schools Overcapacity (-) or Available or Spaces 5 2237 0 7 0632 8 0 3632 8 66 98% 3422 3356 406 88% 3422 3016 371 90% 3573 3202 357 -354 -131 -110 -299 -374 -218 3 4435 4 1 3333 9 3 6034 4 252 94% 3942 3690 437 89% 3830 3393 213 94% 3657 3444 -32 171 409 -72 -97 -17 -80 -71 -51 -46 23 53 45 -4 -8 Enrollment AppendixH: Capacity andEnrollment Projections for 2009-2010 School Enrollment & Program Program & 2009-2010Enrollment for Projections School 911966 1941 071134 2050 1087 2294 172143 2107 1124 102% 2143 2181 251633 1215 7 7 100% 571 570 6 4 81% 943 767 5 2 90% 621 558 8 4 94% 942 881 5 504 1044 659 976 9 377 615 491 603 1 497 617 2 595 380 627 518 3 571 634 0 339 400 5 1030 953 C apacity,2004-2005 in Completed Published Published Capacity Capacity 131% 130% 124% 112% 136% 111% 105% 118% %of 93% 99% 98% 96% 98% 74% 93% Overcapacity (-) or Available or Spaces -155 -114 -120 -244 -138 176 418 -38 -63 -32 -61 47 63 61 68 25 12 47 77 1 Enrollment 0419 101% 1992 2014 031957 2053 141080 1184 412073 2411 072230 2057 231539 1223 6 986 961 4 518 641 3 693 739 2 409 522 4 512 548 9 1 96% 616 593 8 587 582 4 8 76% 984 743 1 528 514 3 568 633 6 315 366 4 981 845 0 0 83% 608 505 4 8 96% 886 848 Actual School Enrollment & Program Capacity Program & ActualEnrollment School Published Published Capacity 2009-2010Year School Capacity 105% 124% 107% 128% 110% 107% 116% 111% 116% %of 97% 99% 92% 97% 86% 79% Overcapacity (-) or Available or Spaces -123 -113 -104 -338 173 241 136 316 103 -22 -96 -46 -36 -65 -51 23 38 25 14 5 Enrollment 9828 85% 2284 1948 861957 1846 14986 1154 041080 1024 132230 2173 252073 2235 341539 1334 647 787 576 709 687 808 636 980 532 561 406 575 849 Program Capacity Program 2015-2016Year School Projected School Enrollment & Enrollment ProjectedSchool Published Published Capacity 518 693 409 2 97% 728 512 8 82% 984 587 981 528 568 315 0 95% 608 8 96% 886 Capacity 117% 125% 114% 141% 134% 108% 108% 101% 129% 100% %of 94% 95% 97% 99% 87% Overcapacity (-) or Available or Spaces -168 -129 -167 -175 -162 111 176 205 336 -94 -49 -91 19 56 57 33 37 -4 7 1
Planning Commission Draft, Recommendation to Mayor and Council, August 2010 78
City of Rockville Public Works, Environmental Management Community Planning and Development Services Water Resources Element Comprehensive Master Plan
Planning Commission Draft
Recommendation to the Mayor and Council August 2010 Development Services
ROCKVILLE WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT
OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN
Planning Commission Draft Recommendations to the Mayor and Council August 2010
1
Rockville, Maryland
Water Resources Element of the Comprehensive Master Plan
Mayor and Council of Rockville Phyllis Marcuccio, Mayor John Britton Piotr Gajewski Bridget Donnell Newton Mark Pierzchala
City of Rockville Planning Commission David Hill, Chair Jerry Callistein Sarah Medearis Kate Ostell Tracy Pakulniewicz Dion Trahan John Tyner
Rockville Environment Commission Kris Dighe, Chair Seth Adams Julie Carr Steve Cardon David Davis Beri Kravitz Christine Davidson-McCord Tolu Odunlami Donna Vincent Roa
City of Rockville Staff Scott Ullery, City Manager Jenny Kimball, Assistant City Manager Claire Funkhouser, City Clerk
2 Rockville Water Resources Element of the Comprehensive Master Plan
Table of Contents
Topic Page
Executive Summary……………………………………………………… 6
Chapter 1: Goals, organization and Comprehensive Planning Consistency ……………………………………………………………… 11
Chapter 2: General Physical and Planning Background .……………. 14
Chapter 3: Assuring Adequate Drinking Water Supplies……………. 20
Chapter 4: Assuring Adequate Wastewater Disposal………………… 35
Chapter 5: Stormwater Management ………………………………… 46
Appendices
Appendix A…Water Conservation Plan………………………………… 61 Appendix B…2002 Potomac River Appropriation Permit ….………… 68 Appendix C…List of CIP Stream Restoration & Retrofit Projects.….. 73
List of Tables and Maps Table 2.1 Rockville Population Growth Projections (2010 - 2040)……. 14 Table 2.2 Rockville Employment Projections (2010 – 2040)…………… 15 Table 2.3 Percent of Rockville Land Uses………………………………. 16 Table 2.4 Rockville Surface Stream Miles………………………………. 17 Table 3.1 Rockville Demographic Information…………………………. 22 Table 3.2 Projected Residential (Household) Growth………………….. 25 Table 3.3 Projected Nonresident Customer Growth…………………… 26 Table 3.4 Rockville Drinking Water Storage Tanks…………………… 30 Table 3.5 Distribution System Line Breaks (2007-2010)………………. 30 Table 3.6 Projected Rockville Water Rates (per 1,000 gallons)..…….. 32 Table 4.1 Rockville Demographic Information…………………………. 35 Table 4.2 Rockville Average Daily Wastewater Flows…………………. 38 Table 4.3 Projected Residential (Household) Growth………………….. 38 Table 4.4 Projected Nonresident Customer Growth…………………… 39 Table 4.5 Rockville’s Collection System Elements…………………….. 40 Table 4.6 Projected Rehabilitation Spending (2010-2015)…………….. 42 Table 4.7 Rockville WSSC/WASA Wastewater Payments……………. 44
3
Table 4.8 Projected Rockville Wastewater Service Fees (per 1,000 gallons)……………………………………………………… 45
Map 2.1 Rockville Land Use Patterns…………………………………. 16 Map 3.1 The Rockville/WSSC Drinking Water Service Areas………. 23 Map 4.1 The Rockville/WSSC Wastewater Service Areas…………… 36 Map 4.2 Rockville Sewersheds………………………………………… 37 Map 5.1 Rockville Volunteer Sampling……………………………….. 47
4 Safeguarding Rockville’s Water Resources
Executive Summary
Introduction Rockville is proud of its history of exceptional planning and implementation to ensure the delivery of high quality customer services, such as the delivery of drinking water and the disposal of wastewater. These principles and proactive approaches have carried over to the City’s stewardship of its land and water resources.
The City has prepared this water resources plan to accomplish the following key objectives: • Ensure that existing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure capacity is adequate to accommodate projected growth through 2040 • Identify infrastructure concerns, including diminished capacity due to aging, that may restrict predicted population and economic growth • Protect Rockville’s three sub-watersheds and the larger water bodies these sub-watersheds flow into from stormwater impacts This plan supplements the water resource provisions currently set out in the City’s existing Comprehensive Master Plan.
The City currently occupies 13.54 square miles (8,667 acres). While some additional annexation is possible, it is unlikely that these additions will add significant amounts of acreage over the next 20-30 years. Rockville was founded in the 1750s and has been an incorporated City since 1860. The City’s current 2010 population is approximately 62,500. This population is anticipated to grow to 77,650 (an additional 15,150) by 2030, and 84,000 (a cumulative addition of 21,500) by 2040.
Over 20% of Rockville’s current housing has been constructed since 2000. The total number of 2010 households is 24,300 and that number is expected to grow to 31,500 households by 2030 and 34,500 by 2040. This represents a projected increase of approximately 7,200 (23%) and 10,200 (30%) over the number of current households.
There are few greenfields remaining within the City limits. Since Rockville is almost entirely built out, future growth will focus on infill and redevelopment of the City’s existing footprint. Land use patterns in the City are predominantly residential and commercial with different neighborhoods offering differing housing styles and densities, including several mixed use, smart growth centers. Additional population growth is expected to spur greater residential densities and be clustered around Metro subway stations, Rockville Pike (State Route 355), and the City Center.
Drinking Water Capacity Rockville has a very reliable source of drinking water, and is part of a regional partnership that ensures adequate wastewater capacity. The City is moving forward to expand the capacity and efficiency of its water treatment plant as well as address concerns with aging in both the water distribution system and the wastewater collection system.
Since 1958, Rockville has obtained 100% of its drinking water directly from Potomac River withdrawals. Groundwater is not used to supplement the Potomac River withdrawals. Virtually all Rockville residences and businesses are on either the City or WSSC water systems. There are a few individual parcels within the City limits that are islands still under the Montgomery County jurisdiction
5 that may have an active well. However, these property owners are not subject to the Rockville City Code and have not been required to connect to a City water line or sewer.
The City owns and operates its own water treatment plant and supplies approximately 11,820 residential households (49 percent of the City’s actual population) with drinking water. Similarly, Rockville provides water to 820 nonresidential customers. There is no irrigated agriculture or water-intensive manufacturing 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 a daily maximum not-to-exceed amount of 12.1 million gallons. The actual daily average withdrawal is currently 4.264 million gallons. The approximate summertime maximum withdrawal is currently 8 million gallons per day.
The remaining 51% of Rockville households and businesses are served by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), which owns and maintains the water lines serving these customers. WSSC does not anticipate any concerns with continuing to service its Rockville customers for the next 20-30 years. The reason for the dual service approach derives from periodic annexations of land that have historically been in the WSSC service district and remain therein after annexation. In the future, should Rockville annex additional land into the City, those properties will continue to be served by WSSC. In the event that a parcel is currently on a well (there are only a handful known at this time), the property would be required to connect to the City water and sewer lines as a condition for coming into the City. Rockville does not anticipate any concerns with providing service to these few residents.
The projected drinking water needs of the resident and nonresident populations in 2030 will require an additional 681,600 gallons per day. By 2040 this amount will grow to 956,115 over current withdrawals for a total need of 5,220,255 gallons per day. This modest additional need can be satisfied from the City’s existing Potomac River allocation.
Wastewater Capacity There are no domestic septic tanks treating sewage within the City limits. Rather all sewage is collected in 148 miles of City-owned and maintained sewers and transported out of the community to interceptor sewers owned and maintained by WSSC. In turn, WSSC conveys the Rockville sewage, along with the sewage WSSC itself collects from other jurisdictions, to the Blue Plains regional wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC WASA). There the sewage receives primary, secondary and tertiary treatment, including denitrification before being discharged into the Potomac River. The current sewage demand for residential and nonresidential customers is 3,411,312 (approximately 80% of the drinking water demand).
The projected wastewater needs of the resident and nonresident populations in 2030 will require an additional 545,280 gallons per day (14%) above current demand. By 2040 this amount will grow to 764,892 (18%) over current demand, for a total demand of 4,176,204 gallons per day. This volume of wastewater is well within the City’s existing allotment of Blue Plains regional treatment capacity. Similarly, WSSC is expected to be able to accommodate the portion of the City’s sewage that flows into its collection system. Consequently, there are no anticipated wastewater capacity issues for either the City or WSSC beyond the continued maintenance of the collection systems.
6
Stormwater Controls Rockville has 32.2 miles of surface streams within 13.54 square miles. These streams flow through three sub-watersheds. The three are Rock Creek, Cabin John Creek and Watts Branch. All of Rockville’s waterways flow into the Potomac River and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.
Rockville has adopted its own stringent regulatory controls to prevent water quality degradation in its three sub-watersheds. For example, the City has the most extensive stream buffers in the State of Maryland. Over the last few years, Rockville has restored several miles of critical stream channel and stream-side habitat in the Rock Creek and Watts Branch watersheds. The City undertakes a comprehensive watershed study of its three watersheds every 10 years. In 2008 the City adopted the first-of-its-kind-in Maryland stormwater utility fee that allows the City to invest in 20 full time equivalent employees (FTE) to address various aspects of stormwater management as well as pay for storm drain and treatment facility capital improvements.
Stormwater is removed from streets and properties through a combination of public and private stormwater inlets, drainage systems, treatment facilities and outfalls discharging to one of the three sub- watersheds. The City itself currently owns and maintains 2,050 inlets, over 162 miles of storm drains and 106 treatment facilities. In some of the City’s older locations, stormwater is conveyed directly to a stream without any treatment. In recently years, the City has begun to supplement these structural approaches with efforts to establish low impact development and environmental site design practices that use or store stormwater runoff on-site rather than transporting the water to a neighborhood treatment structure or stream. This in turn will reduce the quantity and velocity of runoff exiting the City’s storm drains, reduce sediments and erosions entering the City streams and extend the useful life of the existing storm drain system. These practices show particular promise as a way of addressing stormwater in the older neighborhoods lacking treatment.
7 Recommendations Rockville is well positioned to protect its precious water resources and provide adequate service to its population now and well into the future. In order to expand or accelerate these actions, the City will require assistance from the federal government or the State of Maryland. The following steps will ensure that the City’s program remains on track in the future:
Drinking Water Actions
1. Replace 34 miles of the most vulnerable water lines over the next 20 years.
2. Resolve concerns with the water age and storage capacity of the City’s three existing storage tanks.
3. Bring the Glen Mill Pump Station on line.
4. Upgrade the water plant with energy efficient components that will allow it to produce up to a maximum of 14 million gallons per day, and pursue commensurate increases in the City’s Potomac River allocation as needed.
5. Provide customers with consumption data and water conservation techniques and other meaningful public education activities.
Wastewater System Actions
1. Complete mapping and metering the entire system including privately owned sewers and the WSSC interconnections.
2. Continue to support the annual camera inspections of the sewer system.
3. Follow up on the results of the television inspections and the Rock Creek and Watts Branch Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) studies and undertake priority sewers rehabilitation and replacement.
4. Continue to implement commercial and residential fats, oils and grease management program to prevent grease buildups and sewer blockages from occurring.
5. Maintain easement access to all portions of the wastewater infrastructure.
6. Develop a City-wide hydraulic model of the collection system.
Stormwater Management Actions
1. Develop and implement regulatory amendments to the City Code.
2. Improve the City’s stormwater enforcement program.
3. Implement an effective preventative maintenance program.
4. Repair watershed damage through capital improvement projects (CIP).
8 5. Identify and implement effective data management approaches to inform decision-making.
6. Perform continuous program assessment and planning updates.
7. Actively participate in regional stormwater improvement efforts targeted to the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay.
9 Chapter One: Goals, Organization and Comprehensive Planning Consistency
Water is the life’s blood of any community. A safe and adequate drinking water supply is critical to the sustainability of existing communities and the viability of planned future growth. Population increases, climate change and pollutant contamination all present potential challenges to maintaining this assured supply. Limited supplies can slow or stop planned development thereby preventing communities from achieving the vision set out in Comprehensive Land Use Plans and pursue smart growth policies to manage growth.
Population and economic growth must align with water quantity and quality. A balance must be struck to avoid over development that in turn leads to water shortages and non-potable water sources. Careful water-resources planning will protect public health, safety and welfare; and support smart-growth land use choices in the future.
Water Resources Planning Requirements On May 2, 2006, House Bill 1141, the Government Planning Act was signed into law. The legislative purpose of this Act is to ensure that comprehensive land use plans and future growth considerations reflect both the opportunities and limitations presented by a community’s water resources. Water resources include drinking water sources and service, wastewater service, and the community’s efforts to protect surface and groundwater resources through a stormwater management program and activities. The 2006 law requires all local jurisdictions in Maryland to incorporate into their comprehensive master plans a water resources planning element by October 1, 2009. The Maryland Department of the Environment and the Maryland Department of Planning can extend this deadline to October 1, 2010 and have done so for Rockville.
Water Resources Plan Goals The water resources plan presents both challenges and solutions for Rockville’s community water resources. The City’s goals for this plan can be summarized as follows:
• Ensure that existing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure capacity is adequate to accommodate projected growth through 2040 • Identify infrastructure concerns, including diminished capacity due to aging, that may restrict predicted population and economic growth • Protect Rockville’s three sub-watersheds and the larger water bodies these sub-watersheds flow into from stormwater impacts • Promote the reduction of impervious surfaces in the community during redevelopment activities • Preserve existing open spaces and expand them as opportunities present themselves • Encourage future population expansion to concentrate in areas designated as mixed use or smart growth neighborhoods.
The document outlines how water supplies, wastewater and stormwater will be managed to support planned growth. Since Rockville has very limited undeveloped land or greenfields, this plan describes the City’s approach to growing population densities rather than changing land uses. The plan is realistic and sustainable over time.
