AGENDA ITEM #7
November 1, 2016
Worksession 2
MEMORANDUM
October 31, 2016
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Glenn
Council Administrator
f u ; ·
.-
1
Robert Drummer, Senior Legislative Attomey
...
.
~ ~
Orli~eputy
J··
Ii
SUBJECT:
Worksession
2-resolution to adopt the 2016-2020 Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP);
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
Please bring the SSP Report and Appendix to this worksession.
I.
SSP TRANSPORTATION TEST
1.
Background.
The SSP (and its predecessor, the Annual Growth Policy, or AGP) has included
a transportation school test since the Council first established the AGP in 1986.
1
In the beginning, and
during most of the years since, there has been both a policy area review test that examined whether
transportation was adequate, on average, over the entire policy area, and a local area test, which
examined the congestion level at intersections proximate to the development being tested. The tests
have always measured adequacy at a point in the future, when it was believed that an approved
subdivision would materialize into actual housing units and buildings generating traffic. Congestion
standards were changed one way or another almost every time the Council updated the Growth Policy.
From the 1980s until the early part of this century, if a development "failed" either the Policy Area
Transportation Review (PATR) or Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), it was usually up to the
developer to build capacity or reduce demand, by building or widening roads, adding turn lanes at
intersections, running bus shuttles, etc., so that the future congestion level would be no worse with the
development than if the development never happened.
As time went on, developers found it increasingly difficult to borrow large amounts of funds
from banks and other lending institutions to build projects or fund traffic mitigation programs. In the
late 1990s the Council experimented with a "pay-and-go" regime, under which developers would pay to
the AGP the Planning Board, since the late 1970s, had administered a transportation test for subdivisions under its
Comprehensive Planning Policies Report (CPPR).
1
Prior to
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
the County a pre-set fee per trip to pass the transportation test, and the County would use the funds for
transportation capacity improvements in the vicinity of the paying development. This was phased out a
couple of years later. In 2004 the Council eliminated PATR entirely, opting instead to tighten LATR
considerably. In 2007 the incoming Council reintroduced a form of policy area review called Policy
Area Mobility Review (P AMR) that measured policy-wide mobility: evaluating both traffic congestion
and the quality of transit service.
If
a development failed the test, it could proceed by paying a fee based
on the number of peak period trips the development would generate.
. In the 2012-2016 Subdivision Staging Policy the Council replaced PAMR with yet another
policy area test called Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR), which expanded the time-horizon of
"countable" projects to those programmed for completion within 10 years. TP AR has a road component
and a transit component. The road component calculates the future average congestion in the peak
direction during peak periods on major roads in a policy area and compares that average to a standard
specific to that policy area.
2
If
the average road congestion forecasts to fail the standard, then a
development can proceed only by paying an additional traffic mitigation fee equal to 25% of the
applicable transportation impact tax. The transit component assesses whether a policy area has
sufficient local bus service-in terms of coverage, frequency, and span (the hours of bus service during
a normal weekday}--measured against policy-specific standards for coverage, frequency, and span.
If
local bus service cannot meet the standards, then, again, a development can proceed only by paying an
additional traffic mitigation fee equal to 25% of the applicable transportation impact tax.
If
a policy area
fails both the road and transit components, then a 50% surcharge is required.
Note that under both PAMR and TPAR, the Council has moved away from the original PATR
model that if a subdivision did not meet the standard the developer would build transportation capacity
or conduct transportation demand management to mitigate the effect of a subdivision. Over the past
decade the policy area test has morphed entirely into a pay-and-go regime.
2. Policy Area Transportation Review.
The Planning Board recommends overhauling both the
policy area and local area reviews. For policy area review, the Board would introduce a new geographic
grouping of policy areas: "Red" policy areas are Metro Station Policy Areas (MSPAs); "Orange" policy
areas are corridor cities (but not MSPAs), town centers, and emerging transit-oriented development areas
where transitways (Purple Line, :BRT lines) are planned; "Yellow" policy areas are lower density residential
neighborhoods with community-serving commercial areas; and "Green" policy areas are the Agricultural
Reserve and other rural areas. Although Germantown East and Germantown West to its south would be
Yellow areas, the Board recommends that the Clarksburg Policy Area be an Orange area in recognition
of the original master-planned vision for the area and the high quality service to be provided ultimately
by the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). Furthermore, the Board recommends new, small policy areas
around the future Purple Line stations at Lyttonsville, Long Branch, and Takoma/Langley Crossroads;
all would be in the Orange group, the same as the Silver Spring!fakoma Policy Area that surrounds
them. A map displaying the policy areas by group is on p. 20 of the SSP Report.
The Board proposes measuring adequacy based on transit accessibility: how many jobs are
within a certain commuting time of housing in each policy area. The Board has estimated/forecasted the
number of jobs within an hour's commute by transit in Years 2015, 2025 (10 years out) and 2040 (25
years out). The 2025 findings are based on the land use forecast for 2025 and the transportation projects
2
.
PATR
and PAMR had calculated the average congestion in
both
directions on major roads
in
a policy area.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
programmed to be built within 10 years (similar to the practice for the current TPAR test). The 2040
findings are based on the land use forecast for 2040 and the transportation projects included in the
Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board
(TPB), except that the entire master-planned BRT system is also assumed.
Using these calculations, the Board then compares how much transit accessibility is forecast to
improve between 2015 and 2025 compared to the anticipated improvement between 2015 and 2040.
If
the improvement in transit accessibility is at least 40% by 2025-Year 2025 being 40% of the way to
2040---then transit accessibility will be on pace for that policy area, and so the new policy area will have
"passed."
If
the 2025 improvement in transit accessibility is less than 40% but at least 30%, then a
development would make a partial mitigation payment equal to 15% of the applicable transportation
impact tax.
If
the 2025 improvement in transit accessibility is less than 30%, then a development would
make a full mitigation payment equal to 25% of the applicable transportation impact tax. The test would
not apply to policy areas where the forecasted increase in jobs within an hour's transit ride from housing
would increase by less than 60,000. A more detailed description of this concept is on ©1-2. The table
on ©3 shows which policy areas would require no mitigation payment, the partial mitigation payment,
or the full mitigation payment.
3
The Board recommends applying the transit accessibility test solely to the Orange and Yellow
areas. The Board believes there is no need to apply the transit accessibility test to the Red areas (the
MSPAs) since they already have high transit accessibility, by definition. Nor would they apply it to the
Green areas, because attaining adequate transit accessibility in rural areas is neither likely nor desired.
The Board, however, recommends retaining TPAR to test master-plan transportation adequacy.
Given that the short time before the November 15 legislative deadline to approve a new SSP, the
Council has really only three realistic options:
1. approve the transit accessibility test, with any revisions it may wish to make to the Board's
proposal;
2. eliminate the policy area test entirely (as was the case in 2004-2007), perhaps replacing it with a
high.er transportation impact tax, similar to Council President Floreen's proposal for the School
Test; or
3. retain TPAR for now, but provide the Planning Board with concrete direction in developing an
alternative, and a timetable for bringing the alternative back in an SSP amendment.
Option
#
1: Transit accessibility.
An
advantage of using transit accessibility as a measure is that
development could proceed not just by adding a new transit line or more frequent bus service, but by
allowing more density-particularly mixed-use development-at existing or programmed transit nodes.
Even a new road, a road widening, or an intersection improvement can improve transit accessibility,
since buses would be running in less congested conditions.
If
the Council were to go with this option,
several revisions should be made to the Planning Board's approach:
Planning staff reports an error on p. 23 of the SSP Report. Silver Spring/Takoma is described as being inadequate to the
point ofrequiring a full mitigation payment. However, it would in actuality be adequate, so currently there would be no
mitigation payment.
3
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
a.
Carve out a new Clarksburg Town Center Policy Area from the existing Clarksburg Policy
Area, and place it in the Orange group; place the new Clarksburg Policy Area (minus its town
center) in the Yellow group. The boundary for the Clarksburg Town Center Policy Area
should be the same as its Road Code Urban Area.
This had been the Planning staffs proposal.
It
is difficult to conceive of most of Clarksburg as having the transit accessibility that, say, the
North Bethesda Policy Area has. By designating Clarksburg as Yellow with an Orange core, it
would be comparable to how Germantown is treated in the SSP.
b.
The 2040 CLRP+BRT network should only include those BRT lines most likely to be built in
the next 25 years, namely: the Corridor Cities Transitway, US 29, MD 355, Veirs Mill Road,
New Hampshire Avenue, and the North Bethesda Transitway.
It
is not likely that the full BRT
network will be built out by 2040, so the other master-planned BRT routes (University
Boulevard, Georgia Avenue North and South, and Randolph Road) should not be assumed in the
calculations of transit accessibility. The table on ©4 shows which policy areas would require no
mitigation payment, the partial mitigation payment, or the full mitigation payment.
·
c.
Set the partial mitigation payment at 25% (instead of 15%) of the applicable impact tax and
the full mitigation payment at 50% (instead of 30%).
This would make the mitigation payments
comparable to what they are now under the TP AR test, where failing either the transit or road
test results in a 25% surcharge, and failing both results in a 50% surcharge.
d.
Apply the transit accessibility test to the "Red" group, too.
The Planning Board stipulates that
MSP As, by definition, have good transit accessibility. But if they do, why not prove it using the
same metric by which the Orange and Yellow areas are gauged?
In
fact, ©4 shows that the
Wheaton CBD Policy Area will only have improved its transit accessibility by 37% by 2025,
which means that it should be subject to partial mitigation payment. As it happens, however,
Wheaton CBD is an active enterprise zone, so it is currently exempt from traffic mitigation
payments anyway.
4
That does not mean Wheaton CBD, or some other "Red" area, may not fall
below the threshold at some point in the future.
e.
Update the findings every 4 years, as part ofeach regular update ofthe SSP.
In
the next SSP the
comparison would be using the transit accessibility estimates for 2020, 2030 (10 years from
2020), and 2045 (25 years from 2020). All these data sets should be available, including the
2045 CLRP.
PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Do not adopt the transit accessibility test. Carve
out a new Clarksburg Town Center Policy Area from the existing Clarksburg Policy Area, and
place it in the Orange group; place the new Clarksburg Policy Area (minus its town center) in the
Yellow group. The boundary for the Clarksburg Town Center Policy Area should be the same as
its Road Code Urban Area
(see map on ©5).
Option #2: Retain TPAR for now, but come back with a series of measures by next spring and
summer that would replace TPAR with a robust traffic mitigation program.
For more than a year the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Work Group, headed by DOT but with representation
from DPS, Planning, and Council staffs, have developed a detailed outline of a more comprehensive and
There are 4 other MSPAs currently exempt: Silver Spring CBD is a former enterprise zone; Glenmont, like Wheaton CBD,
is an active enterprise zone; White Flint has a special taxing district for transportation; and the County's SSP does not apply
in Rockville's Town Center. So, currently, the transportation mitigation payments can be levied only in 5 MSPAs:
Friendship Heights, Bethesda, Grosvenor, Twinbrook, and Shady Grove.
4
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
consistently-applied approach for traffic mitigation agreements. The Work Group necessarily delved
into other areas of TDM as well.
