AGENDA ITEM #7
October 25,2016
Addendum
MEMORANDUM
October 24,2016
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Glenn Orlin, Deputy Council Administrator
Robert Drummer, Senior Legislative
Attome~
Addendum -resolution to adopt the 2016-2020 Subdivision Staging Policy;
Bill 37-16, Taxation - Development Impact Tax - Transportation and Public School
Improvement - Amendments;
Resolution to establish Development Impact Tax rates for transportation and public
school improvements
GO
.n
SUBJECT:
This addendum lists the issues on which the Council will take straw votes. Under each issue the
option in
italics
represents the existing rule.
An
option that is bolded is a Committee recommendation.
An
option in
bold italics,
therefore, is an existing rule that a Committee recommends retaining. Support
is shown (in parentheses).
SCHOOL TEST
1.
Threshold for moratorium in a cluster
a.
120%
ofprogram capacity at any level
(Planning Bd., Exec, Council staff, MCCC,
developers)
b. 115% of program capacity at any level (Council staff s secondary recommendation)
c. 110% of program capacity at any level (BOE, MCCPTA, civic groups)
d. Other
Threshold for school facility payment in a cluster-level
a.
105% ofprogram capacity at any cluster-level
(Planning Bd., MCCC, developers)
b. 100% of program capacity at any cluster-level (Exec, BOE, MCCPTAI, Council sta.ff2,
civic groups)
c. Eliminate school facility payment test and payment (CP Floreen, MCCPTA,
Council
staff)
d.
Other
2.
) Unless the school facility payment and its test are eliminated in return for raising school impact taxes 20% over the
Plarming Board's recommendations.
2
Unless the school facility payment and its test are eliminated.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3.
A. Threshold for moratorium
in
an individual school service area
a.
No individual school test
(Exec, Council staff, OBCC, developers)
b. 120% of program capacity and a deficit exceeding 110 seats at an ES or 180 seats
at a
MS (Planning Bd., BOE, MCCPTA, MCCF, CBAR, Chevy Chase, CCCFH)
c. Other
B.
Threshold for school facility payment in an individual school service area
a.
Not applicable,
if the Council selects (c) under Issue 2
b. At any ES with a deficit of 92-11 0 seats or any MS with a deficit of 150-180 seats
c. Other
4.
Limits on placeholder ("solution") projects in the CIP
a.
Continue the Council's practice to program a placeholder project when a cluster­
level will exceed 120% of program capacity and a solution
is
being prepared by
MCPS
(Exec, MCCPTA, OBCC, Council staff)
b. Limit the Council's use of placeholder projects to 2 years (Planning Bd., BOE, MCCF,
OCCA, CCCFH)
c. Other
Note: If the Council votes for (c) under Issue 2, then skip Issues
5-6.1
5.
School facility payment rates
a.
Current rates
-
see Table
22
on p. 50 ofthe SSP Report
b. Planning Board's proposed rates - see Table 22 (Planning Bd., BOE, Exec, Council
staff, developers)
c. 50% higher than the Planning Board's proposed rates (MCCPTA, several individuals)
Where school facility payment revenue may be spent
a
In the same cluster that generated the fee requirement, unless a project in a
neighboring cluster solves the problem that generated the foe requirement
(Planning
Bd., MCCC, OBCC, Council staff)
b. Anywhere in the county (BOE, Exec)
c. Other
Regular updates to the school facility payment rates
a.
No regular update.
b. Biennially
in July of odd-numbered years, based on changes reported by
MCPS
in construction cost/student and the student generation rate by type of household
(Planning Bd., Exec, BOE, Council staff)
c. Other
Limit on regular updates to the school facility payment rates
a.
No limit to the change due to the biennial update
(MCCPTA, Council staff)
b. Limit any increase or decrease to 5% (Planning Bd., BOE, GCCA, developers)
c. Other
6.
7.
8.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
SCHOOL IMPACT TAX
1.
Dedicate a portion of school impact tax revenue to land acquisition
a.
No
(BOE, Council staff)
b. 10% (Planning Board, MCCPTA)
c. Other
Base school impact tax rates (see ©53-54)
a.
Current rates
b. Scenario #lA (Planning Bd.)
c. Scenario #lB (Council staff)
d. Scenario #lC (MCCPTA)
e. Scenario #2A
f.
Scenario #2B
g. Scenario #2C
h. Other
Surcharge for single-family homes
a. $2.
OO/sffor each sfbetween 3,500-8,500sf
(Exec)
b. $6.00/sffor each sfbetween 3,500-8,500sf (Superintendent, Council staff)
c. Other
Charge for teardowns and expansions
a.
None
(Exec)
b. $6.00/sffor each sfbetween 3,500-8,500sf (Superintendent, Council staff)
c. Other
Add an additional impact tax for land acquisition
a.
No
(Exec, Council staff)
b. Yes (BOE, MCCPTA)
Biennial adjustment
to
school impact
tax
rates
a.
July 1 in odd-numbered years based on change in regional construction cost index
b. July
1
in odd-numbered years based on changes in construction cost/seat and
student generation rates (planning Board, BOE, MCCPTA)
c. Other
Should there
be
a cap on the biennial rate adjustment?
a.
No
(MCCPTA, Council staff)
b. Do not increase or decrease by more than 5% (Planning Bd., BOE)
c. Other
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
8.
Credits for land dedications
a. No credit for dedication
b.
Credit for dedication
if
density for the dedicated area is excluded from the
density calculation for the site, and if the BOE concurs to the dedication
(planning Bd., Council staff)
c. Other
Transferability of school credits
a. No provision in the law
b.
Credit can be applied by the developer or his successor in interest, but only to the
property for which the credit was originally certified by MCPS
(Council
staff)
c. Other
Credit for providing a better accessibility standard
a.
100% ofthe credit applied against the school impact tax
b.
Split the credit equally between the school and transportation impact taxes
(Council staff)
c. Other
9.
10.
f:\orlin\fy17\cJsp\161025cc.doc
4