10 The water resources plan functions as an early warning system that alerts City decision-makers when predicted growth and densities could outpace supply and infrastructure capacities. Therefore, the plan is intended to trigger work on laws, policies and actions needed to ensure future water and wastewater needs are met while protecting local and regional watersheds and related habitat.
Plan Organization This remainder of this plan is organized into five Chapters.
Chapter Two presents an overview of the general physical and planning circumstances surrounding Rockville and provides the context for this document. For more detailed information, see The Municipal Growth Element (of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan)(August 2010), a companion document to this one.
Chapter Three describes Rockville’s drinking water program, including current and projected water demand, the City’s available water supplies, the Rockville water treatment plant, the water distribution system, known concerns about long-term capacity regarding all of these facilities, our current plans to address those concerns.
Chapter Four addresses Rockville’s current and projected domestic sewage collection and treatment needs, the capacity of existing city sewers to carry these loads, wastewater treatment provided by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. The Chapter also identifies concerns about the long-term capacity of these facilities and our current plans to address those concerns.
Chapter Five addresses the many aspects of stormwater management and the wide variety of actions Rockville is currently pursuing to address potential pollutant loads to the City’s three sub-watersheds (Rock Creek, Cabin John Creek and Watts Branch) that flow to the Potomac River and then into the Chesapeake Bay, as well as groundwater underlying the City’s footprint. The Chapter includes steps the City anticipates taking to further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the stormwater program.
Each of the last three Chapters includes information on funding needed improvements and any data gaps that need to be addressed in the coming years.
11
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination This plan supplements the water resource provisions currently set out in the City’s existing Comprehensive Master Plan. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Comprehensive Master Plan and the statements and conclusions contained in this plan, the statements and conclusions of this plan will govern.
Rockville recently enacted comprehensive changes to our existing zoning code, including the City’s zoning map. This land use pattern is not expected to change existing actual uses (other than the expectation that key population centers will grow increasingly dense over time). It should also be noted that since the City of Rockville is located entirely within Montgomery County, the two jurisdictions have coordinated their plans. In fact, the Rockville information on existing land use, projected land use changes, and nonpoint source pollutant analyses have been included in the maps and supporting documentation contained in the County’s own water resources plan.
Finally, Rockville acknowledges that the City needs to coordinate with the Maryland State Highway Authority (SHA) when utility or facility upgrades and expansions relative to the Rockville storm drain system, the sanitary sewer system, and water distribution lines may impact State highways or rights-of- way; or impact SHA’s ability to implement roadway improvements, acquire additional right-of-way, or otherwise act to maintain a safe and efficient multi-modal transportation system.
12 Chapter Two: General Physical and Planning Background
Originally called Hungerford’s Tavern, the community of Rockville was founded in the 1750s and has been an incorporated City since 1860. The City is currently celebrating 150 years of home rule in 2010. Rockville has been the county seat for Montgomery County government since 1776.
Population Growth When first incorporated in the mid nineteenth century, Rockville boasted a population of 365. Population growth was modest until World War II, after which the City experienced sharp population increases in every decade after the 1950s. For example, between 1950 and 1960, the population rose by 276 percent. In 2010, the population is approximately 62,500 (24,300 households) and is projected to rise to 84,000 (34,500 households) by 2040. This increase is broken down into 5-year increments in the table below. These projections equate to a 34% increase in population and a 42% increase in the number of Rockville households.
Table 2.1 Rockville Population Growth Projections (2010 - 2040) Year Population Percent Number of Percent Change Households Change 2010 - Current 62,476 24,327 Five Year Change 4,865 7.8% 2,317 9.5% 2015 67,341 26,644 Five Year Change 4,506 6.7% 2,140 8.0% 2020 71,847 28,784 Five Year Change 2,656 3.7% 1,250 4.3% 2025 74,503 30,034 Five Year Change 3,141 4.2% 1,475 4.9% 2030 77,644 31,509 Five Year Change 3,142 4.0% 1,500 4.8% 2035 80,786 33,009 Five Year Change 3,143 3.9% 1,500 4.5% 2040 83,929 34,509 30 Year Change 21,453 34.3% 10,182 41.9%
In 2000, Rockville’s population density was 3,524.1 persons per square mile.
Employment Due largely to its proximity to Washington D.C., and the wide variety of transportation modes available in the immediate vicinity, Rockville has and is expected to remain a net job importer. That is, the City will continue to enjoy job expansion in numbers that exceed its present and future population projections. The table below indicates the number of projected jobs in 5-year increments through 2040.
13 Table 2.2 Rockville Employment Projections (2010 – 2040) Year Number of Jobs Percent Increase 2010 – Current 74,549 - 5 Year Change 9,047 12.1% 2015 83,596 5 Year Change 8,004 9.6% 2020 91,600 5 Year Change 5,183 5.7% 2025 96,783 5 Year Change 2,620 2.7% 2030 99,403 5 Year Change 3,000 3.0% 2035 102,403 5 Year Change 3,000 2.9% 2040 105,403 30 Year Change 30,854 41.4%
Land Area and Use Rockville currently occupies 13.54 square miles (8,667 acres). When the City was incorporated, it was 73 acres. Rockville is located approximately 12 miles from the District of Columbia. Our proximity to the nation’s capital and the federal agencies, and government consultants and contractors also makes the City an attractive place for employees and businesses to locate. Moreover, it is only an hour’s drive to the State capitol in Annapolis and the City of Baltimore.
Except for green areas specifically reserved by the master plan and City zoning code, there are few developable greenfields remaining in the City limits. That is, Rockville is almost entirely built out. Consequently, future growth will principally consist of redevelopment projects within the City’s existing footprint. Land use patterns in the City are predominantly residential and commercial with different neighborhoods offering differing housing styles and densities, including several mixed use, smart growth centers. Additional population growth is expected to spur greater residential densities and be clustered around proximity to metro subway stations and the City Center. This continues a trend underway since 1970 when multi-family dwellings began to make significant inroads in Rockville housing. By 2000, multi-family dwellings comprised 25% of residential dwellings in the City. That trend is expected to intensify as the City moves to more mixed-use, higher-density, smart-growth redevelopment in the future.
There are no agricultural land uses remaining in the City. The City zoning code was comprehensively rewritten in 2009, along with the zoning maps. The new code emphasizes smart growth objectives and predicts mixed-use, higher-density redevelopment in several neighborhoods, including the Rockville Pike/State Route 355 corridor. Land use flexibility was codified in specific areas while doing away with optional and overlay zoning categories. The Code was also greened up and contributes to water resources stewardship through such provisions as an expressed preference for parking structures over larger surface lots, the use of water conservation measures, installation of on-site stormwater controls (including pervious pavements), cross linkage to the City’s water quality protection and tree protection ordinances, and the use of green or vegetated roofs.
14
Map 2.1 Rockville Land Use Patterns
Rockville’s Zoning Code has never allowed the presence of junk yards or other establishments that might contaminate stormwater runoff.
Land use in Rockville may be described as follows:
Table 2.3 Percent of Rockville Land Uses • 15% of the City’s land is in mixed use. LAND USE ACRES % OF TOTAL • 6% is the Town Center city core area. RESIDENTIAL (ALL TYPES) 4,275 49.3% • 15% is office buildings and grounds. RESERVED PARKS, FORESTS & 1,913 22.1% • 13% of the City is designated as 61 WETLAND AREAS parks totaling 1,050 acres. INSTITUTIONAL 811 9.4% • Rockville’s tree canopy is 44%, INDUSTRIAL 694 8.0% including over 25,000 street trees and COMMERCIAL 628 7.2% 12 forest preserves. (RETAIL/WHOLESALE) TRANSPORTATION 232 2.7% Transportation Options COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE 114 1.3% Rockville enjoys access to three major TOTAL 8,667 100.0% regional airports [Baltimore-Washington International (aka Thurgood Marshall),
15 Reagan National, and Dulles International]; interstate highways [Routes 270, 495, 95, 29, 70 and Maryland 200]; and local mass transit options [the Washington Metro subway system, Amtrak and MARC trains, and Ride-On buses] make the community attractive to residents and businesses alike.
The City maintains all roadways that are not maintained by the State, Montgomery County or private parties. The City does not operate local bus service in the community but has installed over 70 bus shelters to encourage residents to use this system. Finally, the City adopted and completed a Bicycle Master Plan in 1998, including construction of a large network of bike commuter trails around the City.
For more detailed information on population projections, land use, maximum expansion limits, and projected growth impacts beyond water resources, see The Municipal Growth Element (of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan)(August 2010), a companion document to this one.
Rockville Water Resources Rockville has 32.2 miles of surface streams within its 13.5 square miles. These streams flow through three sub-watersheds. The three are Rock Creek, Cabin John Creek and Watts Branch. All of Rockville’s waterways flow into the Potomac River and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.
Table 2.4 Rockville Surface Stream Miles Watts Area (in square miles) Cabin John Creek Rock Creek Branch Within Rockville 3.6 2.9 6.5 Within Montgomery County (est.) 21.4 48.1 15.5 Within D.C. (est.) 0 17 0 Total Watershed Area 25 68 22 Percentage of Watershed within Rockville 14.4% 4.3% 29.5% Percentage of Rockville’s land area within Watershed 28% 22% 50%
Historically, Rockville relied on groundwater to meet its drinking water needs. However, since 1958, Rockville has obtained 100% of its drinking water directly from Potomac River withdrawals (see Drinking Water Chapter). There are no active wells within the City and Rockville does not currently withdraw any groundwater resources to meet its needs.
Water Supply Capacity The City owns and operates its own water treatment plant and supplies approximately 48,500 people living in 11,820 households (49 percent of the City’s residential households) with drinking water. The City has an approved 2002 Maryland Department of the Environment allocation to withdraw an average of 7.1 million gallons per day and a daily maximum not-to-exceed amount of 12.1 million gallons of Potomac River water. The actual daily average is currently just below 5 million gallons per day and the summertime maximum withdrawals currently total approximately 8 million gallons per day (for more details on this consumption, see discussion in Chapter 3). The allocation is subject to renewal in 2014.
The City water treatment plant is located in Potomac Maryland on the bank of the Potomac River. Water is withdrawn and treated by settling and filtering out solids and the addition of chemicals and disinfectants to eliminate and prevent the occurrence of bacteria, pathogens, and viruses. The water is
16 then pumped to the City and distributed through 182 miles of water lines. The City also maintains three storage tanks with a combined 12 million gallons of storage capacity. The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) services the remaining 51 percent of the City’s population. WSSC owns and maintains the water and wastewater lines serving these customers. This dual approach derives from periodic City annexations of land that have historically been and remain in the WSSC service district.
In the event of a planned or emergency outage of the City’s system, Rockville can obtain sufficient water from WSSC via nine intersystem connections tying the two systems together. For more on the City’s Drinking Water system, see Chapter Three.
Future annexation will not result in significant new demands placed on Rockville’s water and sewer systems. First, the areas identified in the existing and proposed maximum expansion limit (MEL) are already nearly fully developed. Second, these areas are already serviced by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, and will remain WSSC customers after annexation. Third, the few properties that still have individual wells or septic systems will be required to connect to Rockville’s water and sewer systems as a condition of annexation.
Threats to Rockville’s Water Supply As noted above, Rockville draws its drinking water from the Potomac River above Little Falls Dam. Although there are several medium size urban areas in its drainage, much of the Middle and Upper Potomac River flows through land that is primarily forested or engaged in agriculture. Threats to the Potomac River include:
• Urban area stormwater • Agricultural runoff • Municipal treatment plants • Transportation (road surface) runoff • Septic tanks discharges • Wildlife generated bacteria • Legacy (historic) pollutants in sediments • Drought-caused low flow conditions
The entire Maryland shore of the Potomac is contained within the boundaries of the Chesapeake and Ohio National Historical Park. The park buffers pollutants from entering the River and in general, the Potomac River runs clear and has a low turbidity. However, Maryland and Virginia tributaries still carry sediments and runoff to the Potomac mainstem.
Tributary erosion, channel widening, and down-cutting of these tributary stream banks deliver substantial sediments to the Potomac. However, since the Rockville water treatment plant is capable of removing these sediments, they do not render the River unusable. Similarly, disinfection addresses bacteria in the river system. Other pollutants (e.g., metals, pesticides, oil and grease, fertilizers and organic materials) could require additional treatment at the water plant but have not been observed at levels high enough to warrant this action. Therefore, the leading threat to the continued use of the Potomac River as Rockville’s water supply is the remote possibility that climate change could lead to a temporary low-flow based disruption in service. There is little scientific evidence that this threat is likely during the 2010 to 2040 time horizon.
17 Only one of Rockville’s three sub-watersheds (Watts Branch) flows to the Potomac upstream from the City’s intake location. A second (Cabin John Creek) reaches the Potomac above the Washington D.C. intake. The third (Rock Creek) waterway discharges into the Potomac in the vicinity of Georgetown just above the National Mall where the River is tidally influenced. Rockville has taken steps to ensure that none of these waters is contaminated by local discharges and activities.
Existing Water Resource Protection Laws The Potomac River is an interstate water of the United States protected by the federal Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.]. The water quality programs established by the Clean Water Act are implemented by the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. These States develop water quality standards to protect the River’s designated uses including use as a drinking water supply. The States then issue point-source regulatory permits for all process and stormwater discharges into the river and administer nonpoint source pollution programs. In the event that designated uses are impaired, the States undertake total maximum daily load (TMDLs) analyses to identify and correct the situation and ensure the continued designated uses for the River.
Due to the size and scope of the watershed, there is little Rockville can do to influence upstream conditions in the Potomac River basin. However, Rockville, has adopted several local ordinances that serve as a model to other communities further up the drainage.
Rockville’s Water Quality Protection Ordinance (City Code Chapter 23.5) was adopted in 2007 and prohibits any pollutants from being discharged, dumped or even placed in proximity to a waterway or a storm drain inlet such that the pollutant can be reasonably be expected to reach the waterway or storm drain. The ordinance prohibits phosphates of any kind from being discharged. It establishes stream buffers of 125 to 175 feet on either side of a Rockville stream and requires adjacent landowners to allow stream banks to develop natural vegetation.
Rockville’s Stormwater Management Ordinance (City Code Chapter 19) is one of the oldest in the State. First adopted in 1978, the ordinance establishes mandatory stormwater management practices, soil and erosion controls, a development review process, and a stormwater utility fee system based on the amount of impervious surface on each parcel in the City.
The City Building Codes and Property Maintenance Codes (City Code Chapter 5) ensure that development pursues low flow water fixtures and considers stormwater implications when designing new building projects. The Codes also prevents litter or other pollutants reaching the waterways of the City.
Rockville’s Forest and Tree Preservation Ordinance (City Code Chapter 10.5) is one of the most protective in the State and requires that trees be retained on site or replaced in another off site location elsewhere in the City.
Stream Restoration and Treatment Facility Retrofits Rockville has undertaken a number of projects aimed at repairing stream courses damaged by adverse stormwater impacts as well as improving the quality of stormwater itself. Stream Restoration Projects include daylighting and restoring Maryvale Creek, an East Rockville tributary of Rock Creek; restoration of more than a mile and a quarter Watts Branch mainstem in the Wootton Mills area; and nearly another mile of Watts Branch in the Woodley Gardens neighborhood.
18
Rockville recently completed a retrofit in the College Gardens neighborhood. This project involved the installation of a regional stormwater pond facility that will drain 79 acres that previously ran directly into Watts Branch without treatment. A similar project was completed in 2008 at Carnation Drive addressing 352 acres of drainage. The next project is scheduled for 2012 in Horizon Hills Park draining 186 acres. For more details on Rockville’s stormwater controls, see Chapter Five.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity There are no domestic septic tanks treating sewage within the City limits. All sewage is collected in 148 miles of City-owned and maintained sewers and transported out of the community. Rockville has not owned or operated a wastewater treatment plant since the 1950s, but rather contracts with WSSC to dispose of our domestic waste. In turn, WSSC conveys the Rockville sewage, along with the sewage WSSC collects from other jurisdictions, to the Blue Plains regional wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC WASA). There the sewage receives primary, secondary and tertiary treatment, including denitrification before being discharged into the Potomac River. For more on this system see Chapter Four.
Stormwater Management Stormwater is removed from streets and properties through a combination of public and private stormwater inlets, drainage systems, treatment facilities and outfalls discharging to one of the three sub- watersheds. The City itself currently owns and maintains 2,050 inlets, over 162 miles of storm drains, and 106 treatment facilities. In some of the City’s older locations, stormwater is conveyed directly to a stream without any treatment.