A summary of the Work Group's findings and recommendations are on ©6-17.
recommendations are to:
The key
require varying levels ofTDM to all areas of the County except rural (Green) areas;
establish a tiered system for applying TDM that responds to the variety and quality of local
mobility options;
apply TDM efforts to commercial and moderate-to-high density residential developments;
establish non-auto-driver mode share (NADMS) goals where they do not currently exist in the
Red, Orange, and Yellow areas;
develop and adopt a TDM menu of required tools and strategies; and
improve monitoring and reporting, and to strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
Implementing the Work Group's recommendations-many of which are yet to be fleshed out-
likely will require legislation, budget actions, and SSP amendments. The Work Group met with several
stakeholders from the development industry on October 5; a summary of their reaction is on ©18-19.
There is clearly much work left to do, but Council staff nevertheless is confident that, with the
present momentum for change in this arena-and the budget to support it-much of this new approach
could be initiated during FYI 8.
The PHED Committee was supportive of this general approach, and urges DOT and the
Planning Board to develop the requisite legislation, budget requests, and SSP amendments over
the next several months in time for transmittal to the Council for deliberation and action next
spring and summer.
Option #3: eliminate the policy area review test.
On October 13 the Council President circulated
her proposal to eliminate policy area review and to replace it with a higher impact
tax
(©20-22). On
October 17 Councilmember Elrich recommended several changes to the SSP and Bill 37-16 (©23-26),
one of which is to continue TPAR until it can be replaced with a version that would incorporate
measures of passenger load, reliability, and travel time along with the existing measures of coverage,
frequency, and span of service (see especially Recommendation #2 on ©24-25).
PHED Committee recommendation (3-0):
general, and TPAR in particular.
Delete transportation policy area review
in
As noted above, the proposed policy area review, like PAMR and TPAR before it, is a pay-and-
go approach: if the accessibility standard is not met the development can still proceed with a mitigation
payment. The payments under PAMR and TPAR over the past decade-as with the school facility
payment-have been quite small. Over the past 6 years, the County has collected about $1.46 million in
transportation mitigation payments, or about 2% of what the County collected in transportation impact
tax revenue during the same period. However, it was also noted that the amount of mitigation payment
revenue would likely be larger in the future, since many subdivisions having been approved with the
condition of making this payment have not yet reached the point of payment: 6 months after building
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
permit issuance for residential development or 12 months after permit issuance for non-residential
development.
To gain an understanding of future mitigation revenue should TP AR continue, Planning staff
conducted an analysis, which is on ©27. MSPAs are effectively exempt from the TPAR test, so they
generate no mitigation payment revenue. Of the many non-MSPA policy areas, most fail either the
transit adequacy or roadway adequacy tests, but not both: so to proceed, developments there must make
a mitigation payment equal to 25% of the applicable transportation impact tax. Three policy areas fail
both tests, so they must pay an amount equal to 50% of the applicable, and three others pass both tests,
so no TP AR payment is required. Therefore, on average, developments in non-MSPAs pay an amount
equal to 25% of the impact tax.
The housing and employment growth projections between 2015 and 2020 show that 44% of the
housing growth and 65% of the jobs growth will be in the non-MSPA policy areas, that is, where the
TPAR test applies. Thus, Planning staff estimates that,
if
TPAR were to continue as it is now,
mitigation payment revenue from housing would equal about 11 % (0.25 x 0.44) of the impact tax, and
such revenue from employment would equal about 16% (0.25 x 0.65) of the impact
tax.
Therefore, in order not to reduce revenue below what would otherwise be collected, there are
two options: after determining what the base impact tax rate schedule would be assuming continuation
of mitigation payments, either (1) increase the rates only in the non-MSPAs, by 25%, or (2) raise the
rates in all policy areas by a figure between 11%and16%, say 14%.
To replace the foregone revenue from discontinuing TPAR payments, Council staff
recommends raising the rates in all policy areas by 14%.
This is consistent with Council staffs earlier
recommendation to equalize impact tax rates across all areas of the County, just as the school impact tax
is levied. A 14% increase would roughly cover the loss of TP AR mitigation revenue.
Since the GO Committee is the lead on Bill 37-16, the PHED Committee attempted to make a
recommendation to the GO Committee on this matter. However, the PHED Committee was split:
Councilmember Riemer rec.ommended raising the rates only in the non-MSPAs, by 25%;
Councilmember Leventhal recommended raising the rates in all policy areas by 14%; and
Councilmember Floreen recommended raising the rates in all policy areas by 11 %. The GO
Committee's recommendation is discussed later in this packet as part of the review of the transportation
impact tax rates in Bill 37-16.
3. Local Area Transportation Review.
The Planning Board initially recommended that LATR
no longer be required in the Red areas (MSPAs). The Board noted that the combination of the current,
congestion-tolerant standard of 1,800 Critical Lane Volume, or CLV (actually 1.13 volume-to-capacity
ratio using the Highway Capacity manual test), and the presence of a fine grid of streets within most
MSP As that distribute the traffic, has had the result that very few traffic studies for MSPA developments
have shown a "failure" that needed to be addressed. The Board also wanted to streamline the approval
process for developments near Metro stations as they are most desirable in terms of transportation
efficiency. Instead, the Board suggested a Comprehensive LATR be conducted biennially to identify
trouble spots where the County should invest in improvements.
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Opinion is divided on this. The business community generally supports the Planning Board's
recommendations, but Councilmember Elrich (©23-24), civic groups and many individuals oppose
dropping the LATR requirement for the Red areas. DOT had also expressed concern about this.
Planning staff notes that very few traffic studies in MSP As have resulted in findings that required
intersection improvements or some other type of mitigation, and the concern is these studies incur
considerable cost and review time. A consistent argument is that even if an intersection improvement
were warranted, the resulting impact on pedestrian and bike accommodation might be severe: in other
words, the cure is worse than the cause.
On this last point, it must be noted that most of the congestion generated by MSP A development
is usually not at intersections within the MSP A where there is a grid of streets, but at the fewer
"gateway" intersections to the MSP As, through which the traffic is funneled. Five of the 10 most
congested intersections in the county, according to the Planning Board's most recent Highway Mobility
Report, are "gateway" intersections:
#1
#5
#6
#7
#10
- Rockville Pike at West Cedar Lane (gateway to Bethesda CBD)
- Shady Grove Rd at Choke Cherry Lane (gateway to Shady Grove)
- Connecticut Avenue at East West Highway (gateway to Bethesda CBD)
- Georgia Avenue at 16th Street (gateway to Silver Spring CBD)
-Rockville Pike at First Street/Wootton Parkway (gateway to Rockville Town Center)
Some of these intersections have improvements that are either under construction or master-planned; all
of them could add turning lanes without deteriorating an urban, walkable environment. Only one
intersection in the "Top 10" is within an MSPA: Rockville Pike and Nicholson Lane (White Flint),
where there is no LATR test.
Planning Chair Anderson and DOT Director Roshdieh have ironed some differences between
their departments relative positions on some issues (©28-29). DOT and Planning staff have recently
agreed to using 750,000sf as the threshold for whether an LATR study would be required in a Red
policy area. However, a large proposed MSP A development near its edge likely would have a greater
impact: being further from the Metro station means it likely would have a lower NADMS, and it would
be physically closer to a gateway intersection so more likely to pass trips through it.
Council staff recommendation: For the time being, continue to require the LATR test for
MSPA developments, but only where the scope of the traffic study would carry out to gateway
intersections.
For several years the SSP has directed that each traffic study must examine, at a
minimum, the number of signalized intersections in the following table:
Maximum Peak-Hour Trips
Generated
<250
250- 749
750- 1,249
1,250-1,750
1,750-2,249
2,250-2749
>2,750
Minimum Signalized
lnter~ections
in Each Direction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
If
a proposed development is large enough to warrant studying a large enough radius of signalized
intersections to reach a gateway intersection, then a traffic study for that intersection-and its mitigation
to meet the applicable LATR standard-should be required.
PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Use 750,000sf as the threshold for whether an
LATR study would be required in a Red policy area.
However, in the SSP resolution the Council should also direct the Planning Board to develop, in
concert with DOT, a comprehensive LATR for each County MSPA, leading to proportional cost-sharing
of local area transportation improvements. This model, approved in an earlier SSP amendment for the
White Oak Policy Area, would identify all "local" transportation capital improvements that contribute to
transportation capacity-such as new streets, intersection improvements, filling gaps in the local
sidewalk and bikeway network, bikesharing stations, additional Ride On buses for local transit service,
etc.-and divide their cumulative cost across the master-planned development yet to be built. Thus a
per-trip fee would be calculated, which, if approved by the Council after a public hearing, would be
required of any new development in lieu of the standard LATR test.
In the next few weeks the Executive Branch is anticipated to transmit its study on White Oak and
the Executive's recommended per-trip fee. In the meantime DOT has produced a memorandum
describing how the White Oak model could be applied to MSPAs (©30-33). A subsequent paper
describes how such Unified Mobility Programs (UMPs) would ultimately replace the LATR test, first in
White Oak and the MSPAs, and ultimately to other Orange and Yellow policy areas (©34-35). As with
the TDM concept described earlier, this concept will also need more fleshing out and revisions
5,
and
both DOT and Planning staff support developing a work program to do exactly that. This approach
would produce an equitable means to generate the revenue for these improvements, which would be
programmed by the Council as the need for them becomes evident. DOT estimates that concurrent
studies were undertaken for all 8 MSPAs
6,
the White Oak model could be in place in 9-18 months, or in
about 3 years if two or three MSP As were undertaken at a time (©36).
PHED Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Develop Unified Mobility
Programs for the
MSP
As in the next few years-followed, in other Orange and Yellow policy
areas in the longer run-to replace the current and interim LATR tests.
When the Planning Board transmitted its Draft 2016-2020 SSP in August, it inadvertently left
out the text of the 2015 White Oak SSP amendment (©37-38).
If
the Council is to transition to this
model in MSPA's and, perhaps, other policy areas in the next several years, this would be a good
opportunity to generalize the White Oak text so that it could apply to any policy area where the Council
may wish to use proportional cost-sharing.
PHED Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Include in the SSP the new
section, below.
The text is parallel with the language already in the SSP regarding the White Oak
One revision is that the per-trip fee should be paid at the same time impact taxes are: not at building permit issuance, but 6
or 12 months later (depending on whether the development is residential or commercial) or at final inspection, whichever is
earlier.
6
Except White Flint and Rockville Town Center, as they are forever exempt from LA TR.
8
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
proportional cost sharing model. By adopting this amendment the Council would not have to amend the
SSP every time it wished to establish proportional cost-sharing in a policy area.
TLS
(a)
Unified Mobility Programs
The Board may approve a subdivision in any policy area conditioned on the applicant paying a
fee to the County commensurate with the applicant's proportion of the cost of a Unified Mobility
Program, including the costs of design, land acquisition, construction, site improvements, and
utility relocation. The proportion is based on a subdivision's share of net additional peak-hour
vehicle trips generated by all master-planned development in the policy area.
(b) The components of the Unified Mobility Program and the fee per peak-hour vehicle trip will be
established by Council resolution, after a public hearing. The Council may amend the Program
and the fee at any time, after a public hearing.
(c) The fee must be paid at a time and manner consistent with Transportation Mitigation Payments
as prescribed in Section 52-59(d) of the Montgomery County Code.
(d) The Department of Finance must retain funds collected under this Section in an account to be
appropriated for transportation improvements that result in added transportation capacity
serving the policy area.
LATR standard in Clarksburg Town Center.
