The County Council adopted a new Annual Growth Policy on Oct. 28 which will not place a cap on new developments but will impose substantial new impact taxes.
The policy will result in very little control placed on growth in Potomac. Traffic studies will only be performed at 10 intersections in the Potomac subregion (see Potomac’s Road Test). These studies can only result in intersection improvements, not a building moratorium.
School enrollment will have to exceed 110 percent in a given grade level in order to stop building in a given school cluster.
The new Annual Growth Policy, years in the making, differs from the old policy in that it does not have a transportation test which could stop growth, has a schools test which is somewhat stricter, and will generate an estimated $25 million for schools and $20 million for roads for Fiscal Year 2005, the first full year it will be in effect.
The final vote on the Annual Growth Policy was 6-3. Marilyn Praisner (D-4), Phil Andrews (D-3) and Tom Perez (D-5) all voted against the policy because of the lack of a traffic congestion test which could place constraints on growth.
George Leventhal (D-At Large) said that he agreed with the dissenters but did not wish to cast a “protest vote.”
Environmental Groups were outraged at the decision to loosen traffic standards.
“We made it very clear that we needed to see a tighter Policy Area Review,” said Tina Brown of Solutions Not Sprawl. “Why did the developers lobby to have this lifted?”
Steve Robins, chairman of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce, thought that the new Annual Growth Policy was heading the right way. “I think we need to take a different direction and I think the council did that,” Robins said.
He disagrees with the idea that loosening restrictions will create more development.
“I do not think that the elimination of Policy Area Review is going to create this rampant situation.”
The Annual Growth Policy was developed to enforce the County’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance stated that if the County does not have adequate infrastructure — primarily roads and schools — to support a new development, then the development could not go forward.
The Annual Growth Policy was basically a set of complex formulas which defined “adequate.”
The Council then decided that, in spite of these laws and formulas, the county was still over capacity in both roads and schools. They instructed the Planning Board to conduct a “top-to-bottom” review of the policy and to suggest a revised policy which could help to alleviate overcrowding on the roadways and in the hallways.
The Planning Board, after several months of debate and discussion, presented its recommendation to the council in early August.
The Board’s recommendations ran somewhat counter to the spirit of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. They found that the roads and school were generally over capacity, but decided that in order to maintain a vibrant economy, new growth needed to be allowed to occur, anyway.
In light of this, the Planning Board proposed an Annual Growth Policy which would impose substantial impact taxes on new residential and commercial development, and that the funds generated by those taxes be placed into dedicated accounts for roads and schools.
The schools tax was a flat rate countywide and the transportation tax would be lower in areas with more extensive mass-transit service.
The Planning Board did away with a school capacity test and with the roads test known as Policy Area Review. They retained the roads test known as Local Area Review. (see Policy or Local)
The planning board draft of the growth policy, however, contained a recommendation to cap growth at one percent a year. The county would have been divided into eight areas and each one allocated a certain number of new units which would be granted “preliminary approval.”
Generally, areas closer to Metro stations would have been granted more development units. This would have acted as a cap on development with the intent of slowing the pace of development while allowing the County to “catch up” and build the needed infrastructure.
The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee rejected the proposed growth cap.
It was decided that imposing building moratoriums would further increase housing costs by shutting off supply in a time of high demand and make it even more difficult for many families to live in the county. “If you want to see our housing situation fall apart, put a cap on housing,” said Council President Michael Subin (D-At Large).
They also decided to drop “Policy Area Review” for traffic. This was a formula which would calculate how congested an area’s traffic was. Leaving no way for an area to be placed in moratorium as a result of traffic congestion. They retained “local area review” and voted to impose stricter standards so developers will have to make more improvements to nearby intersections.
Several councilmembers balked at the idea of there being no controls on traffic. At a session on Oct. 23 where the council decided many of the issues, Marilyn Praisner (D-4) proposed sending the traffic component back to the Planning Board so that they could develop a different strategy. “We have no experience with ‘local area review’ being the only measure,” she said.
She pointed out that while virtually everyone who spoke about the growth policy was opposed to “policy area review,” no one suggested that there should be no transit test. “Those were not the choices in front of the council, per se,” Praisner said.
Other members agreed with Praisner. “I simply don’t feel like we have enough information to make the most educated judgment possible,” said Tom Perez (D-5). “I actually think it is going to do more harm than good.”
But others argued that an issue this complex will ultimately result in unforeseen consequences no matter how much information the Council has.
“Let’s agree this is a roll of the dice,” said Nancy Floreen (D-At Large).
Praisner’s motion failed 4-5. Voting with Praisner were Perez, Phil Andrews (D-3) and George Leventhal (D-At Large).
A measure of how crowded schools are in a given area could lead to halting development in a given cluster. The Council also decided to implement a schools test that will measure a school’s enrollment in terms of “AGP Capacity.” This number, while generally higher than other possible measures, creates a stable number for the amount of students a given school can accommodate. It has been endorsed by the School Board for purposes of the Growth Policy.
Schools at the elementary and middle school level will be allowed to “borrow” capacity from other schools within their cluster. If one school is over capacity and an abutting school is under, the boundary lines could be re-drawn to allow all the students to fit.
At the high school level, schools would be allowed to borrow from adjoining clusters.
The only reason borrowing would come into play is if a school is substantially over capacity. Development will be allowed to continue unfettered until enrollment reaches 105 percent of AGP capacity at the middle or elementary school levels within a cluster or 100 percent at high school. From that level to 110 percent, a “School Facilities Payment” of $12,500 per student would be imposed. The number of students projected will be based on demographic predictions tied to the type of housing.
The school facilities payment will be required to be used to add capacity for the cluster in which it was collected.
Over 110 percent, an area would be placed into moratorium and no residential building would be allowed to occur.
The reason 105 percent was chosen, as opposed to 100 percent, is that at 100 percent, it could be possible for a cluster to be placed into moratorium if it is only one student over capacity, but that small number would not justify the expense of adding capacity. At 105 percent the numbers are more likely to justify a renovation or expansion.
Subin opposed the schools test. Only 20 percent of the growth on student population is a result of new development, Subin said, so a moratorium will not solve the problems of school overcrowding.
The School Board has generally agreed that moratoriums are not helpful and what is needed is more funding for construction of new schools and renovation and expansion of old schools.
“There is only one solution to the schools problem. Just build it,” Subin said.