In recent years, the City has begun to supplement these structural approaches with efforts to establish low impact development and environmental site design practices that use or store stormwater runoff on- site rather than transporting the water to a neighborhood treatment structure or stream. This in turn will reduce the quantity and velocity of runoff exiting the City’s storm drains, reduce sediments and erosions entering the City streams and extend the useful life of the existing storm drain system. These practices show particular promise as a way of addressing stormwater in the older neighborhoods lacking treatment. For more on the City’s stormwater program see Chapter Five.
Growth Restrictions and Regulatory Obligations Rockville growth is restricted by its allocation of Potomac River Water, the capacity of its water treatment plant, the capacity of its water distribution lines, and the capacity of its sewers. In addition, storm drain capacity dictates the amount of impervious surface available before local flooding begins to occur. Finally, the City holds a State Clean Water Act (NPDES) permit that establishes stormwater requirements associated with the City’s storm drain system, including the drains and treatment facilities, and a second permit that controls activities that could potentially adversely impact runoff from the City’s vehicle maintenance yard and golf course. The stringency of these permits is expected to increase in conjunction with State and Federal efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Rockville’s Pro-Active Approach to Water Resources Management Rockville’s development review process ensures that additional residential and commercial growth does not occur if the water, sewer and stormwater needs of that growth cannot be assured. The process determines whether there is adequate capacity downstream of the project (all the way to the City limits) and requires developers to increase that downstream capacity before the project can go forward. In 2009, Rockville adopted comprehensive revisions to the City’s zoning code, including provisions that
19 anticipate denser mixed or smart growth in the future. Along with the water element component of the Comprehensive Plan, the City enacted comprehensive revisions to the City’s building codes that establish a green building program.
Since Rockville’s population has already constructed homes, retail and offices on virtually all of the developable land in the City; and since irrigated agriculture has been eliminated and replaced by urban land uses; the City’s per capita water demand has actually declined against its historical consumption. With the exception of several golf courses, agricultural scale irrigation and livestock watering have ceased. Similarly, there is no water-intensive industry within Rockville’s borders. As the City’s population grows denser over the next 30 years, lawn irrigation is expected to decline on a per capita basis as well. The denser portions of the City will continue to require water for drinking, food preparation, wastewater removal, washing dishes and surfaces, vehicle washing, cleaning laundry, gardening, supplying pools and fountains, and other uses associated with an urban lifestyle. However, this volume is not expected to equal historic agricultural consumption until the population experiences considerable growth beyond the projections for the next 30 years.
While the per capita water demand may fall, the City anticipates the absolute need for water may increase. Therefore, Rockville has already begun the planning process to upgrade and expand capacity at its water treatment plant. Further, knowing that our drinking water lines are nearing the end of their useful life, the Rockville Mayor and Council has embarked on a 20-year project to replace the most vulnerable 34 miles of water lines. This effort will minimize water breaks and service interruption as well as increase capacity in those neighborhoods.
Our sewer conveyance system is aging as well. A capital project repair and replacement program is underway. The City is also systematically studying the condition of sewers across the City as the first step tot ensuring adequate long-term capacity.
Conclusion Rockville has a very reliable source of drinking water, and is part of a regional partnership that ensures adequate wastewater capacity. The City is moving forward to expand the capacity and efficiency of its water treatment plant as well as address concerns with aging in both the water distribution system and the wastewater collection system.
In recent years, Rockville has adopted its own stringent controls to prevent water quality degradation in our three sub-watersheds. The City has the most extensive stream buffers in the State of Maryland. Over the last few years, Rockville has restored several miles of critical stream channel and stream-side habitat in the Rock Creek and Watts Branch watersheds. The City undertakes a comprehensive watershed study of its three watersheds every 10 years. Finally, in 2008 the City adopted the first-of-its- kind-in Maryland stormwater utility fee that allows the City to invest in 20 full time equivalent employees (FTE) to address various aspects of stormwater management as well as pay for storm drain and treatment facility capital improvements.
20 Chapter Three: Assuring Adequate Drinking Water Supplies
Without adequate drinking water, a community cannot survive. Water drives population and economic growth and allows a community to thrive. Further, poor local land use decisions can unknowingly jeopardize an existing water supply by leading to its contamination. Therefore, protection of existing water supplies must be considered an overriding factor influencing a community’s ultimate sustainability. The Safe Drinking Water Federal and State laws and standards address both microbial and chemical contaminants that threaten the integrity of drinking water quality. Microbial contaminants are considered immediate or acute public health concerns while chemical contaminants pose longer-term or chronic health risks.
This plan sets out the vision and path needed to assure that Rockville has an adequate supply of drinking water that meets all applicable health and safety standards. Since Rockville is located in a rapid growth area of Maryland, residents, businesses, developers and environmental professionals are understandably concerned that the City will enjoy an adequate supply of drinking water well into the future. Moreover climate change and recent drought conditions have generated concerns that Central Maryland communities may not have always have an adequate supply. However, Rockville has no such concern for the foreseeable future.
Table 3.1 Rockville Demographic Information 2010 2030 2040 Change (Percent) Square miles 13.5 13.5 13.5 - Total City 62,500 77,650 84,000 21,500 (34%) Population Total Rockville 24,327 31,500 34,500 Households 10,173 (42%) City Service 11,820 15,320 16,820 5,000 (30%) Population Households Households Households City Nonresident 820 860 871 51 Connections Service Population Connections Connections Connections (6%) WSSC Service 12,507 16,180 17,680 5,173 (29%) Population* Households Households Households */ The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) continues to provide water and sewer service to those households and businesses located within its historic service area that have been annexed into the City.
Since the City of Rockville is completely built out, future growth will be infill and redevelopment. This redevelopment will be concentrated in close proximity to the City’s redeveloped Town Center, its three Metro (subway) stations, a redevelopment along the Rockville Pike corridor. With the exception of the area surrounding the Shady Grove Metro Station, the City provides drinking water to these areas and will be expected to absorb these new customers.
21
Map 3.1 The Rockville/WSSC Drinking Water Service Areas
Rockville’s Water Supply As noted above, there is no irrigated agriculture or water intensive industry located in Rockville. Similarly, there are no public or private drinking wells currently in operation in Rockville. The City holds a May 15, 2002 State Water Appropriation Permit [No. MO1958S001(04) from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) that allows it to withdraw a daily average amount of 7.1 million gallons each day and a not-to-exceed daily maximum of no more than 12.1 million gallons of Potomac River water. At present, Rockville water system is meeting the needs of our customers through daily average withdrawals of 4.264 million gallons a day (60% of the authorized daily average amount) during the fall, winter and spring months, and approximately 8 million gallons per day during the driest summer months (113% of the daily average allocation, but 44% below the daily maximum allocation of 12.1 million). This seasonal difference is attributed to lawn and garden irrigation and backyard pool maintenance demands. The permit expires on May 2014 subject to renewal.
22
As noted in the table above, Rockville’s water plant produces 1.82 billion gallons of water annually to serve approximately 46,500 residents living in 11,820 residential units (49% of our population). The remainder of the City’s population is served by WSSC. A 2006 Rockville water consumption study indicates that, on average, City households use 162 gallons per day per household (approximately 65 gallons per person per day). This per capita consumption is expected to fall as a result of a series of conservation practices and incentives the City has put in place. That same study indicates that non- residential connections consume approximately 2,865 gallons of water per day. This level is also expected to decline over the next 20 years.
Threats to the Water Supply The Potomac River drains 14,670 square miles in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
A minimum Potomac River flow has been established to protect aquatic life. This flow-by requirement is 100 million gallons per day (MGD) at Little Falls Dam, and 300 MGD at Great Falls (both points are downstream of the Rockville intake). It should be noted that the scientific basis for the 100 MGD Little Falls Dam umber is currently under review. During low flow periods, additional water can be released from the Jennings Randolph impoundment (13 billion gallons) and Little Seneca Lake (4 billion gallons).
Potential threats to the watershed include: Spills from roadways and pipelines Upstream point-source discharges Upstream agricultural runoff Urban stormwater flows Drought (low flow) conditions
All of these land uses and threats lay beyond the Rockville City limits. However, the federal, state and local governments have regulatory and incentive programs to address each of these concerns. Further, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park occupies the Maryland shoreline for more than 184 miles above Washington D.C. and acts as a natural stream buffer to filter pollutants.
Since the river is the primary water supply for the metropolitan Washington D.C. region, it is extensively monitored for quality and quantity by water utilities including Rockville and WSSC, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and the Army Corps of Engineers. In the event a spill occurs upstream, all potentially affected water utilities are notified. The nature and circumstances of the spill are investigated and the size and shape of the spill plume are transmitted to the water utilities. Recently, these entities have begun monitoring for emerging contaminants that are yet to be regulated by the State and Federal government.
In the event that a spill threatens the Potomac in the vicinity of the City’s water supply, Rockville has the ability to immediately close off the intake and allow a spill to pass by, without harming the system. The system will continue to operate and provide approximately six hours of short-term water demands. If the spill will take longer to pass the intake, water will be purchased from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) through a series of intersystem connections. Further, for spills that float
23 on the river’s surface (e.g., gasoline and oil) the water plant is fully equipped with a series of booms and other devices to prevent the spill material from entering and contaminating the water system.
In the event of a prolonged power outage affecting the intake or the water plant that might otherwise prevent water withdrawals and treatment, Rockville’s water plant is equipped with an emergency backup diesel generator that is capable of running the plant.
It is unlikely that even an extreme drought condition will cause a significant adverse effect on Rockville’s water source. The likelihood that the Potomac River flow will be insufficient to satisfy the Rockville allocation is extremely small. For example, during the significant low flow periods experienced in the drought summer and fall of 2007 and 2008, river levels never fell below a point more than 2 feet above the top of Rockville’s intake pipe. The lowest the river has fallen (in 1966 and 2009) was approximately 600 million cubic feet per second, which is more than adequate to support all existing river allocations (plus an additional 100 million gallons per day increment to support aquatic life).
Rockville City Code provides authority to restrict water use in the event of a prolonged drought (see City Code Chapter 24, Section 24.72(b), including limiting or curtailing water for lawn and garden irrigation, vehicle washing, street, sidewalk and building washing, fountains, swimming pools, and water cooled air conditioning equipment. Moreover, Rockville participates in a regional partnership that manages several Potomac reservoirs that can be released into the main stem during in very low-flow situations.
Anticipated Increased Water Demands
Residential Demand Rockville currently provides 1,912,700 gallons per day for its residential customers. By 2030, the City’s residential connections are expected to climb from 11,820 in 2010 to 15,320. By 2040 the number of residential households is estimated to reach 16,820. At the same time, the WSSC service area is expected to experience an increase in the number of households as follows: 12,507 in 2010, 16,180 by 2030, and 17,680 by 2040. A separate survey done specifically for Rockville indicates that the average number of Rockville residents per household is approximately 2.5; below both the National and State averages.
3.2 Projected Residential (Household) Growth 2010 2030 2040 Total Change and Percentage Rockville 11,820 15,320 16,820 5,000 (30%) Service Area WSSC Service 12,507 16,180 17,680 5,173 (29%) Area
Translating this growth to water demand involves applying the average water consumed in each household to the expected growth in the number of those households.
2010 Current Demand per Household = 11,820 households x 162 gallons per household or 1,914,840 million gallons per day
24 2030 Projected Demand per Household =15,320 households x 162 gallons per household or 2,481,840 million gallons per day An increase of 567,000 gallons per day (23%)
2040 Projected Demand per Household =16,820 households x 162 gallons per household or 2,724,840 million gallons per day An increase of 243,000 gallons per day (23%)
The total additional projected demand placed upon the City’s water plant is expected to be 810,000 gallons per day. This brings the total water needed for projected residential service to 2,724,840 gallons per day.
Nonresident (Commercial/Industrial/institutional) Demand Rockville currently provides 2,349,383 gallons per day to its 820 nonresident (commercial/industrial/Institutional) customers. Note that there are no significant irrigated agricultural uses in the City any more. By 2030, the City’s nonresident customers are expected to climb from 820 to 860. By 2040 the number of nonresident customers is estimated to reach 871. According to an actual study of water usage in Rockville, the average nonresident consumption rate is 2,865 gallons per day. Assuming this consumption number remains representative in the future, the increased nonresident demand is as follows in the table below:
Table 3.3 Projected Nonresidential Customer Growth 2010 2030 2040 Total Change and Percentage Rockville 820 860 871 51 (6%) Service Area
2010 Current Nonresident Demand = 2,865 gallons per day x 820 nonresident connections or 2,349,300 million gallons per day
2030 Projected Nonresident Demand = 2,865 gallons per day x 860 nonresident connections or 2,463,900 million gallons per day An increase of 114,600 gallons per day (<5%)
2040 Projected Nonresident Demand = 2,865 gallons per day x 871 nonresident connections or 2,495,415 million gallons per day An increase of 31,515 gallons per day (>1%)
The total additional projected demand placed upon the City’s water plant is expected to be 146,115 gallons per day. This brings the total needed for nonresident water service to 2,495,415 gallons per day.
Taken together, the anticipated residential and nonresidential increases are 956,115 gallons per day (an 18% increase) for a total projected demand of 5,220,255 gallons per day. This demand is well under Rockville’s existing Potomac River allocation of 7.1 million gallons per day.
25 Even if Rockville were to aggressively pursue annexation over the next 20-30 years, pushing the City limits further into Montgomery County will not create additional water demands because all of this land has been developed and these potential customers already receive water and sewer service from WSSC, and these properties will continue to receive WSSC service following annexation into the City. There are a very small number of properties in the Maximum Expansion Limit (see the Rockville Municipal Growth Element for more detail) that remain on private wells and septic tanks. While these properties will be compelled to connect up to City water and sewer (if available) following annexation, they do not represent a significant burden on either the water or wastewater systems. In addition, given water conservation incentives and mandates that the City has and will continue to put in place, the actual water demand may actually be significantly less on a per capita and per job basis than the calculated projection set out above.
Despite this analysis, should the City require more water than the projected demand, and its current River allocation, it has three potential courses of action:
1) Impose or incentivize even greater water conservation measures for both resident and nonresident customers.
2) Pursue an additional River allocation from the State (MDE).
3) Supplement its water source by purchasing WSSC water and reselling it to the Rockville customers
In all likelihood, all three approaches will be pursued if necessary
Drought is not expected to present a major consideration regarding Potomac flows. While climate change may have a significant impact on future summer base flows, this impact is not anticipated to take place within the planning horizons of this document. Further, there are several water reservoirs upstream just off the Potomac River. Water from these reservoirs will be released to supplement the base summer flows as needed to counteract low flow conditions.
However, should the Potomac River levels become problematic, reduced or temporarily unreliable during exceptionally or unprecedented months, Rockville has the authority to impose water restrictions to temporarily limit consumptions. In addition, the Rockville water system abuts the neighboring Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) system. There are 10 intersystem locations that can be accessed to provide additional water to Rockville customers. At the present time these interconnections are only used when the City system is rendered insufficient or unavailable because of construction or the prolonged loss of power. Negotiations with WSSC could result in a more consistent source of water to supplement the City water plant’s production if necessary.
Rockville’s Water Treatment Plant Rockville was settled in the 18th century and has provided water for its residents for over 150 years. From 1897 to 1958, water was withdrawn from groundwater production wells. These wells are no longer in operation and were abandoned when Rockville opened a water treatment plant adjacent to the Potomac River. The historic pump house structure of the Rockville Electric Light and Water Works has served as a community center since 1962.
26 The City holds a State allocation to withdraw up to 12.1 million gallons of Potomac River water each day. Originally a 4 million gallon per day facility, the water plant was expanded to its current 8 million gallon per day capacity in 1969. In 1995, a solids handling facility was added to the water plant. This new treatment component allowed the termination of the City’s historical practice of discharging removed solids back into the River. The plant currently produces an average of 1.826 billion gallons of drinking water each year and satisfies the daily need of 46,500 customers. The average cost of treatment is $1.16 per 1,000 gallons. Currently, Rockville is nearing the completion of the Glen Mill Pump Station that will increase the production capacity from 8 million gallons per day to 14 million gallons per day.
Water is withdrawn directly from the Potomac River through an underwater intake structure located on the towpath of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. The intake pipe is divided into 2 channels. Each channel has two 36-inch diameter screens (3 feet by 3 feet). The screens can continue to withdraw up to 12 million gallons per day even if River levels drop half way down the screens. During the drought years of 2007 and 2008, the River never fell below a level that was 2 feet above the top of these intake screens.
Floating river debris is prevented from entering or damaging the intake structure by these screens. During times of possible algae blooms, potassium permanganate is added to kill the algae and reduce taste and odor concerns. From the intake structure, water is pumped to the treatment plant approximately one half mile away.