In the context of the Planning Board's
consideration of the SSP earlier this year, Planning staff initially proposed a 1,500 Critical Lane Volume
(CLV) standard for the Town Center to distinguish this area from its "parent" Clarksburg policy area in
recognition of the vision of the creation of a compact, mixed-use, walkable town center that serves as
the primary civic focus for the surrounding community that will eventually be enhanced by CCT service.
This proposal became moot when the Board directed staff not to consider the Town Center as a separate
entity relative to the remainder of Clarksburg.
Given Council staffs recommendation to carve out a new Clarksburg Town Center policy area
from the existing Clarksburg policy area, and place it in the Orange group, Planning staff has reiterated
its recommendation that a 1,500 CLV standard would be appropriate for this area. This proposal seems
reasonable given that this standard is less than the 1,600 CLV standard adopted for the Germantown
Town Center (served by the Germantown MARC rail station and express bus service to Shady Grove)
and higher than the adopted 1,425 CLV standard for the "parent" Clarksburg policy area. PHED
Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0):
If
a Clarksburg Town Center policy area is
created, give it a standard of 1,500 CLV: 0.94 volume/capacity using the HCM method.
Traffic generation rates.
For many years the Planning staff has used some traffic generation
rates that are based on county surveys for most major land use categories, and Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) rates when local data has not been collected. These rates have been applied
countywide, however, even though actual trip generation often varies by how urban the setting is. The
Planning Board intends to adjust ITE rates-which are the nationwide average for suburban
environments-to reflect the transportation character of each policy area. For example, in Damascus the
ITE rates would be utilized for all land uses, but in the Bethesda CBD the rates would vary from 61 % of
the ITE rate for retail to 79% for residential. Table 2 on p. 26 of the SSP Report shows the adjustment
factors by policy area and land use category that the Board would include in the next edition of its
LATR Guidelines.
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Threshold for a traffic study.
Currently the rule is that an LATR study is required
if
a proposed
subdivision will generate 30 or more peak-hour vehicle trips. The Board proposes amending the
threshold to 50 peak-hour
person
trips.
PHED Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0):
Concur with the Planning Board.
Type of intersection analysis.
Under Growth Policies prior to 2012, the County used the Critical
Lane Volume (CLV) method of analyzing future conditions at an intersection. CLV has the advantage
of being simple, transparent, and quick. However, the traffic engineering profession, over the past 20
years, has shifted steadily towards using more robust methods of estimating future delay, especially as
operational analysis methods such as that described in the Transportation Research Board's Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) and even network operational models such as Synchro and Corsim have
developed and became easier to use.
For more than a decade the LATR studies conducted by the Planning staff have not relied solely
on CLV in all circumstances. For example, if in the reviewer's judgement congestion at a nearby
intersection would likely influence the forecasted congestion at the intersection under study, then a
network analysis was used. In 2012 the Council decided that any intersection forecast to have a CLV
worse than 1,600 (the borderline between Level of Service E and F) would require a second-tier test
incorporating the HCM method.
7
The Planning staff, in its draft of the 2016-2020 SSP, recommended a
3-tier test:
1. Tier 1:
If
an intersection is forecast to operate at 1,350 CLV (near the border between Levels of
Service C and D) or better, no further analysis is required.
2. Tier 2:
If
the forecast is above 1,350 CLV, than require an operational analysis of the intersection
using the HCM method. The intersection must operate better than the policy area's HCM
standard for it to "pass" (for example, HCM=l.00 in Bethesda/Chevy Chase Policy Area).
3. Tier 3: Instead of the Tier 2 analysis, perform a modeling analysis of the network of intersections
near the development if:
a. a future intersection projects to have a CLV greater than 1,600; or
b. a future intersection projects to have a CLV greater than 1,450, the development under
study will add at least 10 CLV, and either:
i. the intersection is on a congested roadway with a travel time index greater than
2.0, or
ii. the intersection is within 600' of another traffic signal.
applicable LATR
The Planning Board has recommended that the cut-off for the Tier 1 test be
standard for each policy area. For example, the cut-off would remain at 1,600 CLV for the downcounty
policy areas, vary between 1,400 and 1,550 CLV for the upper- and mid-county policy areas, and 1,350
CLV for rural areas. The Board concurred with its staff on the Tier 2 and 3 tests.
Brian Krantz testified, with evidence of several national research efforts, that CLV is not a good
predictor of delay. He recommends discontinuing the use of CLV altogether (©39-49), as does
Councilmember Elrich (©25-26). The Council has received some other correspondence from
individuals in support of his recommendation.
Mr.
Krantz also decries the current LATR study practice
the
7
The Council was divided on this point. A minority wanted the threshold to be 1,800 CLY.
IO
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
of using very few, over even one, traffic count as the basis for measuring existing traffic at an
intersection.
PHED Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (2-1): Councilmembers Leventhal
and Riemer recommend tightening the threshold for a higher tier test from 1,600 CLV to 1,350
CLV. Councilmember Floreen recommends retaining this threshold at 1,600 CLV.
It
is difficult to
imagine an intersection operating with a significant delay with a CLV of 1,350 or less, unless it is close
to another, failing intersection; in such a case current practice allows the plan reviewer to require an
operational analysis anyway. Retaining CLV (at 1,350) as a screening mechanism makes sense in order
not to waste time and money evaluating an intersection that would not be a problem. The Planning
Board's recommendation-using the policy area CLV standard as the test threshold-would be a tighter
requirement than what is in effect now, but would not be nearly tight enough, especially in those policy
areas with 1,550-1,600 CLV as the CLV standard; the soft relationship between CLV and delay could
easily result in underestimating the true delay.
Council staff recommendation: Encourage the Planning Board to require more traffic counts
for its LATR studies.
This is properly a subject for the Planning Board when it takes up its LATR
Guidelines, which usually follows shortly after adoption of an updated SSP. But the Council has a role
here, too: not only should more counts be required of a development applicant, but the Council should
approve a higher budget for the Planning Board (and/or DOT) to conduct more frequent counts.
Pedestrian, bicycling, and bus transit tests.
The SSP report describes recommended standards
for measuring adequacy for pedestrian movement, bicycling, and bus transit (p. 30):
Pedestrian system adequacy
is defined as providing LOS D capacity or better (at least 15 square
feet per person) in any crosswalk. Any site that generates at least 100 peak hour pedestrians
(including transit trips) must:
• Fix (or fund) ADA non-compliance issues within a 500' radius of site boundaries, and
•Ensure LOS D for crosswalk: pedestrian space at LATR study intersections within 500' of site
boundaries or within a Road Code Urban Area/Bicycle Pedestrian Priority Area (RCUAIBPP A).
Regardless of the development size and location, if an intersection operational analysis (Tier 2 or
3) is triggered for any intersection within a RCUA/BPPA, mitigation must not increase average
pedestrian crossing time at the intersection.
M-NCPPC and DOT would tighten the threshold to intersections where 50 peak hour bicycle/pedestrian
trips are generated. They would also require that in Red area applicants fix deficiencies within 500 feet
of the site boundary. Rather than defining pedestrian system adequacy as having sufficient crosswalk
capacity, their recommendation is now to use pedestrian crosswalk delay as the measure of adequacy
(©29, third bullet).
Bicycle system adequacy
is defined as providing a low Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). For any
development generating at least 100 peak hour pedestrian volumes and within a quarter mile of
an educational institution or existing/planned bikeshare station, the applicant must identify
improvements needed to provide L TS=2 (or "Low") conditions to all destinations within 1,500
feet of site boundaries.
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
A Level of Traffic Stress 2 -better termed a "low stress" bicycling environment - is one where most
adults would be comfortable bicycling.
It
would mostly consist of: (1) trails, side paths, or protected
bike lanes, or (2) streets with a speed limit that does not exceed 30 mph, no more than 3 total traffic
lanes, and low parking turnover.
Transit system adequacy
for LATR is defined. as providing a peak load of LOS D for bus routes
(<
1.25 transit riders per seat) on routes during the peak period. For any development generating
at least 50 peak hour transit riders the applicant must inventory bus routes at stations/stops within
1,000 feet of the site and identify the peak load at that station for each route. The applicant must
coordinate with the transit service provider to identify improvements that would be needed to
address conditions worse than LOS D due to additional patrons generated by the development.
Rather than using 1,000 feet from the site as the strict distance to measure bus transit adequacy, Director
Roshdieh and Chairman Anderson now recommend that the limit be extended to the nearest transfer
point if it is reasonably close to 1,000 feet from the site (©29, second bullet).
Of these three tests, only the pedestrian system adequacy might require an applicant to make an
improvement. The other two "tests" only require the applicant to make an inventory of improvements
·
that should be made.
PHED Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation
(2-0-1):
Councilmembers
Leventhal and Riemer recommend approving these three tests for now, but would direct the
Planning Board to prepare in a subsequent SSP amendment revised tests that would require some
or all of these identified improvements to be implemented by the developer, or paid for as part of
an Unified Mobility Program. Councilmember Floreen is undecided.
II.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT TAX
Note: The GO Committee's recommendations for Bill 37-16--includirig its recommendations for
the school and transportation impact taxes, exemptions, refunds, grandfather clause/effective date, are
included in the draft on ©95-119.
J.
Purpose and intent.
§52-48 is largely unchanged since the original impact fee bill was enacted
in
1986.
It
has not kept up with the times, both
in
its terms and its scope. The Bill as introduced does not
include changes in this section, but the Council should take the opportunity to update it. GO
Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation
(3-0):
Redraft §52-48 as follows:
Sec. 52-48. [Findings;]
[p]~urpose
and intent.
(a) The master plan of [highways] transportation indicates that certain [roads] transportation
facilities are needed in planning policy areas. Furthermore, the [Growth] Subdivision Staging
Policy indicates that the amount and rate of growth projected in certain planning policy areas will
place significant demands on the County for provision of [major highways] transportation facilities
necessary to support and accommodate that growth.
***
12
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(e) The development impact tax [will] fund!, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the
transportation system capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed. Development impact
taxes [will be] are used exclusively for impact transportation improvements.
(t)
In order to assure that the necessary impact transportation improvements are constructed in
a timely manner, the County [intends to] assure! the availability of funds sufficient to construct the
impact transportation improvements.
(g) The County retains the power to determine the types of impact transportation improvements
to be funded by development impact taxes[; to estimate the cost of such improvements; to establish
the proper timing of construction of the improvements so as to meet APFO policy area
transportation adequacy standards where they apply; to determine when changes, if any, may be
necessary in the County CIP;] and
to
do all things necessary and proper
to
effectuate the purpose
and intent of this Article.
(h) The County intends to further the public purpose of ensuring that an adequate
transportation system is available in support of new development.
[(i) The County's findings are based on the adopted or approved plans, planning reports, capital
improvements programs identified in this Article, and specific studies conducted by the
Department of Transportation and its consultants.]
[(j)]
ill
The County intends to impose development impact taxes until the County has attained
build-out as defined by the General Plan.
2. Uses and credits.
The uses to which transportation impact taxes can be put are in §52-58.
An
important point to remember is that, generally speaking, whatever is identified as an eligible use of impact
tax revenue can also legitimately be claimed as an eligible credit by a development. (The credit provisions
are in §52-55.) The eligible uses of impact taxes are:
Sec. 52-50. Use of impact tax funds.