Once at the treatment plant, a chemical flocculent is added to aid in settling solids then the raw water is sent to a clarifier where the settling takes place. The recovered solids are collected and removed to a thickening unit and, following dewatering, ultimately sent off site. The settled water then goes to a series of sand and anthracite coal filters where it is further processed. The highly-filtered water is then disinfected using chlorine gas. Fluoride is added as an enhancement to prevent tooth decay. Finally, sodium hydroxide is added for final pH adjustment. The fully treated water is then pumped via a seven- mile, 24 inch main line to the City’s distribution system.
Near-Term Improvements to the Water Plant In 2008, the City adopted a Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan that articulates intended plant upgrades anticipated over the next 5-7 years. Current upgrades address the chemical storage facilities, improving our organic pollutant removal process, upgrading the electrical system, reviewing potential improvements to the disinfection process, and increasing our solids handling capability (disposal of the material removed from the raw water). The total cost of these improvements is estimated to be $14.6 million over 5 years. We are also currently considering operational changes that will make the treatment facility more efficient and effective.
In addition to these upgrades, the electrical components at the raw water intake and water treatment plant are the most inefficient and demanding electrical systems in the City. Rockville has recently received $1.57 million dollars under the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 to convert these systems to more energy efficient ones. Specifically, these economic stimulus funds will be used on the HVAC system, raw water pumps, solids transfer pumps, chemical feed pumps, the solids press, the instrumentation and control panels, and improved lighting throughout the plant.
27 Water Plant Capacity Expansion The improvements identified in the 2008 Facility Plan will allow the water plant to increase its production up to 12 million gallons per day. The emergency generator will reduce or eliminate service disruptions due to local power outages. Other improvements will extend capacity, improve energy efficiency and extend the useful life of plant treatment components.
Limitations or restrictions on water plant production are the State allocation of 12.1 million gallons per day, the size of the City’s intake pipe, and the capacity of pumps, clarifiers and filters. As noted above, Rockville does not anticipate needing an increase in the Potomac River allocation it holds between now and 2030. However, as Rockville improves its water plant and infrastructure to handle up to 14 million gallons per day, petitioning the State to increase the allocation from 12.1 million gallons per day to perhaps 14 or 15 million gallons may be desirable.
In the event Rockville exhausts its river allocation and cannot obtain an increase from the State, the City is in position to seek additional or supplemental water elsewhere. First, over 31% of Rockville residents already receive their water and sewer service from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC). The WSSC presence creates an opportunity for the City to negotiate with WSSC to use one or more of the nine locations where the WSSC distribution system and the Rockville distribution system come together to routinely purchase additional water. Currently, these interconnects are used to satisfy emergency or short-term needs. For example, during a planned plant shutdown (e.g., for upgrades or repairs) or in an emergency situation (e.g., prolonged power outage, a pressure drop caused by a major water line break, or other water supply shortage), Rockville, by agreement with WSSC can open these interconnections and purchase water to meet its needs. In 2008, Rockville purchased over 1.551 million gallons (about 0.1% of its total need) from WSSC.
In the future, should the production of additional drinking water be unavailable or no longer cost effective, Rockville could decide to supplement the volume of water the City produces by purchasing enough water to meet the additional demands projected for future growth. Similarly, Rockville could decide to obtain 100% of our water from WSSC and either abandon the water plant or maintain it as an emergency back-up facility. Yet another alternative would be to supplement the surface water withdraws with ground water.
In addition to WSSC, Rockville has entered into a mutual aid agreement with other Washington area jurisdictions. This agreement promises that other communities will provide labor, equipment and expertise needed in the event of a natural or man-made disaster, including disruption to Rockville’s water treatment plant and the distribution system.
Rockville’s Distribution System As noted above, 6-8 million gallons of fully treated drinking water per day are pumped the seven miles from the water treatment plant in Potomac, Maryland to Rockville’s distribution system. The City’s water distribution system has expanded to keep pace with the City’s footprint. The City owned and maintained system is now 182 miles. These lines vary from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. Once the Glen Mill Pump Station becomes operational, in 2011, Rockville will be able to pump up to an additional 4 million gallons per day (14 MGD total) to its distribution system.
28 The City has 3 storage tanks with a total storage capacity of 12 million gallons.
Table 3.4 Rockville Drinking Water Storage Tanks Tank Name Capacity Huntington Hills 8 million gallons Carr Avenue 3 million gallons Talbott Avenue 1 million gallons
However, because these tanks were all constructed at grade (rather than elevated), the City is unable to use 100% of the stored water without losing some head pressure in the system. Rockville has already undertaken a study to determine tank upgrades that will improve the access and water age (quality) of water stored in these tanks.
Limitations of the Water Distribution System The flow carried through the water distribution system is the primary limiting factor that may restrict the projected growth expected by the City by 2030. Pump capability, water line capacity, storage and aging infrastructure are all elements that influence the overall flow capacity and the ability of Rockville to serve its customers.
Much of the distribution system is now reaching the end of its useful life. Approximately 115 miles (64%) of water lines were constructed before 1970. These older parts of the system were constructed with unlined iron pipe and spiral-welded steel pipe. The newer sections are constructed of the more durable cement-lined, ductile iron and typically have a useful life of 100 years or more. The age and materials used in the older sections of the system present several concerns for the City.
First, after 40-60 years, the age and materials used in these older water lines are making the pipes brittle and subject to breaks and leaks. Second, sections of the system are becoming turberculated and no longer carry the volume of water they once did. Turberculation occurs when water chemically reacts with the deteriorating iron in the pipe. The result is growth inside the pipe that reduces the interior diameter and therefore, reduces the amount of water that can pass through the pipe. Tuberculation also causes rust and can reduce the chlorine residual available to address bacteria. Similarly, the fire hydrants located along these water lines may be also adversely affected.
The City is aware that over 33 miles (19%) of the system is becoming brittle and tuberculated. In 2007, Rockville’s system experienced a record 70 line breaks costing $250,000 to repair. Similarly, 51 of the City’s 1,369 (<4%) fire hydrants have less than optimal fire suppression flow.
Table 3.5 Distribution System Line Breaks (2007-2010) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 30 70 41 64 40
Finally, some isolated low spots, dead ends and low flow areas are experiencing either a low chlorine level or the creation of disinfection byproducts. These dead end areas will be retrofitted with pressure reducing valves to maintain water circulation.
29 Distribution System Improvements Rockville is taking proactive steps to address these distribution system concerns. In 2008, the City adopted a Water Distribution Master Plan. The plan prioritizes the replacement of water lines, water houses, fire hydrants, and valves across the City. The City has identified 33.8 miles of the worst sections of lines and has begun to repair or replace these lines. Rockville anticipates replacing 2.2 miles each year over 20 years at a cost of $76 million. $4.4 million will be spent in fiscal year 2010 alone.
As pipes are replaced, smaller lines will be enlarged to provide additional flow capacity, and dead-end lines will be connected. All new pipes will be cement-lined, ductile iron pipes with an exterior polyethylene wrap that will have a at least 100 years of useful life. Similarly, hydrants along these lines will also be replaced and will be tested and painted consistent with the National Fire Protection Associations guidelines (i.e., a yellow barrel with blue nozzles).
In addition to replacing the water lines, Rockville is expanding its existing System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) electronic communication system. The system generates and analyzes data from sensors at the water plant, pump station, storage tanks and distribution system. The SCADA system also allows the entire system to be managed remotely from the water plant control room. The upgrade, including installing additional sensors in the distribution system, expanding the optic fiber available at the various drinking water facilities and upgrading the programmable logic controllers at the water plant, will cost $600,000 and will increase the scope and efficiency of the system.
The City is also installing new air release valves in the 24-inch mail connecting the water plant to the Glenn Mill Pump Station; and placing hydraulic surge suppression tanks at both the water plant and the pump station. The City expects to complete these upgrades in FY 2011 for a cost of approximately $1.37 million.
In addition to these repairs, the City conducted a water-loss audit of the distribution system in 2007. The net lost/unmeasured water was 73.01 million gallons. This equates to 3.9% of the total water produced. Much of these losses were attributed to line breaks rather than leakage. The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) guidelines indicate that well-operated systems should not lose more than 10% of their total water.
Water Conservation Measures Although Rockville does not have a long-term concern with its water supply, the City has nevertheless pursued a number of measures intended to decrease the water demand of the City’s consumers. These measures include providing better consumption data for customers, using incentive-based pricing, requiring low-flow plumbing fixtures, and source water protection actions.
Low Flow Fixtures Rockville is currently developing comprehensive green building standards and complementary stormwater controls for new and renovated residential and commercial development that will require water conservation features in all buildings and structures in the City. For example, the new building code requires the installation of toilets that use no more than 1.2 gallons per flush. The stormwater requirements emphasize the use of rainwater for irrigation and other non-potable purposes. The City expects to have both of these ordinances in place and effective by May 2010.
30 Incentive Pricing Rockville charges its customers for the water they use. The average water bill is $30.98 per quarter. The water fee is expected to rise to $71.28 (22% annual increase) through 2013 and level off thereafter. This revenue is deposited into an enterprise fund used to expand and maintain the system, pay debt service incurred for water capital projects, and pay operating costs including chemicals, electricity and personnel.
To encourage water conservation, Rockville has adopted a three tier pricing approach that penalizes larger volume users. The current and projected water fees are shown on the table below.
Table 3.6 Projected Rockville Water Rates (per 1,000 gallons) Volume FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 0-12,000 gal. $2.78 $3.48 $4.33 $4.38 $4.43 $4.48 12,001 up to $4.00 $5.01 $6.23 $6.30 $6.37 $6.44 24,000 gal. > 24,000 gal $4.30 $5.37 $6.69 $6.76 $6.84 $6.91 % Increase - 25% 24.5% 1.15% 1.10 % 1.10%
These tiered rates encourage customers to reduce the amount of water they are using, particularly for nonessential purposes. The planned increases are intended to pay for upgrades and improvements to the water plant and the distribution system over the next 6 years. In addition to the tiered rate structure, Rockville imposes a charge for water meters that ranges from $2.12 to $254.40 a month. Finally, the City imposes a Ready-to-Serve charge ($4.77 for FY 2010). This charge is based on water line and meter size. However, this charge (vis-à-vis the water rates above) is a flat fee and does not vary with actual usage. Consequently, commercial customers often reconsider using a smaller diameter line when constructing or renovating a building.
Water Meters Rockville has recently completed a program to replace all 13,445 of our residential and commercial water service meters, including installing meters in city-owned facilities and other previously unmetered buildings. The new meters are Sensus and have remote radio-read capability. They will more accurately and efficiently collect water consumption data that can be provided to customers to help them understand their water use and show decreases in their bill due to office and household conservation practices (see also Consumer Education below)
Consumer Education Rockville wants to put its water consumers in a position to make informed water-use choices and change poor water-use habits. Although difficult to quantify, these savings play an important role in the demand-side management of the water system. There are several components to the City of Rockville’s information and education program.
An Informative Water Bill: Customers must first be aware of their own water usage and costs, before they can begin to consider investing in methods designed to reduce their water usage and therefore their costs. Rockville’s water bill contains information on the amount of water used in the current usage period, and for comparison, the last usage period, last year’s usage period and the same usage period from two years ago.
31 Newsletters and Television: Rockville currently uses a multi-media approach to informing consumers about water conservation. Conservation tips are put in Rockville Reports, the City’s monthly newsletter sent to all residences and available to all businesses; tips are aired on The Rockville Channel, the City’s cable TV station; the City has an educational pamphlet on water conservation that is handed out at community events or by request.
Website: The City’s website provides a more detailed description of the charges appearing on the water bill, the full rate schedule, and contact information for additional questions or water emergencies (water line breakage, drinking water quality issue, etc.). There are also descriptions of conservation practices and actions our residents can take to reduce the volume of water they use. Since the City relies on these other methods, we have stopped the practice of including conservation tips in water bill inserts.
Regional Initiatives: Rockville is an active partner in the Wise Use water program coordinated by the Metropolitan Council of Governments and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. The partnership has agreed in advance to regional voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures in the event the river flow drops beyond certain points. The program also has a centralized, public education campaign that alerts residents of the applicable water restrictions.
Funding the Drinking Water Program Rockville will continue to rely on water fees from commercial and residential customers to pay for infrastructure, operation, electricity, chemicals and personnel needed to improve and provide water to our customers. These funds are deposited in an enterprise fund that can only be used for these drinking water purposes. The City has a AAA bond rating and capital projects are often bonded through municipal bond sales. In turn, the bonds are paid off over time using the fee revenue. The City supplements these revenues with grants and below-market-interest loans for such projects when available. We also continue to rely on developers to absorb the immediate costs of serving or increasing service to their proposed re-developments.
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Service in Rockville The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) serves 1.8 million residents in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. As noted above, approximately 12,507 City residential households currently obtain drinking water from WSSC rather than the City. WSSC’s household population is anticipated to grow to 16,180 by 2030 and 17,680 by 2040 (an increase of 5,173 households or 29%).
WSSC also relies on supplies from the Potomac and the Patuxent Rivers. Rockville customers are supplied by a Potomac withdrawal near the confluence with Watts Branch. The exact intake is directly downstream from the point where Muddy Branch and Great Seneca Creeks enter the Potomac. WSSC treats Potomac River Water at the Potomac Water Filtration Plant permitted to withdraw 300 MGD and has a current production capacity of 285 MGD, although typical daily production is 109.3 MGD. Peak flow is 161.7 MGD.
WSSC has determined that its supply, treatment facilities and distribution system have adequate capacity to accommodate the projected population growth in their entire service district, including its Rockville customers.
32 According to WSSC’s 30 year Infrastructure Plan, aging and deteriorating water mains and valves present a serious challenge to the integrity of the water distribution system. By 2025, it is estimated that the approximately 50% of the entire distribution system will reach or exceed its useful life. There are over 2,000 miles of cast iron pipe in the system and over 85% of this pipe will exceed its useful life by 2025. WSSC is working with County officials to develop an infrastructure investment plan to provide a roadmap to refurbish and replace this infrastructure over time.
WSSC has a variety of programs to promote water conservation and reduce the water demand of households and jobs in its service area. These actions include the adoption of stringent plumbing codes requiring low water fixtures, water rate structure that encourages conservation and community education and outreach activities. These programs are particularly important during the summer and early fall months when the River experiences lower flow conditions.
Recommended Rockville Actions Rockville’s water supply is adequate to satisfy the demand of projected population growth over the next 20 years. The City also has additional alternative sources that will meet further long-term demands. These sources are limited by the size and condition of the City’s infrastructure. Rockville is taking pro- active steps to ensure that the infrastructure also keeps pace with demand. The City is also aggressively moving to reduce per-capita demand through mandatory and voluntary water conservation practices and incentives. These measures enjoy adequate funding under the City’s water service enterprise fee program.
Rockville has already accomplished much of what it needs to do to position the City to address its future needs. Nevertheless, the City will continue to look for innovative and creative methods to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its drinking water system. To complete these tasks, the City must follow through on its plans to:
1. Replace 34 miles of the most vulnerable water lines over the next 20 years
2. Resolve concerns with the water age and storage capacity of the City’s three existing storage tanks.
3. Bring the Glen Mill Pump Station on line
4. Upgrade the water plant with energy efficient components that will allow it to produce up to 14 million gallons per day and pursue a commensurate increase in the daily average and daily maximum Potomac River allocations as needed.
5. Provide customers with consumption data and water conservation techniques and other meaningful public education activities to encourage per capita reductions in water use.
33 Chapter Four: Assuring Adequate Wastewater Disposal
As with drinking water, communities must provide adequate wastewater disposal for the domestic sewage they generate. Left untreated, sewage carries bacteria, viruses and diseases that can harm public health and contaminate downstream drinking water supplies. Similarly, many communities allow commercial and light industrial facilities to discharge their process wastewater into the community’s sewers. These discharges may contain toxic pollutants such as solvents and metals. They may also contain blocking or viscous substances that can obstruct a sewer and lead the contents of the sewer to spill out onto the land surface or community street exposing residents to public health concerns. In some cases, a sewage spill from the collection system can also reach and contaminate nearby waterways.
In the same manner that drinking water supplies are potentially jeopardized, poor local land use decisions can result in a domestic sewage overload beyond the capacity of the community’s sewers, pump stations or treatment plant to handle. This plan sets out the vision and path needed to assure that Rockville will continue to enjoy adequate facilities for wastewater disposal far into the future. As can be gleaned from the description below, Rockville has already put plans in motion to ensure this future capacity.
4.1 Rockville Demographic Information 2010 2030 2040 Change (Percent) Square miles 13.5 13.5 13.5 - Total City 62,500 77,650 84,000 21,500 (34%) Population Total Rockville 24,327 31,500 34,500 Households 10,173 (42%) City Service 11,820 15,320 16,820 5,000 (30%) Population Households Households Households City Nonresident 820 860 871 51 Connections Service Population Connections Connections Connections (6%) WSSC Service 12,507 16,180 17,680 5,173 (29%) Population* Households Households Households */ The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) continues to provide sewer service to those households and businesses located within its historic service area that have been annexed into the City.
Since the City of Rockville is completely built out, future growth (both residential and nonresidential) will consist of infill and redevelopment. This redevelopment will be concentrated in close proximity to the City’s redeveloped Town Center, its three Metro (subway) stations, and redevelopment along the Rockville Pike corridor. With the exception to the Shady Grove Metro station area (served by WSSC), the City provides wastewater service to these growth areas and will be expected to absorb these new customers.
34 Rockville’s Wastewater Needs Throughout most of the City’s history, wastewater treatment and disposal occurred within the City limits. During the winter of 1913-14, Rockville experienced a severe typhoid epidemic that made national news. The cause was eventually traced to a typhoid-carrying guest of a resident whose privy contaminated the City wells located only 400 feet away. By 1916, Rockville had a state of the art sewer and treatment system that all residents were required to connect to. The typhoid event also directly led to the creation of the Washington Suburban Sanitation Commission (WSSC) to service Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. However, in the 1950s, pursuant to an order issued by the Maryland Department of Health, Rockville’s wastewater treatment facilities were closed and the City has conveyed its sewage to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission ever since. Although the City is no longer responsible for direct treatment and disposal of its sewage, Rockville continues to own and maintain much of the sewage collection system in the City.
Map 4.1 The Rockville/WSSC Wastewater Service Areas
35 As with drinking water, Rockville’s own sewage system serves approximately 49% of the community, including 820 nonresidential customers. In 2009, the City’s resident and nonresident populations generated 6.85 million gallons of sewage each day. The remaining 51% of the City is served directly by sewers owned and maintained by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC). The WSSC wastewater service area is identical to the drinking water service area described in Chapter Three.
Pursuant to an agreement negotiated in the 1970s, the City conveys all of it collected sewage to sewers owned by WSSC. However, the agreement restricts Rockville’s contribution to 9.31 million gallons each day. The City has never used its full treatment allotment and does not expect to do so even after the projected population growth anticipated by 2040.
Map 4.2 Rockville Sewersheds
36 At the present time, Rockville is only using less than 69 percent of its allotted Blue Plains capacity via WSSC. Over 31 percent (2.92 million gallons per day) of the City’s capacity remains available to support future growth.
Table 4.2 Rockville Average Daily Wastewater Flows Fiscal Year Flow (Million Gallons per Day) 2006 6.22 2007 5.97 2008 6.52 2009 6.85 Four Year Average 6.39
Anticipated Residential Wastewater Demand Rockville currently collects sewage from 11,820 residential customers. By 2030, theses connections are expected to climb to 15,320, and 16,820 by 2040. Similarly, the WSSC service area is expected to experience an increase in the number of households as follows: 12,507 in 2010, 16,180 by 2030, and 17,680 by 2040. A separate survey done specifically for Rockville indicates that the average number of Rockville residents per household is approximately 2.5; below both the National and State averages.
Table 4.3 Projected Residential (Household) Customer Growth 2010 2030 2040 Total Change and Percentage Rockville 11,820 15,320 16,820 5,000 (30%) Service Area WSSC Service 12,507 16,180 17,680 5,173 (29%) Area
Rockville’s experience is that resident and nonresident customers typically discharge 80% of the water they consume back to the City in the form of sewage and greywater. While the recent trend toward bottled water may complicate a precise calculation, it is unlikely that the introduction of bottled water will present a significant variance from projections based on City drinking water consumption data. Therefore, a reliable wastewater need calculation can be derived by taking 80% of the estimated drinking water demands of the City’s customers as follows:
Residential Wastewater Demand
2010 Current Wastewater Demand = 11,820 households x 162 gallons per day – 20% or 1,531,872 million gallons per day
2030 Projected Wastewater Demand = 15,320 households x 162 gallons per day – 20% or 1,985,472 million gallons per day An increase of 453,600 gallons per day (23%)
2040 Projected Wastewater Demand = 16,820 households x 162 gallons per day – 20% or 2,179,872 million gallons per day An increase of 194,400 gallons per day (9%)
37 Therefore, the total projected increase in residential wastewater demand is 648,000 gallons per day (a 30% increase).
Nonresident (Commercial/Industrial/Institutional) Demand Rockville currently collects sewage from its 820 nonresident (commercial/industrial/Institutional) customers. Note that there are no significant irrigated agricultural uses in the City any more. By 2030, the City’s nonresident customers are expected to climb from 820 to 860. By 2040 the number of nonresident customers is estimated to reach 871.
Table 4.4 Projected Nonresident Customer Growth 2010 2030 2040 Total Change and Percentage Rockville Service 820 860 871 51 (6%) Area
According to an actual study of water usage in Rockville, the average nonresident water consumption rate is 2,865 gallons per day. Assuming this consumption number remains representative in the future, the increased nonresident wastewater demand can also be estimated using 80% of the water totals as follows:
2010 Current Wastewater Demand = 2,865 gallons per day x 820 nonresident connections – 20% or 1,879,440 million gallons per day
2030 Projected Wastewater Demand = 2,865 gallons per day x 860 nonresident connections – 20% or 1,971,120 million gallons per day An increase of 91,680 gallons per day (<5%)
2040 Projected Nonresident Demand = 2,865 gallons per day x 871 nonresident connections - 20% or 1,996,332 million gallons per day An increase of 25,212 gallons per day (<2%)
Therefore, the total projected increase in nonresidential wastewater demand is 116,892 gallons per day (a 6% increase over current levels).
Taken together, the projected increase in residential and nonresidential wastewater demands is 116,892 gallons per day (18%). The total projected wastewater demand from all sources is 4,176,204 gallons per day. This demand is well under Rockville’s existing treatment allotment at the Blue Plains regional treatment facility. In addition, given water conservation incentives and mandates that the City has and will continue to put in place, the actual wastewater demand may actually be significantly less on a per capita and per job basis than the calculated projection set out above. For example, Rockville recently adopted a green building code (City Code Chapter 5) that requires the use of low-flow toilets (1.2 gallons per flush) and faucets in all new and renovated buildings.
Moreover, in the event that Rockville were to aggressively pursue annexation over the next 20-30 years, it would not create significant additional demands for wastewater treatment because the properties identified on the City’s Maximum Expansion Limit map (see the companion Municipal Growth Element for more details on the MEL) have already been developed and are either 1) on private wells and septic systems or 2) already receiving water and sewer service from WSSC.
38
Those properties receiving WSSC service will continue to receive these services even after annexation. The City has identified a small number of residential properties 10 or fewer on private wells and septic tanks. While these properties will be compelled to connect to City water and sewer systems (if available) as a condition of annexation, they do not represent a significant increase or burden on the system beyond the increases calculated for growth inside the current City limits.
Therefore, the only restrictions on short-term population growth will derive from any limitations in Rockville’s collection system.
Rockville’s Collection System There are no public or private septic tanks in Rockville. Similarly, there are no public or private wastewater treatment plants located in the City. However, the City owns and maintains 149.44 miles of sanitary sewers. The diameter of these pipes ranges from 6 inches to 27 inches. WSSC maintains 32.56 miles of sewers. Another 18 miles of private sewers connected to the City’s collection system at various locations.
Most of the sewage in the system is moved by gravity (that is it is not pumped uphill). However, there are two locations that require pumping. The City has two pump stations; one at North Horners Lane (0.5 million gallons a day) in East Rockville and another in the Fallsgrove neighborhood (1.1 million gallons per day).
Table 4.5 Rockville’s Collection System Elements System Components Number of Components Publicly-Owned Sewers 149.44 miles Privately-Owned Sewers 18 miles Total Sewers in City 160 miles Pump Stations 2
There are 10 interconnections where the City’s collection system meets the WSSC collection system and wastewater is conveyed to WSSC. WSSC in turn conveys its sewage, including the Rockville portion, to a 370 million gallon per day wastewater plant owned and operated by the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (D.C. WASA). The regional wastewater treatment plant is known as the Blue Plains facility. WSSC’s total contribution is limited to 169.9 million gallons per day pursuant to the regional agreement. Blue Plains treats another 200 million gallons of sewage generated in Washington D.C. as well as several Northern Virginia suburbs.
In addition to traditional primary and secondary treatment operations, the Blue Plains facility denitrifies and filters the wastewater and is the largest wastewater treatment plant in the world to do so. It discharges fully treated water to the Potomac River at a location just south of the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.
The Blue Plains facility holds a Clean Water Act, NPDES discharge permit issued by the Federal U.S. EPA. This permit establishes stringent requirements on nitrogen, phosphorus and bacteria. However, the advanced tertiary treatment provided by the plant is expected to satisfy these requirements. Therefore, Rockville’s projected population growth is not expected to be restricted by State and Federal regulatory obligations.
39
Collection System Concerns The design capacity of the collection system is not considered an issue in Rockville. Rockville developers proposing new growth in the City are required to pay for infrastructure improvements and upgrades necessary to support the proposed development. Since Rockville is virtually built out, all new growth is expected to take the form of infill and redevelopment projects. Developers will continue to remain financially responsible for upgrades to increase or extend wastewater service to their properties in the future. This obligation continues as far downstream in the sewer system as may be necessary to assure capacity. All of these upgrades are at the developer’s expense and are overseen by City personnel.
There are five primary concerns with the Rockville collection system: • Ensuring system data is easily accessible • Rehabilitating and replacing aging or damaged sewers • Preventing precipitation and groundwater from entering the system • Preventing blockages into and spills out of the system • Eliminating discharges of incompatible wastes None of these concerns are expected to limit or restrict population growth anticipated by 2040.
Resolving Information and Data Gaps Rockville has electronically mapped all of its collection system, but the City is still in the process of mapping the privately-owned sewer segments that connect to it. City engineers, emergency response, field maintenance crews, and environmental compliance officers have access to this GIS information.
Most of the interconnections between the City collection system and the WSSSC collection system are metered and provide accurate data on peak and diurnal flows. However, flows traveling through the four interconnects in the Rock Creek portion of the City (i.e., the sewershed) are estimated rather than metered with precision. Rockville is working with WSSC to install meters in these locations.
The condition of the sewers is critical to maintaining their design capacity, particularly in the older parts of the community. The City has invested in remote camera imagery to enable it to take closed-circuit television (CCTV) video of the collection system. Rockville intends to deploy this technology to
40 examine every sewer segment in the City over a 10-year period (evaluating 14 miles each year). The City will complete the first round of inspections by the end of 2010. The camera footage identifies structural issues (i.e., deteriorating and cracked sewer pipes) and operation and maintenance issues (e.g., roots and blockages, including grease buildups). When a concern is identified, it is scored to ensure that the worst problems receive the quickest attention on a rolling basis.
Responding to Aging and Damaged Pipes As with its drinking water distribution system, portions of the Rockville sewer system are reaching the end of their useful life. As these pipes deteriorate, the system is more vulnerable to cracks, breaks and, in the worst-case scenario, collapse.
Rockville is in the process of developing a Wastewater Capacity Management Plan aimed at ensuring the long-term integrity of the system. Under the plan, Rockville is rehabilitating 1.25 of the 149.44 (0.84%) total system miles each year. By comparison, WSSC rehabilitates 46 of its 5,400 system miles (0.85%) each year. Rehabilitation involves cleaning or scraping the pipe out and lining it with a resin material that hardens after being wet. If the pipe is structurally compromised, it is dug up and replaced. The Capital Improvement Project is designated No.220-850-9G34.
Table 4.6 Projected Rehabilitation Spending (2010-2015) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 $1,534,515 $1,231,000 $1,413,000 $1,653,000 $876,000 $1,459,000
Rockville uses the camera inspections and analysis and the inflow and infiltration studies to target its rehabilitation and replacement efforts. Work is prioritized on a rolling basis so that those segments needing urgent attention are addressed first.
One of the challenges to rehabilitation is the City’s access to the property where the sewer lays. Many of these pipes are in right-of-ways under and next to City, County and State owned roads and streets. However, some pipes cross private property and the City needs the ability to access the property in order to conduct the annual inspections or affect the repairs. Rockville is in the process of ensuring these easements are up to date and effective.
Keeping Precipitation and Groundwater Out of the System Inflows are cracks in the sewers that allow precipitation and groundwater to come into the sewer (aka inflows). Inflows reduce the sewer capacity to convey sewage. Inflows also reduce the effectiveness of the wastewater plant treating the sewage because instead of a concentrated sewage that the plant is designed to handle, the wastewater is diluted and more difficult to treat to acceptable discharge levels.
Similarly, infiltration poses a public health and environmental concerns in that sewage flows out of the pipes through these same cracks and breaks and contaminate groundwater and surface streams. At the present time, Rockville does not have comprehensive inflow and infiltration information on every part of its system, but the City should acquire this data in the near term.
Rockville completed an inflow and infiltration study and a sanitary sewer evaluation study (SSES) in the Cabin John (south) portion of the collection system in 2008. This study involved a series of smoke tests to look for breaks and cracks, and flow measurements to determine whether the system was under the influence of significant precipitation events. That is, whether stormwater was reaching the sewers and
41 causing flows to exceed normal diurnal patterns. The study identified a number of repairs all of which were completed by 2009.
The City intends to initiate a similar study in the Rock Creek (east) portion of the City in May 2010. The study will conclude in September 2011. In addition to results similar to those obtained in the Cabin John study, the City intends to create a hydraulic flow model to use in future planning and prioritizing for repairs. In 2013, the remaining (north and west) parts of the City located in the Watts Branch sewershed will also be studied. The Watts Branch sewershed was prioritized last because it is the newest portion of Rockville and the City does not anticipate substantial problems in this part of its system. In the future, all three of these initial threshold studies will be supplemented by the annual camera inspections described above.
One of the most common causes of inflow and infiltration is roots penetrating into the sewer system (seeking water). The City proactively treats all sewers in the system for root control at least once each year. In the event a root is identified, it is spot treated and removed and the crack sealed.
Preventing Blockages and Spills Fats oils and grease are discharged into the sewers by residential cooking, and commercial, institutional or industrial kitchens. While fats, oils and grease do not adversely affect the sewer integrity, they do reduce the sewer’s flow capacity and, if left untreated, can cause an overflow or spill to surcharge out of manholes upstream from the blockage they create. Similar blockages may be caused by other flushed items (e.g., lumber or rags), but grease blockages are unfortunately more common.
Known as sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), spills out of the collection system expose the public and wildlife, (including aquatic life in adjacent streams in the event the sewage reaches those streams) to unsanitary conditions and water-born diseases. Note, Rockville does not have any combined sewers (sewers that also convey precipitation runoff) in its collection system. In the event a grease build up is identified, it is spot treated and the line is flushed clean. The entire system is flushed at least once each year. In the event a sewage spill occurs, Rockville has developed a rapid emergency response capability that will restrict public access to the spill area, prevent the spill from reaching the City’s waterways, and perform pathogen reduction and spill clean up and disposal actions.
The best method for addressing grease blockages is to reduce or eliminate the discharges into the sewers in the first place. Rockville has initiated a program to educate residents that fats, oils and grease should be disposed of as solid waste refuse rather than discharged down the drain to the sewers. The City has also embarked on a regulatory effort to inspect and ensure that all 450 restaurants, institutions and commercial kitchens in the City have appropriate grease management practices and technologies in place. Establishments with inadequate facilities and practices are ordered to upgrade and improve their grease management systems.
Preventing Incompatible Wastewater Discharges Incompatible wastes like acids and caustics can harm the sewer system as well as Rockville personnel who from time-to-time are working in or near the system. Similarly, metals and organic chemicals also threaten harm, including the disruption or interference with the efficiency or effectiveness of the Blue Plains treatment facility. Finally, some pollutants may enter the Rockville sewers, travel the City and WSSC sewers, and pass through the treatment plant into the Potomac without any treatment at all.
42 Rockville has adopted several local ordinances that prevent incompatible pollutants from entering the sewer system. First, the City has adopted a sewer use ordinance (City Code Chapter 24, Sections 24.67 and 24.69) that prevents a person from taking any action that harms the City’s water and sewer systems. The local law also authorizes City staff to require pretreatment of industrial wastewater where warranted. Finally, the ordinance prohibits stormwater or groundwater discharges into the sewage collection system.