Impact tax funds may be used for any:
(a) new road, widening of an existing road, or total reconstruction of all or part of an existing road
required as part of widening of an existing road, that adds highway or intersection capacity or improves
transit service or bicycle commuting, such as bus lanes or bike lanes;
(b) new or expanded transit center or park-and-ride lot,
(c) bus added to the Ride-On bus fleet, but not a replacement bus;
(d) new bus shelter, but not a replacement bus shelter;
(e) hiker-biker trail used primarily for transportation;
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
bicycle locker that holds at least 8 bicycles;
bikesharing station (including bicycles) approved by the Department of Transportation;
sidewalk connector to a major activity center or along an arterial or major highway; or
the operating expenses of any transit or trip reduction program.
During the three decades transportation impact taxes have been imposed, about $93 .5 million has been
collected, and nearly all of it used to fund road improvements. Road improvement funding also dominates
the $50.6 million of impact tax funds programmed in FYsl 7-22. Not surprisingly, most of the credits that
have been granted over the years were also for road improvements.
Planning Board recommendations.
The Bill recommends two revis10ns to the use section.
Subsection (e) would be amended to read: "hiker-biker trail and other bike facility used primarily for
transportation." The Department of Transportation (DOT) is concerned about the added phrase:
13
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Executive Regulation associated with Transportation Impact Taxes and Impact Tax Credits includes
specific criteria for hiker-biker trails used primarily for transportation. The proposed language is overly
vague and will lead to confusion and misinterpretation in reviewing and certifying impact tax credits
(©50).
Council staff understands that the Planning Board's intent was to allow for protected bike lanes (i.e., cycle
tracks) to be an eligible expense. Protected bike lanes serve the same bicycle transportation purpose as
hiker-biker trails and regular bike lanes, both of which are eligible expenses.
GO Committee
(and Council
staff)
recommendation (3-0): Amend subsection
(e)
to read "hiker-biker trail and protected bike
lanes used primarily for transportation."
The other change would be to subsection (h).
It
would read "sidewalk connector to or within a
-major activity center or along an arterial or major highway." However, DOT notes:
While using impact taxes as a potential funding source for all CIP sidewalk projects if desirable, we do
not believe that issuing tax credits for any sidewalk built as part of certain developments is in keeping
with the underlying philosophy of granting transportation impact tax credits for what county would have
otherwise built. Also, a sidewalk within an activity center is more of a local amenity as opposed to
providing connectivity to the overall transportation network. Sidewalks are a fundamental requirement of
new development construction, and including this provision will increase the amount of credits provided
and will decrease the revenues collected from impact taxes
(©50).
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Amend subsection (h) to read
"sidewalk connector within a public right-of-way
to
or within a major activity center or along an
arterial or major highway."
Light rail and BRT
Cynthia Bar testified that the list of eligible impact tax uses----and, therefore,
eligible credits---be extended to include a "new or expanded public transportation facility, including light
rail and bus rapid transit facilities" (©51-53). Her point is that impact tax uses and credits related to transit
should not be limited to transit centers, bus shelters, and Ride On buses.
There is only one light rail line in the County's master plan: the Purple Line, which is a State
project. The purpose of the transportation impact tax is to fund capacity-adding transportation facilities that
are the
County's responsibility
to construct.
8
While the County has programmed about $46.5 million to the
State project, this comprises only about 2% of the total cost, and there is no subset of the Purple Line that is
explicitly funded by this 2%. Also, none of the $46.5 million programmed are impact tax funds.
The County's master-planned bus rapid transit (BRT) lines are primarily in State rights-of-way
9 .
However, it appears clear that these will be the County's responsibility to construct; while the State did
provide $10 million for the initial phase of planning for the MD 3 55 and US 29 BRT lines a few years ago,
it recently turned down the County's request for funding part of the preliminary design of the MD 355
BRT. So, while constructing new State roads and widening them are not eligible impact tax expenses, the
Council should consider BRT-whether in State right-of-way or not-as eligible expenses.
8
Or,
in
Gaithersburg and Rockville, capacity-adding transportation facilities that are either the County's or the
municipality's responsibility to construct.
9
The major exceptions are the Corridor Cities Transitway, the Randolph Road BRT, the North Bethesda Transitway, and
potentially a portion of the MD 355 North BRT.
14
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
A bus lane is already an eligible expense, and BRT
has
been interpreted as fitting under the "bus
lanes" defmition.1° But including BRT as an explicit eligible expense would
be
useful in making clear that
all of its route elements-bus lanes, BRT vehicles, and stations-are eligible. ·
GO Committee
(and
Council staff)
recommendation
(3-0):
Add a subsection identifying bus rapid transit lanes, vehicles,
and stations as eligible expenses.
State roads.
Christopher Ruhlen testified that improvements to State roads required of a
development should be creditable against the transportation impact
tax.
He notes that many necessary road
improvements are not being funded by the State, but by developments as conditions of subdivision
approvals, in order to meet their adequate public facilities requirements. He suggests that many of these
roads would be build sooner
if
the developers were to receive impact
tax
credits for their expenditure.
Specifically, he proposes deleting subsection
(b)
of the credit section (©54-56):
(b) A property owner must receive a credit for constructing or contributing to an improvement of the
type listed in Section 52-58 if the improvement reduces traffic demand or provides additional
transportation capacity. [However, the Department must not certify a credit for any improvement in the
right-of-way of a State road, except a transit or trip reduction program that operates on or relieves traffic
on a State road or an improvement to a State road that is included in a memorandum of understanding
between the County and either Rockville or Gaithersburg.]
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation
(3-0):
Do not include this proposed
amendment.
As noted above, the purpose of the law is to fund transportation facilities that are the
County's responsibility to construct.
In
the extraordinary circumstance where the County wishes to
expedite a particular road improvement that is a developer's responsibility-whether it would be in a State
or County right-of-way-it can do that directly with County funds. That is exactly what occurred in
Clarksburg, where the County agreed to provide about $10 million to the Clarksburg Village
develop~r
to
expedite the extensions of Snowden Farm Parkway, Little Seneca Parkway, and the improvement to the
MD 355/Brink Road intersection. lbis is preferable to granting a blanket credit to any development
required to improve a State road.
Transit and trip reduction programs.
Despite the number of categories of eligible projects, the
Department of Permitting Services (DPS) has indicated that nearly all the credits have been granted for new
roads, road widenings, or intersection improvements. DPS's experience that there have been no more than
one or two credit applications in the other categories. One such category is subsection (i), the operating
expenses of any transit or trip reduction program. This category is an odd one, since it is not a capital
improvement, and does not fit the definition of adding transportation capacity. How does one calculate
the value of a credit for an operating program that may have no termination date? And if it has a
termination date, then what has it contributed to the master plan capacity at buildout?
lbis
subsection was included early on, when there was an effort to provide more balance in the credit
provisions between roads and transit. However, operating expenses of a transit or trip reduction
program have never been funded with impact taxes, and they have been claimed as a credit only once in
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation
(3-0):
Delete subsection (i).
10
The Approved
FYI 7-22
CIP's Rapid Transit System project, which funds BRT, includes
$2
million in impact
tax
funding.
15
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
the last dozen years, according to DPS. Furthermore, there are now several transit and other non-auto-
based use (and credit) categories that have the potential to be exercised.
Transferability of credits.
A principle of the impact tax law has been that credits can only be
applied against the
tax
due with respect to the subdivision for which the credit was originally certified.
The credit concept was created to protect a large development that is required to build a substantial
capacity-adding project to serve the entire buildout of that subdivision. Usually the project is built first,
and the developer receives a dollar-for-dollar credit for it. Subsequently the developer draws down from
his or her earned credit as each phase of the subdivision is undertaken
11 •
This continues until the
available credit is exhausted. The credit follows the ownership of the property, should the subdivision
be sold from one developer to another before it is completed. However, the credit does
not
follow from
one property to another.
Buchanan Partners is the developer of the virtually completed Village West subdivision in the
Germantown Town Center Policy Area. Although not required to do so, Buchanan Partners have agreed
to construct a short extension of Waters Road to intersect with MD 118. In return for doing so, DOT has
recently approved a credit of $960,000 for construction of a section of Waterford Hills Boulevard
(which was not initially granted by DOT) and for an additional yet-to-be-determined amount for the
Waters Road extension itself. The rub is that, since Village West is almost entirely built out, almost
none ofthis credit can be used by Buchanan Partners. Buchanan Partners' proposed remedy would be to
add a clause to §52-47 allowing such "excess" credit to be used by another property owner in the same
policy area (©57-59).
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Do not approve this proposed
provision, but explore another type of remedy specific to Village West.
The provision would create a
green market for excess credits throughout the county, and it would further sap transportation impact tax
revenues.
12
However, Buchanan Partners has agreed to undertake the Waters Road extension without being
required to do so. Certainly it would benefit from the extension by providing easy and visible access off
MD 118, but this is a master-planned Business District Street that would provide a more general public
benefit, too.
Special provision.
In
§52-47(a)(2) the Council had approved this special credit provision:
(2) (A) An entity that received more than $20 million in credits under this subsection that were certified
before July l, 2002, may apply any unused credit to satisfy an obligation under Policy Area Mobility
Review, or any applicable successor policy area transportation test, if:
(i) the County Executive has identified the project for which a credit would be applied under this
paragraph as a strategic economic development project; and
(ii)
the credit is used before November l, 2015.
For single-family units, impact taxes are due within 6 months of building permit issuance or at final inspection, whichever
is sooner. For multi-family units and non-residential development, taxes are due within 12 months of building permit
issuance or at final inspection, whichever is sooner.
12
Recall that in the Bill's fiscal impact statement OMB and Finance already have assumed that 68% of gross impact tax
revenue is not collected, mostly owing the enormous amount allowable credits that have (and will be) granted. This
provision would raise that percentage higher.
16
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(B) The total of any credits used under this paragraph to satisfy an obligation under Policy Area
Mobility Review, or any applicable successor policy area transportation test, must not exceed $1.7
million.
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Eliminate this provision.
The
allowable credit under this provision had to have been used by November 1, 2015.
Council President Floreen, as part of her
proposal on the SSP, recommends dedicating impact tax funds in Red areas to projects in Red areas.
However, like with school impact taxes, transportation impact tax revenue collected anywhere should be
allowed to be used anywhere, with the exception of Rockville and Gaithersburg, where there is a long-
standing agreement that funds collected in each municipality will be used for projects serving it.
GO
Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Do not dedicate transportation impact tax
funds collected in an area to that area, with the exceptions of Rockville and Gaithersburg.
Council President Floreen also recommends that impact tax funds be used to pay for LATR
improvements in its area. For the same reason as noted above, impact tax funds collected in an area
should not be automatically dedicated to that area in particular. Of course, LATR improvements that
add capacity are creditable against the tax, and they would continue to be.
GO Committee
(and
Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Do not dedicate impact tax revenue collected in an area to
pay for LATR improvements in that area.
Dedication of transportation impact tax revenue.
3. Base transportation impact tax rates.
13
Transportation impact tax rates, like school impact tax
rates, differ by land use. While the school impact tax rate schedule is the same throughout the county, the
transportation tax currently has four sets of rates: one for the "General District" (most of the county); one
for MSP As, set at 50% less than the General District rates; one for development within a Yi-mile of the
Germantown, Metropolitan Grove, Gaithersburg, Washington Grove, Garrett Park, or Kensington MARC
stations, set at 15% less than the General District rates; and one for Clarksburg, set 50% higher than the
General District rates for residential development and 20% higher for non-residential development.
In
this
discussion, the current rate schedule is referred to as "Scenario
A."
Furthermore, the transportation impact
tax is not collected in the White Flint Policy Area in recognition that a special taxing district there collects
revenue for transportation capital projects. As with the school
tax,
the transportation rates were raised
across the board by about 70% in 2007, and since then they have been automatically increased biennially
(in the July of odd-numbered years) according to the regional construction cost index.
Bill 34-15 was introduced on June 30, 2015 and a public hearing was held on July 21, 2015; among
other proposed changes, it would apply the same transportation tax rates countywide (except in White Flint)
just as the school impact tax rates are.
14
The Planning Board's discussion and
recommendations on the transportation impact
tax
are on pp. 33-34 of the SSP Report and on pp. 76-101 of
the Appendix (Appendix J). The Board's recommended transportation rate schedule is shown below.
13
Planning Board's proposal:
"Scenario B'."
For this discussion, "base" transportation impact rates are those that do not include a supplementary rate
to
cover the foregone
revenue from eliminating TPAR and its traffic mitigation payments.
14
The provisions ofBill 34-15 to extend the
life
ofa credit from 6
to
12 years and
to
change how the credit for road reconstruction
is calculated were separated out in Bill 47-15, which was enacted last December.
17
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Land Use
Residential Uses
SF Detached
MF Residential
SF Attached
Garden Apartments
High - Rise Apartments
Multi-Family Senior
Red Policy
Areas
Cost/unit
$3,653
$2,552
$2,312
$1,652
$661
Cost/sf
$6.72
$3.34
$0.00
$5.98
$0.35
$0.53
$0.00
$0.00
$3.35
Orange Policy
Areas
Cost/unit
$10,959
$7,656
$6,937
$4,955
$1,982
Cost/sf
$13.45
$6.69
$0.00
$11.96
$0.70
$1.06
$0.00
$0.00
$6.69
Yellow Policy
Areas
Cost/unit
$18,266
$12,759
$11,562
$8,259
$3,303
Cost/sf
$16.81
$8.36
$0.00
$14.95
$0.88
$1.33
$0.00
$0.00
$8.36
Green Policy
Areas
Cost/unit
$29,225
$20,415
$18,499
$13,214
$5,286
Cost/sf
$16.81
$8.36
$0.00
$14.95
$0.88
$1.33
$0.00
$0.00
$8.36
Commercial Uses
Office
Industrial
Bioscience
Retail
Place of Worship
Private School
Hospital
Social Service Agencies
Other Non-Residential
The Planning staff has also prepared a chart that shows-for each policy area and the major land use
categories-how the Board's proposed rates compare to the current rates (©60), and the difference between
the two sets ofrates (©61).
The Board's impact tax rate recommendations tie with its proposal in the SSP that policy areas
should be categorized the four aforementioned geographic groups according to relative density and transit
service: "Red," "Orange," "Yellow," and "Green." The Bill would place Clarksburg with the Orange
policy areas, and would eliminate its status as a separate district, within which currently the funds collected
must 'be spent. The Bill would retain the 15% discount for development within 12-mile of the MARC
stations noted above.
In calculating the
tax
rates, the following assumptions were used:
An estimated $1.6 billion needs to be collected.from the tax over the next 25 years to cover 100% of
the cost of County capacity-adding projects.
The Planning staff calculated that the FY15-20 CIP
had $388 million for capacity-adding transportation projects, not including White Flint, for which
County transportation improvements are funded with a special tax (see pp. 80-81 of the Appendix).
The $388 million over 6 years translates to about $64.6 million annually. The staff posits that the
amount spent for these projects over the next 25 years will be the same annually, on average, so the
total would be about $1.6 billion.
Assume that roughly the same share of these costs would be funded by impact tax revenue.
About
10.4% of the cost of these projects were funded by impact taxes; the staff assumes this proportion
18
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
would continue into the future. Therefore, about $168 million (in today's dollars) would be needed
from the tax overthe next 25 years.
15
"Average" rates were calculated for each land use category that would raise the $1.6 billion over
25 years.
The rates were allocated by land use according to relative vehicle trip generation for each
use. The average rates by land use category, compared to the current General District rates, are
shown below:
Land Use
Catet!ory
Single-family detached
Single-family attached
Multi-family garden apartments
Multi-family high rise
Multi-family senior
Office
Industrial
Retail
Place of worship
Private grade school
Other non-residential
Current General
District Rates
$13,966/unit
$11,427/unit
$8,886/unit
$6,347/unit
$2,539/unit
$12.75/sf
$6.35/sf
$11.40/sf
$0.65/sf
$1.05/sf
$6.35/sf
Calculated
"Aven12e" Rates
$14,613/unit
$10,208/unit
$9,250/unit
$6,607/unit
$2,643/unit
$13.45/sf
$6.69/sf
$11.96/sf
$0.70/sf
$1.06/sf
$6.69/sf
Adjust the "average" residential rates among the four geographic groups (Red, Orange, Yellow, and
Green) according to their relative vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) per capita for home-to-work trips.
Adjust the "average" commercial rates among the four groups according to their relative non-auto-
driver mode share (NADMS) for home-to-work trips (for more detail, see pp. 39-40). The proposed
adjustment factors are:
Policy Area
Grouping
Red (MSPAs)
Orange
Yellow
Green
Residential Adjustment
to the "Average" Rate
0.25, a 75% discount
0. 75, a 25% discount
1.25, a 25% surcharge
2.00, a 100% surcharge
Non-Residential Adjustment
to the "Average" Rate
0.75, a 25% discount*
1.00, no adjustment
1.25, a25% surcharge
1.25, a 25% surcharge
*After reviewing the calculations, the Planning Board decided to propose reducing the adjustment factor by another
third, to 0.50, a 50% discount from the "Average" rate. The rates in Bill 37-16 reflect this adjustment.
Testimony.
There was little testimony about the rates themselves.
In
the end, most stakeholders
cared about the resulting rates, not the methodology. However, the Greater Bethesda Chamber had this to
say:
It is refreshing to see that in many instances impact taxes are proposed to decline, particularly in
areas
where
land use policy encourages development. However, the methodology is intensely detailed and cryptic.
Indeed, the impact tax formula required the Planning Board itself to artificially lower the rate for commercial
development in the Core [Red] area by one-third.
It
is simply not a process that anyone can describe or
Recall that the amount collected over the past 30 years was about $93 million, but for more than half of those years funds
were collected only
in
Germantown, Fairland/Cloverly, White Oak, and Clarksburg. Thus, $168 million countywide over the
next 25 years is fairly consistent with the prior impact tax burden placed on new development.
19
15
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
explain to the public or to the investment community and financial institutions who hold our economic
development future
in
their hands.
The Agricultural Advisory Committee has written in opposition to the large proposed rate increase
in the Green (rural) Policy Areas (©62-63). Anticipating that issues from Bill 34-15 would also be raised,
several developers in MSPAs have written in opposition to eliminating the discount in MSPAs (an example
is on ©64-65), just as they did at the public hearing during the summer of 2015. Last summer there was
support from the developers to eliminate the impact tax surcharge in Clarksburg (©66).
Council staff comments on rates.
Impact taxes are supposed to be based on the capital cost needed
to support various types of development. The Planning Board's proposed rates are based on the conclusion
that Red (MSPA) area development generates less of a need for capital improvements than development in
the Orange area, which in turn generates less need than development in the Yellow and Green (rural) areas.
This certainly was true for the first 25 years of the impact
tax
program, when most transportation capital
improvements were road-based.
However, that is not true now, and it will be even less true in the future.
There are very few major master-planned County road improvements yet to be programmed:
Observation Drive Extended and M-83 being the two largest. Together these two projects will cost about
$500 million, and M-83, which represents $350 million of this total, is in doubt. Montrose Parkway East
and Goshen Road South are programmed, but about $135 million of their costs are shown as being funded
with G.O. Bonds after FY22. There are a few other, less costly County road projects in the future.
Examples are: the reopening of Old Columbia Pike over Paint Branch and its widening from White Oak to
Fairland; the western extension -of Little Seneca Parkway in Clarksburg; the Dorsey Mill Road bridge in
Germantown; Summit Avenue Extended in Kensington. Taken together, future County expenditures on
road improvements will likely be no more than $1 billion (in today's dollars), and $650 million if M-83 is
not built.
On the other hand, the cost of master-planned non-auto-based County transportation improvements
dwarfs the auto-based total. The cumulative cost of the Corridor Cities Transitway and the MD 355 North
and South, US 29, and Veirs Mill Road BRT lines is about $2.2 billion. The remaining master-planned
BRT lines-New Hampshire Avenue, University Boulevard, Georgia Avenue North and South, and the
North Bethesda Transitway will add at least $1 billion more.
In
addition there will be a large number of
smaller investments retrofitting the county with cycle tracks, hiker-biker trails, bike lanes, and sidewalk
connectors, as well as additional buses needed to expand the Ride On fleet. Taken together, it would not be
unreasonable to figure that the total expenditures on non-auto-based capacity-adding County capital
improvements will reach $4 billion.
In this context, using vehicle-miles of travel
(VMT)
as a means of differentiating residential rates
among geographic areas is not appropriate, because most of the future new County capacity expenditure
will not be for private vehicles. Neither is NADMS appropriate for differentiating the commercial rates,
because it does not take into account the distance a commuter travels. More representative would be using
person-miles of travel
(PMT), which reflect the distance component as well as the fact that most future
expenditures will be for transit and other non-auto-based modes. Using PMT produces slightly less
differentiation among the relative impacts for residential development, but it results in virtually no
differentiation for commercial development.
20
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Another concern is where the facilities would be built and who they would serve. Most of the BRT
routes, the bulk of the County's future transportation expense, are
in
the Red and Orange areas. The Green
Area would not be served at all. Unlike Metrorail, BRT is not planned to have much park-and-ride access,
so there would be little benefit to most people either living or working in the Yellow and Green areas. This
all suggests that there is no strong rationale for differentiating the rates by group either for residential or
commercial development.
When the Council established the MSP A rates with a 50% discount a dozen years ago, it did so for
two reasons. First, the law then allowed impact taxes to be used primarily for new roads, widening existing
roads, and new park-and-ride lots; almost none of these types of improvements were common
in
MSPAs
(nor are they now). As noted above, the law has been changed over the past decade to allow transit and
other non-auto-based improvements, and that the overwhelming majority of such expenditures in the future
will be for such projects, for which MSPA developments are the primary beneficiary. Second, in 2004,
very little of the development in the county was occurring in the MSPAs, and so the Council wished to
provide an incentive to develop there. According to COG's Round 9.0 forecast, however, over 48% of the
job growth in the County over the next decade will be in MSPAs, and most of the multi-family housing
planned or under construction will be there.
The two most important questions that developers consider in whether or not to build are: "Is the
market demand present?" and "Is the zoning sufficiently high and the building regulations not too tight so
that the market demand can be met?" Cost is a factor, but a lesser one. The Council provided a large
benefit to developers a few years ago when it deferred the impact tax payment (and traffic mitigation and
school facility payments) to very late in the building process: near or at final inspection by DPS. This put in
close correlation the time when housing units and commercial square footage are sold to when these taxes
and fees are paid, thus effectively eliminating a developer's carrying cost.