In addition to this general ordinance, Rockville adopted a very stringent ordinance (the Water Quality Protection Ordinance (see City Code Chapter 23.5) that restricts commercial and residential discharges into the sewer system that may compromise the safety of City personnel or harm the integrity of the City sewer system. The Water Quality Protection Ordinance also requires all food service establishments, regardless of ownership, to use appropriate grease management practices and technology. Noncompliance with these requirements subjects the discharger to potential fines.
Rockville Collection System Funding Rockville’s share of expenses for both the WSSC conveyance system and the Blue Plains treatment facility were established in a 1958 Intermunicipal Agreement last modified in 1985. Rockville’s share of the WSSC conveyance system is based on the City’s actual flow (6.85 million gallons per day in 2009) whereas the City’s contribution to Blue Plains is based on its allocated share of treatment capacity (9.31 million gallons per day in 2009) whether that capacity is used or not.
In 2009, Rockville paid $2,425,000 to WSSC for wastewater treatment service, including $500,000 for WSSC to convey the Rockville sewage to Blue Plains and another $1,925,000 for D.C. WASA to treat the flow. The City incurred additional cost for system improvements, maintenance, electricity to operate the two pump stations, and related personnel costs. The costs for WSSC and D.C. WASA are expected to increase sharply in near term, perhaps by more than 100% in each
Table 4.7 Rockville WSSC/WASA Wastewater Payments Fiscal Year Payments 2007 $2,201,800 2008 $2,337,500 2009 $2,376,900 Three Year Average Cost $2305,400 year for the next three years. These increases reflect Rockville’s share of the costs of installing enhanced biological treatment to further reduce nitrogen in peak system flows, and making energy efficiency upgrades that may save resources in the long-run.
As noted above, Rockville developers are required to pay for sewer upgrades that may be needed to support an infill or redevelopment project. In addition, developers pay fees to the City to evaluate their proposed developments and identify downstream upgrades of the City collection system needed to accommodate any additional wastewater flow.
Rockville currently charges its customers a flat fee of $4.12 per 1,000 gallons of sewage per month. These funds are deposited in a sewer enterprise fund that is dedicated to financing the cost of providing the service. Rockville sells municipal bonds to raise funds for larger capital projects.
43 Table 4.8 Projected Rockville Wastewater Service Fees (per 1,000 gallons) FY 2009 FY2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 $3.97 $4.12 $4.28 $4.45 $4.63
In addition, the City is always interested in identifying grants and low-interest loans that make wastewater collection and treatment more affordable for residents. For example, in fiscal year 2010, the City received $750,000 federal grant dollars for sanitary sewer rehabilitation projects, including reconstructing manholes and lining existing sewers to reduce I&I in one of our neighborhoods.
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Service in Rockville Montgomery County is the planning authority for the availability and adequacy of sewer service for the portion of WSSC’s service area inside the County, including Rockville. Like Rockville, the County and the Maryland National Park and Planning Commission are developing a Water Resources Element and a Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewage System Plan for these areas. These initiatives are being coordinated with the City to ensure that the needs of the portion of Rockville’s population served by this system are appropriately addressed in these plans.
Recommended Actions Although the City has adequate treatment capacity for the volume of sewage expected by 2030, there are still important actions the City should pursue to ensure both the integrity and capacity of its own collection system. These actions include the following steps:
1. Complete mapping and metering the entire system including privately owned sewers and the WSSC interconnections.
2. Continue to support the annual camera inspections of the sewer system.
3. Follow up on the results of the television inspections and the Rock Creek and Watts Branch I&I studies and undertake priority sewers rehabilitation and replacement.
4. Continue to implement commercial and residential fats, oils and grease management program to prevent grease buildups and blockages from occurring.
5. Maintain easement access to all portions of the wastewater infrastructure.
6. Develop a City-wide hydraulic model of the collection system.
44 Chapter Five: Stormwater Management
Clean, healthy streams are important to Rockville—not just to protect people and to preserve the quality of our open spaces, but also to protect the water for the plants, insects and other animals that call these streams home. Clean water in Rockville helps preserve the health of the City’s three local streams: Cabin John Creek, Watts Branch and Rock Creek, as well as the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. The City has established and maintains an active stormwater management program to preserve and protect Rockville’s water resources and to mitigate the harmful effects of urban runoff.
Stormwater refers to rain that falls on impervious surfaces such as paved streets, parking lots, and rooftops and flows into the stormwater drainage system and then into local water bodies. As the water runs over land it picks up pollutants like oil, fertilizer, pesticides, pet waste and sediment. These pollutants can quickly adversely impact a stream’s water quality. Stormwater also increases the volume and speed of stream flows during storm events causing stream bank erosion and harming aquatic insects, fish and animals that depend on the stream for their habitat and food.
Watershed imperviousness has been associated with a wide range of negative impacts to stream hydrology, stream morphology, biological habitat, and water quality. Research has demonstrated that sensitive stream elements are lost when impervious cover exceeds about 10 percent of the land. Once imperviousness reaches 25 to 30 percent, most streams become poor quality due to erosion, channel instability, severe habitat degradation, and decreasing biological integrity.
Image courtesy Maryland Department of Environment http://www.mde.state.md.us
45 The following specific concerns are documented adverse impacts of unmanaged stormwater: • Increased flooding intensity and frequency • Increased stream flow velocities • Increased streambank erosion • Changed stream geometry • Reduced groundwater recharge • Impaired habitat for aquatic life • Decreased water quality in local streams and the Chesapeake Bay
Water Quality in Rockville’s Streams Cabin John Creek is polluted by fecal bacteria and sediments. The State had also previously listed Cabin John Creek as impaired by nutrients but removed this listing in July 2009. The Rock Creek watershed is impaired due to phosphorus and sediments. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs are being developed for these waters. There are no State pollution warnings for the Watts Branch waterways, or its tributaries.
Map 5.1 Rockville Volunteer Sampling
46 Rockville Stream Monitoring Results
Impervious Coverage, Population, and Land Use According to analysis of 2007 aerial photography, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE (WITHOUT the City of Rockville is 35% impervious (2,930 STREET ROW) impervious acres out of 8,412 total acres. FEDERAL/ STATE/ Based on the population growth, staff estimates the LOCAL/ PRIVATE total acres of impervious surface in Rockville will SCHOOLS NON-SFD 58% increase by 1.25% each year for the next ten years 14% before leveling off. This projection considers the limited space for new development and increasing density to accommodate the projected rise in population and households. SINGLE FAMILY Staff plans to reassess the amount of impervious DETACHED surface in Rockville every two years. This data 28% will allow the Stormwater Management program to better gauge the future growth of impervious surface in Rockville.
Nutrient Loading Analysis The State requires a nutrient loading analysis for existing and 2030 land cover to estimate the amount of nutrients contributed by land uses to the City’s watersheds. Nonpoint source pollution, including nutrients, flow cross jurisdictional boundaries and require regional coordination to assess the potential impacts associated with total regional growth. Rockville coordinated with Montgomery County and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to ensure that the City’s forecasted growth and land use changes were factored in the County’s 2030 land cover scenarios and nutrient loading analysis. Subsequently, Montgomery County’s Water Resource Element provides a more comprehensive analysis of the region’s total projected growth, and stormwater and nutrient loading analysis in order to assess potential impacts on the water quality of sub-watersheds.
The results of Montgomery County’s nutrient loading analysis indicate only minor changes in nutrient loading between existing land cover and future land uses. These results were not unexpected because there is little vacant land left in the City, and therefore no significant land conversion scenario options remain.
Although alternative development patterns and stormwater management are usually considered in assessing the suitability of receiving waters, they will not be a significant factor in Rockville because there is so little vacant land left for development. Instead, questions will center on how Environmental Site Design, stormwater retrofits, pollution prevention, and redevelopment can be used to improve water quality and meet standards. For example, accommodating growth through concentrated redevelopment and infill will provide the opportunity to improve water quality, especially in areas built before stormwater management requirements. Measuring the benefits of these strategies will require analysis on a finer sub-watershed scale during Rockville’s planned watershed studies, which can also account for the effects of various management practices.
47 Stormwater Management Efforts Traditionally, national and state efforts to improve water quality focused on reducing pollutants from point source discharges such as industrial facilities and municipal sewage treatment plants. Congress amended the Clean Water Act 1987 to add a new focus on stormwater controls. According to EPA, stormwater pollution is currently the leading cause of water quality impairment in the United States. Similarly, stormwater from urban and agricultural land is one of several leading causes of watershed impairment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, urban stormwater contributes 17 percent of the phosphorus, 11 percent of the nitrogen, and 9 percent of sediment loads to the Bay. In more urbanized watersheds, such as the middle section of the Potomac River watershed where Rockville is located, stormwater runoff accounts for even higher levels of pollutant loads. The Maryland BayStat model estimates that stormwater runoff accounts for nearly 30 percent of nitrogen, 70 percent of phosphorus, and 47 percent of sediment loads entering the Middle Potomac.
The remainder of this Chapter provides a snapshot of the City’s current stormwater program and identifies regulations, initiatives and strategies necessary to support the program through 2040.
Stormwater Regulations in Rockville Rockville created the first stormwater management program in Maryland in 1978, primarily to address flood control. In 1982, the state of Maryland followed suit by requiring local jurisdictions to adopt local ordinances to control stormwater. These early programs focused on preventing major floods but did little to protect water quality in streams. Throughout the following decades, stormwater management techniques evolved to better protect water quality, with Rockville’s program frequently leading the way. The City’s progressive regulations allowed Rockville to gain stormwater treatment for redevelopment sites, test innovated treatment methods, and in 1996, pilot the State’s proposed new channel erosion control (CPv) standard for water quantity treatment.
This progression of stormwater from a flood control issue to a water quality issue culminated with Maryland’s adoption of the 2000 Development Design Manual, which codified statewide stringent stormwater management requirements for water quantity, quality, and recharge. Development projects designed between 2002 and 2009 reflect these 2000 design standards, incorporating both centralized quantity control systems and multiple small water quality facilities to meet state and local requirements for quantity, quality and recharge. Maryland’s experiences implementing these systems triggered a shift in stormwater treatment objectives away from simply capturing and treating stormwater to designing development that produces less stormwater runoff altogether.
To accomplish this objective, the Maryland legislature passed the Maryland Stormwater Management Act of 2007. The Act requires all local jurisdictions to revise their local ordinances to require stormwater management plans that implement Environmental Site Design (ESD) practices to the maximum extent practicable. The term environmental site design means implementing environmentally friendly planning techniques that reduce the amount of impervious cover and preserve natural infiltration to groundwater. Further, developers must install low impact stormwater management systems, such as green roofs, rain gardens and bioretention areas, to treat or use rainwater where it falls rather than conveying it to a neighborhood or regional treatment facility. Only after using these environmentally friendly design techniques to the maximum extent practicable may a developer consider installing a traditional stormwater facility like a retention pond. The Rockville Mayor and Council adopted this new ordinance (City Code Chapter 19) and implementing regulations on June 7, 2010.
48 The National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System The federal Clean Water Act is the legislation that addresses water pollution throughout the United States. The law was originally passed in 1948 and has been substantially amended over the years. In 1972, Congress amended the law to add a regulatory program identified as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The goal of the NPDES program is to restore, protect, and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters, including the restoration and recovery of the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.
The NPDES program requires persons (including the City of Rockville) wanting to discharge pollutants from a point sources into navigable waters to first obtain a permit from the Federal or State government. In Maryland’s case, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has implemented this program since 1974. Pollutants are anything beyond uncontaminated rainwater. Point sources are any discreet conveyance (a ditch, pipe, canal, conduit, storm drain, etc.). Navigable waters have been defined very broadly as waters that may have interstate commerce connections. This definition includes wetlands adjacent to navigable waters and tributaries of waters that only flow intermittently or ephemerally.
Initially, stormwater was not considered to be a point source, but in 1987, Congress expanded the definition to include discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). The U.S. EPA enacted stormwater regulations in two phases: Phase I required that all storm drain systems owned by municipalities of 100,000 persons or more be to be permitted. Phase II required that smaller municipalities, generally communities of more than 10,000 persons in Maryland, obtain NPDES permits. Since 2003, Rockville has been permitted under the Phase II rules [See MDE’s General NPDES Permit No. MDR055500].
To obtain its permit, Rockville prepared a description of its intended stormwater program and priorities and submitted them to MDE. These commitments were in turn incorporated into the City’s permit as enforceable requirements. This initial permit, which expired in 2008, has not been reissued and continues in effect until a new one is issued.
The City’s permit commits Rockville to engage in a variety of outreach and education activities, implement a sediment and erosion control program for construction, require post-construction stormwater management for development, inspect and ensure effective maintenance to both private and public stormwater facilities, conduct watershed studies and implement public stormwater and stream improvements from these studies’ recommendations, identify and eliminate non-stormwater discharges from the storm drain system, and undertake best management practices such as street sweeping, stream cleanups, and storm drain labeling.
Future Federal initiatives that will impact Rockville’s stormwater program include: • The development of a Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) - a pollution diet intended to restore the Bay. • Executive Order 13508 on Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection. • EPA’s new stormwater rulemaking effort currently underway.
Rockville anticipates that its future NPDES permit will be more demanding and stringent as the State and Federal governments continue to work toward returning streams, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay to a healthy condition.
49 Watershed Plans and Studies The centerpiece of Rockville’s stormwater program is a commitment to undertake comprehensive watershed assessment studies of all three watersheds on a 10 year rotating basis. These studies inform the City and its residents on the health of the streams, the quality of habitat, and the diversity of aquatic life. The also identify problem spots such as areas that are severely eroded and in need of repair and restoration. Finally, they document the successes of Rockville’s stormwater program efforts and indicate the amount of work still required to achieve the goals, including new pollutants of concern on which the City may focus is resources. Below are the dates for Rockville’s existing watershed assessments: • Cabin John Creek (February 1996) • Rock Creek (April 2000) • Watts Branch (August 2001)
The next round of assessments is scheduled as follows: • Cabin John Creek (2010) • Rock Creek (2011) • Watts Branch (2012)
The City’s Stormwater Management Infrastructure Rockville’s public and private stormwater system consists of more than 2,560 inlets, nearly 400 private and over 100 public stormwater management facilities, and approximately 100 linear miles of storm drain pipe. Rockville has also established stream buffers of 125 to 175 feet on either side of City streams, and requires landowners to mange these buffers to keep them trash and contamination free and allow the growth of natural vegetation.
Since substantial portions of Rockville were built prior to any stormwater management requirements, there are many older neighborhoods that either lack treatment or have outdated facilities with little or no water quality or channel erosion control benefits. In addition, many segments of Rockville’s storm drain system are undersized to accommodate current and future discharges. Efforts to retrofit this infrastructure will be essential to protecting property and restoring water quality in Rockville’s watersheds.
Maintaining the City’s Existing Stormwater Management System The Department of Public Works conducts regular inspections of the City’s publicly-owned stormwater management facilities to ensure their structural and functional integrity. After each inspection, the City’s private contractor performs cleanouts and any necessary maintenance to keep the City’s stormwater infrastructure in good repair. The City is developing a comprehensive preventative maintenance program focused on routine clean-outs of these facilities along with periodic inspection and repair of City-owned storm drain pipes, inlets, outfalls and manholes. The Department of Public Works plans to inspect four and a half miles of storm drain and 250 storm drain inlets in Fiscal Year 2010 and each year thereafter.
Capital Improvement Projects The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) fund pays for projects that provide for the preservation, restoration and care of the City’s natural streams, stream banks and the City’s stormwater infrastructure. These projects, which are planned to accommodate current and future needs, are an essential component of the City’s stormwater program.
50 For Fiscal Year 2010-2014, the CIP is funding eleven projects costing an estimated $9,281,000. These projects include installing five stormwater pond retrofits, four stream restoration projects and other improvements to the storm drain system. The retrofit projects incorporate state-of-the-art methods for stormwater treatment and stream channel erosion protection. Where feasible, the retrofits also bring treatment to older portions of the community historically lacking these facilities.
The City also constructs stabilization and restoration projects for Rockville’s 32 miles of stream. These restoration projects incorporate increasingly ecologically-friendly bioengineering techniques. For example, instead of gabions, current projects employ natural rock for bank protection, native plantings and natural stream geomorphic principles. Although most public stormwater pipes in Rockville consists of reinforced concrete pipe in good condition, approximately eight miles of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm drains installed in the 1950s through early 1970s exist. These pipes are nearing the end of their useful life and will need to be replaced. In 2005, the City embarked on assessment and rehabilitation of CMP storm drains. The City completed the first phase in 2009, which repaired large-diameter pipes (>48”) by lining them with concrete. The City is now conducting the second phase to rehabilitate the smaller CMP storm drains. These projects, intended to prevent catastrophic pipe failures, protect streams from severe erosion and the public from sinkholes and local flooding. The CIP program also includes $10,389,811 to reline and expand the sanitary sewer system. These enhancements will extend the useful life of the system and prevent sewage from leaking and overflowing into Rockville’s streams.