There certainly is an inflection point where the rates, if too high, will lead in some cases to a
decision not to file a development application, because the pro forma will not produce the requisite profit
margin to undertake the risk. However, history has shown that tax breaks generally have had little effect on
influencing development. As demonstrated by the recent Office of Legislative Oversight report on
enterprise zones, even exempting all impact taxes and SSP fees, as well as substantial property and income
tax credits, has not resulted in more than scant commercial development in Wheaton, Glenmont, and Long
Branch. The one enterprise zone where employment has thrived is Silver Spring, but it is doubtful that the
tax breaks paid a significant role. It is more likely that the $450 million public investment and the
willingness for the County to assemble sufficient land for the Town Center_ were the keys to its success.
Where the higher rates will pinch are for developments that are well into development process.
Certainly, a project under construction has very limited means of recouping the cost of a higher impact tax.
When impact taxes were raised in 2007 by about 70% across the board, the new rates went into effect for all
development for which building permit applications were filed after
only 16 days after adoption
(©40-42).
Council President's proposal: Scenario
C.
Following this rationale, Ms. Floreen proposes that the
base rates for the entire County be set at the current General District rates for each land use category.
Council. staff proposes a variation-Scenario C'---that adjusts the rates of Scenario C to the average
rates across the County, considering updated cost estimates and
trip
generation rates.
These are the
"average" rates shown on page 19. The rates for Scenario C' are slightly higher, except for townhouses.
21
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Councilmember Riemer 's proposal.
Mr.
Riemer asked for two scenarios two be evaluated:
(1)
retaining the rates in the Red and Orange areas as they are today, but increasing the rates in the Yellow
areas 25% higher than the General District, and increasing the rates in the Green areas 50% higher than the
General District (Scenario D); and (2) adopting Ms. Floreen's proposal, but setting the rate for Office and
Industrial uses
in
the Red areas at $0.00/sf (Scenario E). On October 27 he proposed a hybrid of these two
options, Scenario G, which combines both concepts.
GO Committee recommendation (2-1): Councilmembers Navarro and Riemer recommend
Scenario G: retaining the rates
in
the Red and Orange areas as they are today--except to set the rate
for Office and Industrial uses in the Red areas at $0.00/sf.-and increasing the rates in the Yellow
areas 25% higher than the General District, and increasing the rates in the Green areas 50% higher
than the General District. Councilmember Katz supports Scenario C: Council President Floreen's
proposal.
Since the October 27 GO Committee meeting, more scenarios-or proposed revisions to earlier
scenarios-have emerged.:
Scenario G': Adjust rates in the GO Committee's recommendation to reflect updated trip
generation rates and costs of construction.
Scenario H': Same as Scenario G', but sets the rates in the Green area 25% higher than the base
rate, not 50% higher. Proposed by Planning staff.
Scenario L': For residential---current rates adjusted to reflect updated trip generation rates and costs
of construction in Red and Orange areas, 25% higher in Yellow area, and 50% higher rates in Green
area. For commercial---current rate adjusted to reflect updated trip generation rates and costs of
construction in Red area, current rates adjusted to reflect updated trip generation rates and costs of
construction in Orange, Yellow, and Green areas. Proposed by the County Executive.
Chart 1 on the following pages show the effective rates for each of these scenarios.
The revenue estimates over the FYI 7-22 period (assuming the rates go into effect at the
beginning of FY 18), are shown below. In each case the option of zeroing out the impact taxes for Office
and Industrial in Red areas is shown separately. The main takeaway from these forecasts is that all
scenarios produce roughly the same revenue impact, certainly within the margin of error.
Gross Revenue
Scenario A
Scenario B'
Scenario C
Scenario C'
Scenario G
Scenario G'
Scenario H'
Scenario L'
$61,755,052
$59,991,870
$65,286,635
$66,495,988
$64,226,641
$65,356,394
$64,505,865
$62,664,283
Less Revenue if $0/sf for
Office/Ind. in Red areas
-$2,356,036
-$2,464,611
-$4,243, 132
-$4,449,476
-$2,356,036
-$2,466, 11 7
-$2,464,611
-$2,466, 117
Net Revenue if$0/sf for
Office/Ind. in Red areas
$59,399,016
$57,527,259
$61,043,503
$62,046,512
$61,870,605
$62,890,277
$62,041,254
$60, 198, 166
22
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Planning Board- Scenario 8
1
Change in Rates
Greater
Change in Rates
!~.':1.~P.~~~.~t~.~.I~.P..~~.I~~.~~-~-~~
.....
R~-~- ··~··········'"""""""--········"*"""'""'···········J.G.r~~-~-
S.l'.'gl~:F~rri1J:v.J5.n[)".~8.cli".~
.............
$ .....
MS.~.\.$ )9,~9.[$ l!l,2~)$.
.....
~1.2.~--
.. .
S.!~s1~:f
..
rri11vJS.F.l1.<n..
c1i...
~
..............
2..s.52_.].$ .... ?.,§Sljj$ ...
P.?.S.9. . ;.
2.91.4!5.. .
1v11Jltl:F.":111lly(§..
r~e11.L
...............
$
2,~µ_[$
~,937L$
.....
P.S.~.2.L$
. JM!19.. .
i111Y1.tl:f":l1111Y.Jttlg~:.~15.~J
.....................
.$.
1,652
i
$ ..
~
1
9.55.
.
.l.$
8,259
!
$
_gi._14 ... .
fv.ltllt1:.F.":11111v.1MF.l:5.<>.n.1<>.r ...................
t
66iT$ ...
~.9.8.2.)$ j~iI$
s.•.
2.1!6... .
~e.sldentlal_(~-~r.IJvi~ll_ingUnit)
J••••·············
i
I
~
.... ;.......
~~-- -!~~:.lili~
__
Clarksbur11_
~--·
i
j0ran$e jvellow_
iclarksburg'
j
iGreater
.
pa~ksburg
s
.....
s. . .
....
......................................... ·············•·········•······•···
i
......................... -!-·····
i.s.,i.s.9.
Ls
J9.,9.8.9.lL.$
J~,§11.2.l
.
-48%'
:2.:z.%] ..
s.,9.S.S.
L$. . .
J9.,4!15.lL$....
J~P!!2.l
. . . ....... ....
~55.~J
. . . .
:3.~.:
....
9.&;3.
L$.
.J§.~9.~lL$. JP~l...
-48%!
-22%;
-48%! ...
:~,2%
-i;is.§7 :..
$. .......
!~.mL.$. J~,2.~3.l
..
-48%: .. :2:z.%L
.... i..m:
$
.J!,!!2.~lL$.
lSQS.l .. .
............................ ,
..............................,....................................................................+···
.l-!<>."..:.~".5.1_~
......
tl._l__
(_P.".~.S..9':'8.r"..F.C><:>~l
. . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
.91"11.c:<!.....
Industrial
Bioscience
.~e.ta.IL.
...........................
$ ..... __
6,?2...$
............................
j
},~
{
$
$
13.45
6:69'
i
$
··· ··············
T$
. . . . .
!l:.~6
__
8.36Ts
$
i
$
16.81
I$ ....
J~:l!l.
..
_Pr1_v.a.~~--S.!'h<>o.1....
t:1osp_1t_a1 .
Pla.~".O.l\ilf<:>rs.~.lf>.
.. ......
..............
$ ......
...
5.:.9.8..i.$....
. P,96..l.$.
. .......
$.
..0:3S.L$
.0:79.
.l.$.
....
. .........
ci~:;~e~~'.~:identi~j·························-~ ::~t}
:
i~~H
···········i36·I} .
8.36
Planning Board - Scenario H'
jYellow Green
+.25
Orange- '
General Rate multiplier
.............................
_$
s .....
0,5~L$
'
1.06:
s _ •._ _· ·_· _.•._ -_.·
s · ·
··rs
1.4-~)$
......
¥1:9.5. .. .
0.88
i
$
0.88
1_·_·33_.·___ -_ · .·_· ·:
_ _
$$
_
;
______________
i.33
1
.
........................ :, ...$,_ ...................•.•.. ,: ..
2.01
!
$
Change in Rates
0.91
!
$
$ .. .
0.76
Percentage Change in Rates
!Clarksburg
[Town
\Greater
)Yellow Green !Center
!clarksbur
i:ransp()r!a.t1011..
l".1f>!'ct.!~
..
~-~13te_s
__ _
R~S.id.~1ltial_(P1!.rt.J"'.l!.lll1lglJ.r:ii~J
... .
Slngl~:Fl)1T1ily_(SF}()l!~a.ch,ed
...............
$.. .
s.111.
8
1'!.:.fa.rnilyJS.~l'.'na.~~4!.d.
..............
}_.
fv1ulti:FarnilY (c;,arde n)
$
ll/IUlti:_Fa111ily(Hlt1h:~iseJ_
fv1l!l_t_i_:F_all"lily.Jtv.JIJ.~.~-ll.1()~
.......................
$. ......
i
!
Clarl<sburg
Red
Oran e
Red
!Oran e
,s: ............
'
..........ll!._2Ei6..
µ,7(;(,l __
11.s53
Cl.C.C
VAl!.?l .
.......
.!~1.3.\!~l
.. .
jl,768)
.
.:.~-~o/ol
_ 4_o/o:
______
43!
s.o/o! ..
s.o/oL .
-11%: ..
~~r·
4%!
?~o/oi
. . .:3()'j(,l .
:~')(,
.....
:Yo/oL
-40%: ............
~?.6.<J:G_
.30%L .
:31%:
30%]
-31%!
30% .........
............ 8,2,59
Jl,?6,3) .
.JS.~)
......
.31.~
..
.......
~o/o\......
j'J(;[
:~1')(,(.
-13%
-13%
-13%
···························
26%!
0%!
-21%! ... ,., __;,2')6
.........
0%:
-~
.... . . . 32%!
()%!
-12%!
0%\
0%
10%
23
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
l"!C1!!SPC>.!:!C1.
t.i.C>ll.l1T1PCl~.!Cl>.',,,~CI!!!~
. .
.~e.~.i~e.n!iC1!JPeti:>.1r1.e.!}ir:Jl:l~lli!J
.
Singl.e.~F,a111ilyJS.f}Qetcic~e..~
. . . . .
Council President
Scenario C
Countywide Rate
=Current General
Change in Rates
MSPA
Change in Rates
I
General
Single-Family {SF)
A!tCl~~.e.d
l'.ll1Jlti.~F.!~
111
i1yJCO.cir~~11.1
.l'.lll:'~!!:F.C1111.i.ly,(,lii.!:!.~.~~.i.S.!!.)
.l'.llu.1.~i.~F.Cl.111.i.lyJflt1F.l.Se.n.i.c:>t
....
...............................................
"!<>.r.t.~.~e.~i~e.11t.ia1
.
tP..e.t~9llCIEe.
..
F.C><>.~J.
Office
...........................
J .
Industrial
6.3S . .
j
Bioscience
........................
J .
Retail
11.40 ..............
J
P.ICIC(!()fyv'()rS~ip
.....
. .....................................
$
P.ri11at!!?.c.~ool
..................
..............
J.
1.................................................... 1
!i()Spi!<:il ...
,.........................................................................
j
Socia,1.~!!.r:Y!~s....
... ..........
$
$
~o-t_he.r_N_o_n_-R_e_s·_,d_e_nt.ia_1
______
__.~$
________
6_.~3s~.
·~-$.._
_____
3_.1_5.........._______.._.______
(1_.2~5~)
Council Staff-
Change in Rates
Scenario
C'
·····-······""-'···-··
..
101%
98%
0%
100%
-100%
-100%
0%
..................................
0%
·········-~
98%
-17%
0%
0%
-16%
0%
0%
0%
-17%
-100%
....................
,
..
.,
.
.,
...
-100%
...........
-100%
-100%
0%
0%
.........................................
,
..
,
0%
0%
···············•·•••.··.·.•.w.•
0%
-16%
Change in Rates
Countywide
Rate = U dated
General
!r.Clr.tSJ?<>.'!a.!i()l1
l'!.IP.'1'.! "J"Cl>.'..
~.a..!!!.S~·······
.~e.s.i~!!.11.ti.a..l.lP.e.r.c>v.i:e..11.i.r:J.ltY.11.i!J
.....
~i111:11e.~.F.C1111ilyJSf.} l:>E!!CIC.~e.~
....
$ .
}4.!§13.
MSPA
!General
7,629
I
$
.....
~?.J
...
$ .....
J.§!?~~l.
109%
~i.111:11e.:.F.<i.r.rii1yJ~fl e.!!.'ls~e..~L........
...
.
$ .
. . . . . . .
!<:l·.2-~
. · .· ·.· .·.·.· .·.·. . . . . . .
s....... :.
~~:.4i~~~.I$
. . . . . . .
J.!~3.!~t\
. .
?..............
.J.~1~?~l
....
~1Jl~i~F.<1111i1yJ§i'l~~e.11L
.
"!11:!.lti.:F.CllllilyJJ::lil:l~:~i~.E!,)..
~IJ.l~i~Fi'li:r.iilyJ~F.)5e.11.i?.r
.
. .
$.
...............
$
5%
-30%
.
~!.??9.
...........................
$.
.
4.!~9.?.1$
.
}~
i
$.
J~!.~9.)
.
..
$
.........
~
1
159?..
.... .
$ . ,......
~1.~??.L$.
...........
?,E?P.l..$
......
,..J?!~!~l
....
$.
...............
?!.§4.~.
.. .
.$. .
1,374
i
$
}9.'.li..$ .
J1.,1.§~l
.... .
Industrial
Bioscience
Retail
~.
1
.Cl.~.~.9!.'!"...9..E~h,i.P..,.
....
--
112%
,w.....
.............................
0%
7~
............
:,!1~
.....................
:~
108%
4%
-31%
108%
4%
-31%
4%
108%
-31%
. . . . . . r······.
5%
••• ••• ••••.·• ••• n.v•
. H ••
-.v ••• w
109%
110%
5%
0%
Private School
):l9spit(ll
Social Services
Other Non-Residential
11.96
0.70
1.06
5%
-12%
-12%
0%
-13%
......
,,.,
.....,,,..,·,·.·············
-22%
-21%
0%
0%
... $.
$
6.69
-12%
24
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council member Riemer- Scenario G
;orange-
Current
[Current
[Current
!General+
]current
jGeneral
+
Chan e
·1n
Rates
Change In Rates
[Clarksburg
\Greater
!Town
lclarksbu
!g
Town
!Center
:rr~!'.s.e.<l.r:!~~i<>"..1.'!'P..~~:r~x.R.~tes.
__
M
s PIA•••'Glelnlelrall••[2l5l%•···j50'll%•···
fle.s.i~"."..t.1.a.l.JP.e..r.1?\Y".1.1.1.n~
[Jn.It).. .
?.111gie:farn11yJSFJ()e.~~c~e.~
.............
$
.
§,~~!$
.......
13
1
.9.t;S
L$.
1?.<I~
L$ ........
~9,~~
..
?.l111le.:F.~f.11llyJSf)~~ac.~e.d
$
,S,7.l<lj$ .
g,lj~7
[$. .
)4,2~
$
1?,1.111. .
1V1ul~l:f.~rnllyJ~~ri:Je.n.L
1V1ulti:Family{Hlgh:RiseJ
1
1
1
$.
$
Red
Oran e !Yellow jGreen
jGreater
[Clarksbu
$
J2,~~7.)
..
(3,<1911...
0%
:~::
Q%j
..............f)'i6
..... f)'i6;
J~·
25%!
..
IVl~lti:FarT1ily(ryiF)s".r11or
.................... }
<1.¥.3j
$
8,8!!6
:$
.
11,1.0S. ;
$
3,17<1 !
$
.....
6,347
L$
.....
7,9341
$
}.2~[ ~
.......
2,:5.3~[.L
.. 3,114)
$
~,329
.....................
...
9,,S21
$.
..
$
.
J2,2~~)
.. (1,588). ··················
:33%• .............
:.1.7.'!.'
......, ......
:~.!'!.'
.
-17%
-17%
-33%1 ............. :.1.7.'!.'
0%
_0%!
Q%!
3.i81:l9..
....
L
j6~).
0%[
0%'
J'j()n:.R.".~.1.~.e.nti~l(f.'.e.r.S.9uaref.C><>~I
. . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
()fflc:e.
1n.d.~.s.t.r1.a1...
fllgscl~.11.C>!
Retail
Pl•.c.e..<lf. IJll<Jrshlp
~~l~~~e.
5.<'h()ol .
l:f<JSf.'l~a.1..
. .............................
$
_$
.
.$
,s
6.35
1
$
...
~S.:9.11.L$
.
)~"1:3
. . ...
L
... J,94:L$ .............
~::5.3...
...... ...... ......
L
....
J
. .........
$ ..
14.25
1
$
..
17..10
$
0.81
i
$
0.98 ..................
J.
1.31
if
1.58
$
.
0.64
0%' .......... 0%
0%1
0%1
......
f)'i6.
0.34
.. o,.55.
(0.()9) ..
(0.04)
0%1.
0%i
0%1"
(i%!
.......... 0%:·····
O%j
0%[ ....
0%T
Ts
···y
$
~d~.l
..5er11.1.ce.s ..
. ......................
J.
Other Non-Residential
$
Tf
7.94 •
$
•.L
9.53
.......................
$
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . .
\Clarksburg
~Town
0%1
o;~f
....
D.'!'L
0%!
.lJ%1
Council member
Riemer~
Scenario G'
Red -
Updated
jOranoe -
jupdated
!Yellow-
!'.11~'1"'.rt.•t.l.011J"!P•ct!~xRates
Office
1.nd.ustr1a1
l!i()S.Clf'.".Ce
Res.identi.a.1
(P~r[>welli~•Unlt)
M
si~li1e.:F~;.,11i1s"f1-~~f..ch.~d
· ....•
s
P
A•••'Glelnlera 1•. 6.13
......
1~
Sin~l~:F•rnllyJSF)
Attiic.h.e.d ...
.¥.~1.tl.:.F.~o:ril.IY..(§~r<Je.n)
...
.l\1~1tl:F~rn11Y.(l:llJ~.:.~ls.e)
....
1111u.lt.l:f~.rnlly.!Mfl
..
S.e.~.i.o.r
..
11
1
1
·······························'IRieid•······················
.~
!Green-
!Updated
Red
.......
:.2.~
.......
:~3%.
.....
.::.1.~
...........
:~~
N.C>f1~R.esld.~11ti.~.l.(Pe~~uar!!.F.<><>.t)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
...........................
.. . ........ ....... .......
.Re.t.•11
.PrlvJt.t~.~~"?L.
li<:>spi~I
.
P.l•c:e.of111ors.~iP.
..$.. ..
$
...........................
$
$
. ··················· .....
$.
$
..... ........... ..... . ..
$
..$..
6.69
16.81
j
$
$
a~6
;$
.....
2.0:.~
...................
$_
....
9:~J$.
1g.()4
o.is ,
s
11.96 ..
t.
.L
.....LL
....
~4.95
$
1.33
8.36
....
9·!f>.
$.
...
1.06
$..
$
6.69 '
.
17,9'1
s
0.88:
$ ................1.:9.5.....................
$.
.......................L.
Social services
Other Non-Residential
$
3.35
..
!$
i$
........
~:59
Ts···
f
. ...... . . ...
L
$
.
0.28 ..
$.
0.55
iL
3.55'
$
$.
0.05
l
$
o.23
1L.
s . . . . .
0,03'
$.
g:Q"ijf . . .
Ql!l)
s
0.15 j $
$
Tf.
s
4.06
l
$
2.01 :
$
i69Ts
.i..
\
$
9:?4..
J
S
7.43
j
$
10%
............J.9".
.............. ,., ..,$.................
··l···················i···············'
6.~
if
(1.74JLL
0.40
.$..
(9-~9)[$.
(9·9~lt
···············I············'·
........
()')(,
.... !lJ'
........
:~
J<l·.?~Lt
...
J(),Q;zl
1$
0.91 [
f
-2%.
..
()')(,
$"
$
10.04 .......... ··.··:.·:.
$
·····
··;
f
...
ii:·34h .....£iii
i
$
'
S
·
i.s......
3.s9T$"
'S
'
$
0. 76
-12%i
.......Cl%
10%
25
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
County
Executive~
Scenario L'
Change In Rates
Change In Rates
IYellow- Res:
1
[Green -
Res:
.Bll.:.
Updated
)orange~
,~
!l&.a!!n;_
;l.25
multpjlier
!1.SO
mulit lie
[Comm:
JUpdated
lGene I
i
Updated
jGeneral
T~~-~.e!?.~.~!.~~-~!!!P..~~.!~.~-~-~-~-~~
R..e.~l.~~-~-tl.aiJ~~~ QltJe.llJ~.•.l!~.it)
s1..,gle.:f~111i.IY. (S.fL!le.~a.~tie.~
$
.....
...?
SJn•l~.;f~.rnlly(Sfl~t!•<li~d,,
..$ .......
.S
i11u.l~i:f•111ily(§a,r<Je.~L.
$
r-1.~ltl;f~llliiY.Jtilg~;Rlse.)
.................
$
.
....
MSPA
1General
Oran e ]Yellow
~Green
[Center
!Clarksburg
~Town
jGreater
jClarksbu
.................
~%
............ 5.%
;g% .. :11%
................
~%
............
4%
..............
~%.
~%
-30%'
. . . :;;03:
:26%,
-13%
·.·.·.·•· · · ·
ji~J
-31%
-31%: ...............
:3:3!'.
. . . . . . . .
:~
-~
M~1t1;f!rn11y (f>IJf!S.e.~'?r
.
. .
~
$
6.73'
....... 13.4.5
6.69
.. 13.45
.L ........
13.45.
.......
~·.69
..
$ ..............
~:.69
.... 4%
. 4%,,.
........
~
..........5%.
.l'!<>~:R..e.~1.~~~.tla.IJ~e.r.~~.a.~.F..~t).··················
Offi~....
l~dus~f'.la.1...
..... .. ... ......
. ......
.
$. .
.......
~:~.:
.~!.~~~!.~~~
..... .
Retail. .
$
~o~th~•=r~N~o~n-~R=••=id~•=n~ti=al'--~~---'L.L.~--=3.=35~!"-~~~L.L.~~~6=.69~~$~~~'-=-'·
Prtya,t~S.ch~I...