Stormwater Controls on Private Property
Development Review and Approval The first line of defense in stormwater management is to ensure that development minimizes the amount of impervious surfaces and provides the most technologically advanced methods to control stormwater. The Rockville Department of Public Works’ Engineering Division reviews and approves stormwater management plans for both new development and for redevelopment projects to ensure consistency with the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual (2000) and as of May 2010, will also require all development to implement Environmental Site Design to the maximum extent practicable.
Sediment and Erosion/Construction Controls The removal of natural vegetation and topsoil during the initial phase of construction makes the exposed area particularly susceptible to erosion and sedimentation. Rockville requires that all development disturbing greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet or greater than one hundred (100) cubic yards of earth must apply for a sediment control permit and implement a sediment control plan for the site. The 1994 Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment serve as the official guide for erosion and sediment control principles, methods, and practices on construction sites.
Rockville’s Department of Public Works (DPW) reviews all sediment and erosion control plans for consistency with these technical requirements and issues Sediment Control Permits. DPW’s Contract Management Division is responsible for conducting inspections of construction sites to ensure conformity with the approved plans and the maintenance of all sediment control practices.
51 Currently, three inspectors conduct sediment control inspections in addition to inspections for construction of new stormwater management facilities, storm drains, water, sewer and roads.
MDE initiated a comprehensive review of the State's erosion and sediment control standards in early 2009 and has developed an initial draft of the 2010 Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. These are expected to be final in 2011. Areas that were evaluated include: environmental site design requirements, the use of coagulants, revised stabilization standards, new standards for best management practices, and new technology. MDE has been working with all stakeholders including the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Maryland Association of Soil Conservation Districts (MASCD) through a technical review workgroup as part of this development and update process. Once the State adopts these new regulations, Rockville will update Chapter 19 of the Rockville City Code to reflect any new requirements.
Inspection of Private Stormwater Facilities In 2009, Rockville initiated an inspection program for the approximately 400 privately-owned stormwater management facilities in the City. The facilities vary widely in age, protectiveness and capacity. The inspections ensure the owners are properly maintaining these facilities. The City plans to complete a baseline assessment of all these facilities within the next two years (FY 2010 and 2011). The Department of Public Works Environmental Management Division employs one full time compliance inspector for private stormwater management facilities. The City also contracts with outside technical experts to perform all inspections that require work in underground or confined spaces. When warranted, City of Rockville staff handles compliance and enforcement follow up to all inspections.
The inspection program consists of two types of inspections: routine maintenance and structural inspections. Routine inspections occur once a year and target sediment accumulation, trash accumulation, mowing and other maintenance needs. The inspector also reviews the property owner’s maintenance records to ensure that required maintenance protocols are being followed. The City is considering the need to increase the frequency of these site visits to biannually for bio-retention and other ESD techniques.
The City performs structural inspections once every three years to assess the structural effectiveness of the facility. Inspectors evaluate structural effectiveness by investigating whether the facility is functioning as it was designed. While routine inspections do not focus on structural assessments, the Rockville inspectors require correction of any structural failings observed during the inspection.
Fats, Oils, and Grease Management Program The discharge of fats, oils and grease (FOGs) from both resident and commercial kitchens into the sanitary sewer system and storm drains is a rapidly increasing problem that results in the unnecessary expenditure of thousands of tax dollars each year to remove obstructions and blockages. Once in the sewers, FOGs cool and solidify to form hard deposits that decrease sewer line capacity and cause blockages and breaks. These blockages frequently result in raw sewage overflows from manholes or sewer backups into homes and businesses. Since sewers are often located along streams, the overflow can quickly reach these waterways and cause contamination. Similarly, FOGs placed in storm drains also end up in City streams causing contamination and possible adverse health effects to people and creatures living in or near the stream. The Water
52 Quality Protection Ordinance precludes residents and businesses from pouring cooking fats, oils and grease down their drains.
City representatives conduct ongoing inspections of over 450 food service establishments to ensure proper FOG management. These inspections involve education and outreach to spread the word about best practices for FOG management and may result in Notices of Violations and fines under the Water Quality Protection Ordinance. In addition, the City routinely distributes residential focused outreach materials up-pipe from blockages caused by FOG.
The City’s Water Quality Protection Ordinance On July 16, 2007, the Mayor and Council adopted a Water Quality Protection Ordinance as part of the City’s effort to comply with its NDPES MS4 Permit. The Ordinance has the following objectives:
• Protecting surface and ground waters within the City • Prolonging the useful life of the City's storm drains and sanitary sewers • Safeguarding the City employees working in the storm drains and sanitary sewers • Ensuring that the City remains in compliance with its Clean Water Act requirements
The Ordinance establishes a series of "prohibited discharges” for pollutants such as oil, sediment, nutrients, pesticides, fertilizers and grease. The ordinance also establishes a duty to report, cleanup and mitigate these discharges, and clarifies the City's ability to conduct inspections and enforce the Ordinance. Noncompliance is subject to civil penalty of $1,000 per violation per day. The Water Quality Protection Ordinance is codified in Chapter 23.5 of the Rockville City Code.
Other Regulations Affecting Stormwater Management Several City policies, ordinances and programs support water quality in Rockville and play an important role in stormwater management.
Forest and Tree Preservation Ordinance As of 2010, 44% of Rockville is covered by tree canopy. Maintaining and expanding the tree canopy is an essential element of the City’s stormwater program because trees reduce the overall runoff volume and improve the quality of the runoff entering City streams. Amended in 2008, the Forest and Tree Preservation Ordinance (FTPO) has the following objectives:
• Encourage the preservation and enhancement of Rockville’s urban forest • Replace tree cover in non-forest areas within the City
The amended FTPO meets the requirements of the Natural Resource Article, Sections 5-1601 through 5-1613 of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
Zoning Ordinance Zoning codes regulate the uses of privately and publicly-owned lands. Zoning creates a development review process where environmental concerns can be discussed and addressed. The Planning and Zoning Division works with surrounding property owners, businesses and the applicant during development review to help assure the health and welfare of citizens and to achieve high-quality development that complies with the design regulations of the City Code and addresses the needs of the surrounding community, including environmental concerns. This review requires compliance with the City’s stormwater, forestry, and sediment control laws and
53 promotes water quality by placing limits on the amount of impervious surface on residential yards.
Green Building Ordinance The City of Rockville revised Chapter 5 of the City Code, “Buildings and Building Regulations” on May 10, 2010. These revisions include local amendments to create an innovative, demanding yet flexible system protective of health, safety and the environment. The City is also included several “green” provisions, such as increased energy and water efficiency requirements, as well as adding a new article, Article XIV, titled “Green Building Regulations.”
These changes, in combination with the implementation of Maryland’s Environmental Site Design requirements, encourage developers to try innovative design techniques that will decrease the stormwater impact of development. These techniques include green roofs, permeable pavement, and better site layout.
Outreach and Education on Stormwater and Public Involvement and Participation Opportunities Rockville is implementing the following education and outreach programs designed to inform residents and businesses about the importance of controlling stormwater and maintaining stormwater control facilities.
Adopt-A-Stream and Regional Stream Cleanups The Adopt-A-Stream Program allows local groups (civic associations, scout troops, church and synagogue groups, school groups, local businesses, neighbors, families, etc.) to get directly involved in improving local water quality by "adopting" one or more stream segments within Rockville. The Adopting Group agrees to hold at least two stream cleanup events per year (typically one in the spring and another in the fall). The City of Rockville provides all necessary materials and collects all of the debris from the cleanups.
Storm Drain Marker Program The Storm Drain Marker Program educates the public about the storm drain system and how pollutants enter our City’s waterways. Citizen volunteers attach small, colorful signs to the sidewalk on top of storm drain curb inlets where urban runoff first enters the storm drain system. The storm drain marker program enhances water quality by reminding the public that pollution in the storm drain travels to a local stream and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.
RainScapes Rewards Program The RainScapes Rewards Program is designed to help residential owners improve stormwater runoff conditions on their property by utilizing approved stormwater management techniques. The City offers rebates for rain barrel installations and the replacement of turf grass with conservation landscaping techniques utilizing native plants. Residents can get a rebate of $50 per rain barrel for up to four (4) rain barrels; and up to $500 for using conservation landscaping techniques that may include replacing 500 square feet of turf grass and removing non-native invasive plants on their residential property.
Rockville Save Our Streams Program The Save Our Streams Program uses volunteers to help the City of Rockville gather quantitative and qualitative data to guide the City’s water quality efforts. The quantitative data (benthic macroinvertebrates, habitat conditions and water chemistry parameters) help City staff create a
54 “report card” to describe the health of the City’s streams. The qualitative data, (physical and habitat conditions) help explain the trends in the quantitative data. Other data (outfall locations and their condition, trash and litter, and invasive plants) help City staff to identify stream sections that may be candidates for future invasive pulls, trash clean-ups and further investigation of illegal dumping.
Currently, the City monitors three sites and hopes to expand to six in the near future. In October 2009, the Save Our Streams program completed an assessment of biological, habitat and chemical conditions in downstream locations of the three waterways. The results are available online at http://www.rockvillemd.gov/environment/volunteer/sos.html.
Citizen Reports of Pollution and Illegal Dumping The City of Rockville relies on and responds to calls from citizens regarding water quality concerns. The City maintains a Pollution Hotline (240) 314-8348 to report pollution, spills and illegal dumping. Examples of problems recently reported include:
• Oil and other chemicals draining into storm drains and streams • Dumping construction waste • Erosion of a storm drain or stream • Leaks and spills of automobile fluids • Paint in the storm drain or creek • Pet waste discharging bacteria
Once a complaint is reported, the City investigates. The responsible party is notified and advised how to contain and cleanup the pollution or spill. Depending on the location and severity of the spill, a Notice of Violation is issued and the responsible party may be fined up to $1,000 a day for each pollution incident. If no responsible party is found, the City acts to mitigate the impact of the pollution.
Residential Fats, Oils and Grease Management As noted above, Rockville, like many other communities, battles an ongoing problem with discharges of fats, oils and grease into the sanitary sewer. The City has undertaken a modest effort at communicating proper grease management to our residents. In the future, the City should do more to make its citizens aware that these materials should be discarded with their refuse rather than put down the sink where they can eventually cause a pipe to block resulting in a sewerage backup or overflow.
Additional Public Outreach Rockville conducts outreach on water quality programs through numerous media sources and events. Channel 11, Rockville's own cable television station regularly broadcasts a "Sustainable Rockville" segment that often includes watershed related stories. The City webpage http://www.rockvillemd.gov/environment offers interested residents information regarding watershed related topics and volunteer opportunities. The City publishes a monthly newspaper called Rockville Reports that also frequently contains information and articles on water pollution and prevention. The City also offers several targeted brochures (e.g., pet waste management) on several water quality related topics. Finally, the City hosts several environmental outreach events associated with Earth Day and Earth Month every year.
55 Other Stormwater Improvement Practices
Leaf Collection and Street Sweeping Each fall and spring, the Department of Public Works offers leaf collection services for Rockville residents. Removing leaves prevents accumulations of debris in the storm drainage system and decreases the amount of nutrients entering our streams. Similarly, Rockville’s street sweeping program helps reduce the amount of grit, sand, trash, debris, and other contaminants on the City’s roadways and prevents them from washing into waterways during storm events. Street sweepings occur as frequently as two times per week in some commercial areas, to biannually in residential neighborhoods.
Trash Free Potomac Watershed Initiative Since March 2006, the City has been a signatory and active member of the Potomac River Watershed Trash Treaty. The Trash Treaty solidifies the City as a partner in the Trash Free Potomac Watershed Initiative to make the regional watershed trash free by 2013. The program uses stream clean ups and education and awareness techniques to discourage people from littering or dumping in the area.
Winter Deicing Efforts If used to excess, road salts and many other deicing chemicals will runoff roadways, driveways and sidewalks and pollutant local streams. Rockville personnel engaged in these activities have been trained on the concerns with the over application of road salts. Rockville has also invested in salt dispensers that more precisely meter the deicing product out. Further, the City has experimented with new, non-salt, non-toxic deicing products with some success and will continue to pursue solutions to this intersection of public safety and environmental protection.
Stormwater Program Funding Rockville’s Stormwater Management Fund pays for many aspects of the City’s stormwater management program. The fund is a dedicated enterprise fund consisting of moneys from several sources including administrative fees, stormwater management monetary contributions, penalties collected under the Water Quality Protection Ordinance, and Stormwater Management Utility Fees. The goal of the Stormwater Management Fund is to provide a stable and sustainable source of money to pay for the programs and services discussed in the previous section. Below is a brief description of the primary sources of stormwater revenues in this fund.
Regulatory Fees The City charges customers for all application reviews, permits and inspections performed by City personnel. The fees are designed to recover the costs of administering these City services. Developers may also be required to pay a fee-in-lieu of providing on-site stormwater treatment.
Stormwater Management Utility Fee The City adopted a stormwater utility fee ordinance and regulations in April, 2008. Rockville’s Stormwater Management Utility Fee is based upon the amount of impervious surface on every parcel of land in the City. The amount of impervious surface is directly related to how much stormwater runoff that parcel produces and therefore represents the property’s “use” of the stormwater system. The City measures each property’s impervious surface from aerial photos (updated every two years), and has a fee credit provision for owners maintaining private stormwater management facilities on-site.
56
Owners of all types of property, including governments, tax-exempt entities and the City itself, pay the utility fee. All utility fees go to the City’s Stormwater Management Fund and support the City’s ongoing water resources-related operations and CIP costs. The utility fee does not support stormwater management or sediment control permit reviews and inspections since these are paid by the developer’s fees.
Other Revenue Sources From time to time, the City receives revenue from State, Federal or private grants or below market loans to conduct specific studies or construction projects. Until the money is spent, interest income is also produced by the stormwater management fund itself.
Recommended Stormwater Actions
1. Develop and Implement Regulatory Updates Ensure that the City of Rockville implements a holistic, up-to-date stormwater program by staying informed about federal and regional regulatory initiatives and modifying existing City ordinances to reflect these changes. Specifically, the City should undertake the following:
• Participate in the public involvement process to influence development of Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) being developed by U.S. EPA, new federal and state stormwater regulations, revised State of Maryland updated sediment and erosion control requirements and the reissuance of NPDES general permits for Phase II MS4 communities.
• Develop and adopt any required changes to City of Rockville ordinances or regulations resulting from anticipated future State and Federal laws and regulations.
2. Improve the City’s Stormwater Enforcement Program The City of Rockville believes one of the many tools of a successful stormwater management program is effective enforcement and is committed to identifying resources to fully enforce all regulatory requirements. Specifically, the City should undertake the following:
• Evaluate current enforcement programs to ensure they have the regulatory foundation, funding, staff, implementation tools/process and management support to be effective.
• Programs to be evaluated include: sediment and erosion control inspection; stormwater management facility construction inspections; public and private stormwater management facility inspection; and illicit discharge detection and elimination.
• Develop and implement improvements identified during the evaluation.
3. Implement an Effective Preventative Maintenance Program The City should review its preventative maintenance program and ensure it is effective at identifying, prioritizing and tracking cleaning and repair/maintenance actions for both storm drains and treatment facilities.
57 • Use an adaptive management methodology to develop a preventative maintenance program. Elements of this program include: inspection equipment and tools; inspection data management and analysis; action prioritization; cleaning and repair methods; performance tracking; performance measures identification; evaluation; and program modification if needed.
4. Construct Capital Improvement Projects, including Stream Restoration (CIP) The City will continue its strong commitment to investments in CIP projects to improve its watersheds.
• Use the watershed studies to identify potential stormwater management facility retrofits, both regional and on-site, and stream restoration.
• Use capacity studies to identify and prioritize large-scale storm conveyance projects, both maintenance and capacity.
• Work with engineering staff, design consultants and communities to identify which projects are most feasible and prioritize accordingly.
5. Identify and Implement Effective Information Management The City is striving to use GIS technology to its fullest extent in order to manage assets, identify issues and changing conditions, set priorities track progress and measure success.
• Inventory all public and privately owned stormwater assets, including streams, stormwater management facilities and storm conveyance infrastructure, and update GIS attribute tables.
• Using data management software record and analyze inspection results.
• Update impervious surface data every two years to inform Stormwater Utility Fee billing levels.
• Track stormwater related enforcement actions and drainage complaints by frequency and location.
• Use information to make informed program decisions.
6. Perform Program Assessment and Planning The City believes that the stormwater program cannot be successful without assessment used to inform program planning.
• Conduct timely watershed studies designed to look at the entire watershed in a holistic manner linking upland sources with stream impacts. Use these watershed studies to evaluate stormwater program initiatives such as targeted outreach and enforcement. Modify these programs if needed. Use the study results to identify the highest priority CIP projects.
• Develop a baseline of stream health from a physical and biological standpoint.
• Perform updated storm drain capacity studies in order to inform stormwater conveyance CIP projects.
58 • Develop and implement a long-term monitoring strategy across the City based on chemical and physical parameters and use it for two purposes: (1) to evaluate effectiveness of specific stormwater management facilities or techniques, and (2) to assess stream quality changes over time and attempt to relate them to operational changes and CIP projects in that drainage area. This ongoing data will also support the in-depth analysis in each watershed study update.
7. Participate in Regional Improvement Efforts Water quality issues know no jurisdictional boundaries. In order to be successful the City needs to coordinate with other regional water quality and stormwater management efforts.
• Continue to be active participants in the Trash Free Potomac Initiative.
• Share watershed assessment results with County and State.
• Participate in regional watershed planning efforts through the MWCOG and State Tributary Teams.
59
Appendix A
City of Rockville Water Conservation Plan
February 2010
60 Rockville Water Conservation Plan
Background
This document constitutes the water conservation plan for Rockville, Maryland. Rockville is the second largest city in the State of Maryland and has a resident population of approximately 62,500. In addition, our daytime population is substantially larger since we have more jobs located in Rockville than we have residents. Rockville is served by two separate public drinking water systems. One is owned and operated by the City. This system serves approximately 46,500 residents (74% of our population) and is the subject of this conservation plan. The remaining 16,000 residents (26% of our population) are served by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC).
The source water for the Rockville-owned drinking water system is the Potomac River. Each year, Rockville withdraws nearly 2 billion gallons of water from the River. Our current peak (summer) daily demand withdraw frequently rises to 8 million gallons. This amount is well within our authorized allocation of up to 12.1 million gallons a day. While we do anticipate upgrades and expansion of our treatment plant and potential finished water storage projects, we believe our river allocation is sufficient to meet the demands of our growing population well into the future. For more detail, please see the attachment (Worksheet 4-4) that was prepared to calculate a basic water demand forecast.
In addition to increasing our plant’s production capabilities, Rockville has long embarked on a successful initiative to make our water system as efficient as possible. This plan briefly describes the major features of this plan as well as conservation improvements already being considered for near-term implementation. Rockville’s water conservation plan is characterized as a combination of educational and regulatory approaches supplemented by incentive programs to encourage water conservation in our system and by our customers. This document describes those approaches in place as well as those planned for the near future.
Program Goals and Objectives Water is a valuable commodity and Rockville wants its customers and residents to understand and appreciate their drinking water system and the importance of keeping our source water pure and clean. Rockville’s water conservation goals and objectives include: • Actions to decrease the volume of lost water in the distribution system, and • Actions aimed at reducing our customer’s demand for water, particularly during peak times. These actions are intended to help prevent significant disruptions during cyclical lowriver flow periods and periodic regional droughts. It will also position Rockville to address any short-term consequences of global climate change and its likely effects (i.e., more severely reduced future river flows).
In addition to conserving the volume of water, Rockville is working to ensure the ongoing quality of the Potomac River as well as in the three sub-watersheds located in the City.
61
Rockville’s Ten Approaches to Conserving Water Rockville has historically taken a proactive approach to water conservation through annual water accounting, consumer education, accurate metering and tiered pricing incentives.
1. Water Distribution System Audit Rockville has already conducted a water-loss audit of our drinking water distribution system. As shown in the attached spreadsheet, the net lost/unmeasured water for calendar year 2007 was 73.01 million gallons. This equates to 3.9% of the total water produced. The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) guidelines indicate that well operated systems should not loose more than 10% of the total water. Even though Rockville’s distribution system losses are minimal, we continue to further reduce the amount of lost water in the system. For example, in fiscal year 2009, we are initiating a major capital campaign to replace much of our aging water line infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life. This will help to minimize water loss due to water main breaks.
2. Water Metering Rockville has already embarked on a program to replace all of our service meters, both residential and commercial, including installing meters in city-owned facilities and buildings where no meters had historically been located. We are using Sensus meters. These meters have remote radio read capability that will allow the City to maintain more efficient and accurate records of water usage across the system.
The meter replacement program has occurred in three phases: Replacement Meters, Commercial Meters and Residential Meters. Since 2005, the City has replaced all broken meters with the new radio read models. In 2006 and 2007, the City replaced about 600 commercial meters, including meters for the city connections. In 2008 and 2009, we replaced nearly 12,000 meters for our residential customers. All meters were replaced by August 18, 2009.
These new meters allow us to efficiently and accurately collect and analyze losses and water usage and determine cost effective methods for reducing water demands across the system.
3. Water Line Maintenance Rockville has approximately 180 miles of water distribution lines. Nearly 115 miles (64%) of these pipes were installed before 1970 and are typically made of cast iron. Substantial parts of these older water lines have or will shortly reach their useful life. The City has embarked upon a 20-year capital campaign to replace the worst 34 miles of aging water lines. These actions will prevent or significantly reduce future water loss due to leaks and breaks. In addition, Rockville has spent a considerable effort performing maintenance on some 4,177 valves and three storage tanks totally 12 million gallons.
62 4. Drought and Spill Controls Contamination of the City Water Treatment Plant and distribution system by spilled material would require Rockville to discard finished water and spend time and resources cleaning up the system. Rockville has taken several steps to prevent this situation from arising. Rockville’s water source will only be adversely affected by extreme drought conditions. 2009 was a very dry year that resulted in some area jurisdictions declaring mandatory water restrictions. At the lowest flow during this dry period, the top of the screens protecting Rockville’s drinking water intake was still 2 feet below the surface of the Potomac River.
In the event that a spill threatens the Potomac in the vicinity of the City’s water supply, Rockville has the ability to immediately and remotely close the intake and allow a spill to pass by, without harming the system. The system will continue to operate and provide approximately six hours of short-term water demands. If the spill will be passing the intake for a longer period of time, the intake will remain closed and the nine emergency (backup) WSSC connections can be opened to provide additional water needs. Further, for surface spills, our Water Treatment Plant is fully equipped to prevent the spill from gaining access into our treatment system, using a series of booms and other devices to prevent this material from contaminating the system.
5. Local Drinking Water Partnerships Rockville is an active partner in the Wise Use water program coordinated by the Metropolitan Council of Governments and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. This program monitors the quality and quantity of the Potomac River and alerts the membership to low-flow conditions and the presence and travel time of upstream spills. The partnership has also agreed in advance to regional voluntary and mandatory conservation measures in the event the river flow drops beyond certain points. The program additionally has a public education component to warn residents of the drought conditions.
Rockville is also a signatory on an emergency management, mutual aid agreement between all of the political jurisdictions in the D.C. area. This agreement allows Rockville to call upon other non-impacted jurisdictions to assist us in an emergency situation, including a significant drought. Similarly, Rockville has agreed to assist our neighboring jurisdictions to the extent we can. We are currently considering signing a similar agreement that would extend this mutual aid arrangement to the area water utilities.
In addition, Rockville is a member of a regional partnership sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of the partnership is to provide coordination and technical assistance to ensure the continued viability of the drinking water systems in the area.
6. Water Use Regulations Rockville is currently developing comprehensive green building standards for new and renovated residential and commercial development that will, over time, require water conservation features in all buildings and structures in the City. These City ordinances will also address exterior landscaping practices and stormwater controls to protect the source water in area streams. The City expects to have these new requirements in place and effective by April 1, 2010.
63 7. Actions to Encourage Landscape Water Efficiency Through Rockville’s property development review process and newly revised zoning laws, functional landscapes are encouraged. These include the use of native vegetation and the integration of on-site stormwater management components.
Rockville has also started a Save Our Streams volunteer monitoring program for residents, so they can become more involved and concerned with their local streams and creeks. The program trains residents to monitor stream conditions and stream-side habitat and sponsors periodic monitoring events in the three sub-watersheds.
In addition, we have initiated a Rainscapes program that will bring rain barrel, rain garden and other low-impact development (LID) approaches to our residents and businesses and will encourage them to turn to on-site stormwater controls and rain harvesting techniques, rather than relying on potable water for lawn and garden watering. The City currently offers a significant rebate program for residents that install rain barrels or plant conservation landscaping on their property.
8. Incentive Pricing The City of Rockville uses a 3-tiered water rate structure. The more water used by the customer, the higher the rate. The rates for fiscal year 2010 are as follows:
• 0-12,000 gallons: Rate charge $2.78/1,000 gallons • 12,001 – 24,000 gallons: Rate charge $4.00/1,000 gallons • Over 24,000 gallons: Rate charge $4.30/1,000 gallons
These tiered rates make our customers think about the amount of water they are using and provide an incentive for them to reduce water that may be considered non-essential. In addition to the tiered rate structure, Rockville imposes an additional Ready-to-Serve charge ($4.77 for FY 2010) that is designed to provide money to maintain and repair the system. This charge is based on meter size. The charge is a flat fee and does not vary with usage. Our commercial customers often take this fee into account before upgrading to a larger water service line when constructing or renovating a building.
9. Other Rockville Actions to Protect Source Water Local Stormwater Laws Rockville already has some of the largest stream buffer laws in the State (125-175 feet on either side of the stream) as well as effective local laws addressing stormwater discharges. The City is currently in the process of comprehensively revising our existing stormwater controls, including updates to our state-of- the-art stormwater utility fee based on impervious surfaces. These revisions will prescribe mandatory environmental site design practices as well as structural controls to ensure that runoff from private property is not contaminated by sediments, nutrients and bacteria. Adoption is expected by May 2010. Similarly, we plan to revise our soil and erosion (stormwater construction management) ordinance in the spring of 2011.
64 Inspections of Public and Private Stormwater Facilities The City is in the process of inspecting over 400 privately owned stormwater management facilities and is working with the owners of these systems to repair and maintain them in the future. Similarly, the City has undertaken a review of all 108 publicly-owned stormwater facilities to ensure they are all functioning properly.
Stormwater Facility Retrofits The City has recently completed a major stormwater facility retrofit in the College Gardens neighborhood. This publicly-owned facility collects and treats runoff from approximately 70 acres of residential and light commercial neighborhood that previously discharged directly into a tributary of Watts Branch.
Fats, Oils and Grease Management Program The City has a very aggressive fats, oils and grease (FOG) program aimed at keeping these materials out of sewers, thereby preventing sanitary overflows from entering the City storm drains and City waterways. Over the next several years, Rockville will complete first round inspections of all 400 food service establishments in the City.
Watershed Assessment Every ten years, Rockville conducts a comprehensive assessment of our sub-watersheds to determine the health and condition of our three sub-watersheds. Stream areas suffering adverse impacts from stormwater are identified. Chemical testing is performed and stream condition is documented. We are currently working on the Cabin John Creek assessment and anticipate beginning the Rock Creek assessment in 2011. These detailed evaluations are supplemented by the Save-Our-Streams volunteer monitoring effort described above and a stream walk examination to identify any immediate threats, including illicit discharges.
10. Rockville Information and Education Programs Information and education of consumers is a critical component of a successful water conservation plan. We want to put our water consumers in a position to make informed water-use choices and change poor water-use habits. Although difficult to quantify, these savings play an important role in the demand-side management of the water system. There are several components to the City of Rockville’s Information and Education Program:
An Understandable and Informative Water Bill. Customers must first be aware of their own water usage and costs, before they can begin to consider investing in methods designed to reduce their water usage and therefore their costs. Rockville’s water bill contains information on the amount of water used in the current usage period, and for comparison, the last usage period, last year’s usage period and the same usage period from two years ago. However, currently, our bill only indicates usage in units of 1,000 gallons. We know we can make conservation decisions easier for our customers if we provide them with their actual usage and information on their average daily consumption over the billing period. We intend to make these changes in our future invoices.
Newsletters, Television and the Web. Rockville currently uses a multi-media approach to informing consumers about water conservation. Conservation tips are put in Rockville Reports, the City’s monthly newsletter sent to all residences and available to all businesses; tips are aired on The Rockville Channel, the City’s cable TV station; the City has an educational pamphlet on water conservation that is handed out at community events or by request.
65
The City’s website provides a more detailed description of the charges appearing on the water bill, the full rate schedule, and contact information for additional questions or water emergencies (water line breakage, drinking water quality issue, etc.). There are also descriptions of conservation practices and actions our residents can take to reduce the volume of water they use. Since the City relies on these other methods, we have stopped the practice of including conservation tips in water bill inserts.
Near-Term Implementation Strategy As noted above, the City is already implementing a comprehensive approach to water conservation. We continuously improve these approaches and techniques, by:
• Following through on our campaign to replace 34 miles of water lines over the next 20 years
• Continuing to decrease the water losses from our existing drinking water infrastructure
• Improving the content of our water bills, including providing customers with water conservation tips and household consumption data
• Adopting water-use requirements as part of the Green Building program, and the updated, enhanced stormwater controls
• Continuing meaningful public education activities.
Conclusion Rockville has done much in recent years to reduce its water consumption and obtain more accurate usage information. We have taken advantage of mass outreach vehicles including print, television and the web. We are working with our neighboring jurisdictions and utilities to leverage resources and standardize key public message points. We have taken major steps to safeguard the source waters within our borders.
Rockville will continue to look for innovative and creative methods to make significant strides in water conservation.
66 Appendix B – State of Maryland Water Allocation Permit
67 68 69 70
71 Appendix C – Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects
Rockville Dept. Public Works - Water Resources CIP Projects 1996 - 2010
Water Resources Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project spending by City of Rockville in this time period. List does not include: - projects built by private developers and turned over to City for future operation and maintenance - onsite SWM facilities built by City for Dept. of Recreation and Parks development - ancillary costs unrelated to water resources improvements (such as park improvements) Stormwater Management Projects Drainage Area Project Name (acres) Year Built Design Cost Construction Cost Total Cost Hungerford-Stoneridge Pond 457 1998 $0 Dover Road/WGL Pond 205 1998 $0 * $0 Aintree Pond 51 1998 $0 Aintree Bioretention < 3 1998 $0 Potomac Woods Pond 77 1999 $0 Mount Vernon Place Pond 64 2003 $68,196 $453,804 $522,000 Northeast Park Pond 51 2004117000? 160000? $0 Redgate Golf Course - 64 (Irrigation Irrigation Ponds and Southwest Ponds) and 143 Pond (SW Pond) 2005 160568? $751,410 $751,410 Carnation Drive Pond and I- 270 Industrial Park Pond (2 ponds in series) 352 2008 $116,000 $243,000 $359,000
Maryvale II Pond (& 600 LF of storm drain for flood control) 96 2008 $162,100 $721,500 $883,600 College Gardens Park Pond (Concept Design and Final 235500 + Design costs combined) 79 2009 concept $0 W. Montgomery Alley Pervious Paving < 1 2009 $0
Lakewood Country Club Pond 45 2010 $0 * 198000?? $0 Horizon Hill Park Ponds (3 expected in ponds in series) 186 2012 $245,000 $245,000 Total Spending on Stormwater Management $2,761,010
Stream Restoration Projects
Length of Stream Project Name (linear feet) Year Built Design Cost Construction Cost Total Cost
Elwood Smith Trib. - East Lynfield Dr. 250 1996 $0 Bogley Branch (with Potomac Woods?) 1,030 1999 $0 Frost Middle School Trib. 2,000 2004 $0 * $310,000 $310,000 Upper Woottons Mill Park 2,400 2005 $125,000 $1,013,549 $1,138,549 Middle Woottons Mill Park 1,600 2005 $110,000 $818,266 $928,266 Twinbrook Trib. - Alsace Ln. 550 2007 $0 * $292,000 $292,000 FEMA Storm Damage Repair - (stream & SD outfall damage from 2006 floods) 2007 $157,420 Rockcrest Trib. 4,000 2008 $153,000 $906,000 $1,059,000 College Gardens Trib. 500 2009 $0 Watts Branch - Woodley Gardens Park 3,400 2010 $293,740 $293,740
expected in Bouldercrest Trib. 1,100 2012 $100,000 $590,000 $690,000 Total Spending on Stream Restoration $4,868,975
Storm Drainage Projects (funding provided by Capital Projects - General Fund prior to FY2009)
72