Hospital
Socla_l_Se_r:vlc_es...
Pla,~(Jf~orsl!lp
····························
$
$
······.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·•··••··················.·.··.·.·
$
......
5.,98
11.9.6.
..... 1.1_._96 {
f .........
O.·.S.~
$
~[)(;.
$
....................
........
1.:o6
.·$··.·.·..·..........
~.[)(;
................
.
$
$
.$
.
$ .
-~
$
.
11,96
.·.·.·.·.·••·· · · ·•· · · · · ••··
· ·~· ·
J
$
.............. 5.% ..........
5% ...
...............a.%..°"···
..... 5%
.. _5%.
.....:It.%
... ... :1:2%
···················°"
·13%
·100%
-100%
·100%
. . . .
~
.............1% ..
..... 0%
..
<11b
0%
........
:~.1.%
.0%
...........0%
~SL-~~o.~15'-'-!"-~0=·~34~''-"-~~o~.34"-'-'i..-~.=o.:..-"-~~o~.9~1~!_.__~-"''"'-="
······ 0%
5%
5%
-12%
26
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4. Rate increase to replace foregone TPAR revenue.
As noted earlier in this packet, the PHED
Committee recommended deleting TP AR and its mitigation payments from the SSP.
GO Committee recommendation
(2-1):.
To replace the foregone revenue from
discontinuing TPAR payments, Councilmembers Navarro and Riemer support raising the rates
by
25°/o
over the base rates, but only in the non-MSPAs. Councilmember Katz
(and Council staff)
recommends raising the rates by
14%
across all policy areas, including MSPAs.
Executive Branch
staff reports that the County Executive supports the recommendation of the Committee majority.
5. Other issues.
MARC station area discount.
Several years ago the Council established this
discount to recognize that MARC, like Metrorail, is a transitway providing premium service, and so
development nearby also should be incentivized with an impact tax rate discount,
if
not as large as. for an
MSP A. The Council settled on a 15% discount on development within a Y2-mile of certain MARC stations.
However, Metrorail and MARC are not remotely comparable. On a typical weekday Metrorail trains stop
in MSPAs in one direction or the other 120 or 240 times during the morning and evening peak periods;
MARC trains stop in one direction only 12-19 times during these peaks.
Council staff recommendation:
Eliminate the MARC station area discount.
GO ·Committee recommendation (3-0): Continue the current MARC station area discount.
Bioscience R&D and manufacturing facilities.
Currently impact taxes are not charged for biological
research and development or manufacturing facilities that substantially involve research, development, or
manufacturing. The administrative offices of bioscience companies are not exempt from impact taxes.
Bioscience businesses are the only type of for-profit commercial developments that are not charged
transportation impact taxes for their new buildings or additions. This status was granted because it was the
Council's desire to highlight it as the County's primary economic development drawing card. But there are
new types of business being sought after now; most recently, cybersecurity. Rather than exempting an
entire type of business from the tax, the County should provide direct aid to particular companies-
bioscience, cybersecurity, or other-which are vital to draw or retain because they provide unique
economic development advantages for the County. Each of these companies should be subject to the
tax,
but the unique relocations and expansions could have their
tax
covered by an Economic Development Fund
grant.
Council staff recommendation: Delete bioscience R&D and manufacturing facilities as a
category.
New bioscience R&D and manufacturing facilities should be charged at the Industrial rate, which
is about half of the general office rate.
GO Committee recommendation (3-0): Continue the $0.00 rate for bioscience R&D and
manufacturing facilities.
Regular updates.
Currently both transportation and school impact taxes are updated using aregional
construction cost index over the two prior calendar years. Finance uses the change in the index to calculate
what the new tax schedules would be, publishes them in the County Register for comment, and implements
them on July
1.
Finance notes that
all
other taxes-property, income, energy, etc.-are updated on July
1,
and that both government and business base many of their financial decisions on a fiscal year basis. The
27
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Planning Board is not recommending a change as to how or when transportation impact taxes are regularly
updated.
At the last worksession the Committee tentatively agreed that the school impact tax should be
updated on January 1 in odd-numbered years. However, as Finance has remarked, there is a tradition of
adjusting rates on July 1, and adjusting both the school and transportation impact rates at the same time
would provide more predictability to the building industry.
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Continue to have the effective date
of the biennial updates to both school and transportation impact taxes occur on July 1 of odd-
numbered years.
The school impact taxes, as recommended by the Committee, would be based on
MCPS's latest estimates of construction cost/student and students/household; this information would be
provided to Finance early in an odd-numbered year so they could calculate what the new school impact tax
schedule would be, publish it in the County Register for comment, and implement it on July 1 along with
the updated transportation impact tax schedule.
Student-built houses.
For 40 years MCPS has sponsored a program out of Edison HS (and,
formerly, Wheaton HS) whereby its students construct market-rate houses as part of their training in the
construction trades. Montgomery County Students Construction Trades Foundation, Inc. (CTF) is a non-
profit that acquires property, arranges financing and sells the home. The process involves paying all
permit fees, as well as school and transportation impact taxes.
Council President Floreen proposes exempting houses built under this program from school and
transportation impact taxes (©67-68). She notes that CTF and the students have built 40 homes over the
past four decades, but that the last four homes built under the program has resulted in a net loss to CTF.
Currently a house of 3,500sf or less pays transportation and school impact taxes totaling $40, 793.
Over its useful life any house built by the students will house school children and generate
demand for travel.
It
should be charged a tax just as for any other single-family-detached house; the tax
is based on the impact of the home's residents over time, not who is building the house. Creating an
exemption in the law for this particular non-profit opens the door for other, perhaps equally worthy
enterprises. Furthermore, it is unlikely that an impact tax exemption would provide exactly what CTF
needs to break even.
A better course would be for CTF to apply to the Executive and the Council for a community
grant when it finds it is short on resources, for whatever combination of reasons. In any given year the
request might be larger or smaller than the impact tax payment, depending on the circumstances.
Council staff recommendation: Do not approve this proposal, but consider CTF as a
candidate for a community grant in those years where it can demonstrate a need for aid.
GO Committee recommendation (3-0): Concur with Ms. Floreen
to
exempt student-built
houses.
Clergy houses.
Last May the County Executive proposed a bill that would exempt from school
and transportation impact taxes the residential portion of a clergy house
28
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
that is on the same lot or parcel, adjacent to, or confronting the property on which the place of worship is
located and which is incidental and subordinate to the principal building used by the religious institution
as its place of worship.
The Council has deferred action on this provision until now so it can be taken up as part of the
comprehensive review of the impact tax law. The Executive's transmittal, the proposed bill, its
Legislative Request Report, and its Fiscal and Economic Impact Statements are on ©69-76.
The motivation for this bill is a proposed 7, 791 sf house across the street from an existing place
of worship in North Potomac. The Department of Finance calculates that the house, if charged as a
single-family detached house, would currently pay $49,375 in impact taxes: $13,966 in transportation
taxes and $35,409 in school taxes. The Executive's proposal would backdate the effective date for this
provision to January 1, 2016 so that when the house goes to final inspection (it hasn't yet), it would be
charged at the current tax rates, not any that are now under consideration by the Council. Finance notes
that there has only been one other clergy house approved in the past 6 years, and it was a
teardown/rebuild and so was not subject to an impact tax.
As with a student-built house, over its useful life a clergy house will house school children and
generate demand for travel.
In
this respect it should be charged a tax just as for any other single-family-
detached house. On other hand, if the Council were
to
agree with the Executive that a clergy house is
"incidental and subordinate" to the place of worship, then the law could explicitly note that point and
direct that it pay the "place of worship" rate, which, under the current transportation impact
tax
rate
schedule, would be a tax of $5,064 (7,791 sfx $0.65/sf).
GO Committee recommendation (2-1): Councilmembers Navarro and Riemer recommend
adding a provision noting that a clergy house is incidental and subordinate to a place of worship
and to be taxed as such. Councilmember Katz recommends that a clergy house be exempt.
Refunds where tax rates decline.
For the past three decades County Code §52-46(a) has allowed
only three reasons for a refund to impact taxes paid:
the County has not appropriated the funds for impact transportation improvements of the types listed
in Section
52-50,
or otherwise formally designated a specific improvement of a type listed in Section
52-
50
to receive funds, by the end of the sixth fiscal year after the
tax
is collected;
(2)
the building permit has been revoked or has lapsed because construction did not start; or
(3)
the project has been physically altered, resulting in a decrease in the amount of impact tax due.
( 1)
Councilmember Rice proposes a fourth reason. He recommends that if an impact tax rate goes down
within 6 months of when a person pays the tax, then that person should receive a refund of the difference
between the rate paid and the new (lower) rate, as long as the application for a refund is submitted
within 60 days of when the new rate is adopted. He notes that if the Planning Board's recommendations
are approved, then the retail rates in Clarksburg would drop from $13.70/sf to $11.96/sf. He notes, that
as a matter of fairness, if the Council were to agree with the Planning Board that the rates had been set
too high, then those who have recently paid the fee should receive a refund (©77-78).
29
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Persons who have recently paid the impact tax long ago decided that they would go forward with
their developments, knowing what the rates were. Presumably, their proformas demonstrated that they
could afford the higher rates and still made a requisite profit, otherwise they would not have proceeded
to build in the first place. Nor would a refund to these developments promote economic development; it
would merely be an after-the-fact gift to the developer.
Fairness is a two-way street.
If
it makes sense to provide a refund to builders who paid impact
taxes in the past 6 months where impact tax rates will now drop, would it not also make sense to add
another tax to other builders who paid impact taxes in the past 6 months where the impact taxes will
now rise? The Council would never contemplate the latter scenario; it should never contemplate the
former, either.
The GO Committee asked staff to draft text that would allow for Clarksburg Premium Outlets to
receive a refund if the ultimate transportation impact tax rate for retail approved by the Council for
Clarksburg is lower than the current $13.70/sf rate. The mall consists of 450,000sf of retail space.
Depending on the combination of the base rate and TPAR replacement surcharge approved by the
Council, there would either be no refund (most scenarios) or a refund between $31,500 and $472,500:
Scenario
C (+14% TPAR)
C(+l1%TPAR)
C' or L' (+14% TPAR)
C' & L' (+11 % TPAR)
New Retail Rate
$13.00/sf
$12.65/sf
$13.63/sf
$13.28/sf
Refund
$315,000
$472,500
$31,500
$189,000
Below is text drafted by Council staff that would restrict any potential refund to Clarksburg Premium
Outlets:
Add the following after line 4.15:
Sec. 2.
The Director of Finance must refund, without interest, to any property owner the
difference between the development impact tax for transportation improvements paid for up to 450,000
square feet and the development impact
tax
that would have been due after this Act takes effect if:
(a)
the property owner paid the development impact tax for transportation improvements on
or before November 15, 2016;
(b)
the impact tax was paid for a retail development on the west side of Interstate 270 in the
Clarksburg policy area;
(c)
the development impact tax rate per square foot for this project was reduced on the date
this Act takes effect; and
(d)
the property owner applies for the refund on a form requested by the Director of Finance
on or before 60 days after this Act takes effect.
30
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (2-1): Councilmembers Navarro and
Riemer do not recommend allowing a refund when rates decline, even if it were limited to
Clarksburg Premium Outlets. Councilmember
Katz
concurs with the limited amendment.
HOC proposal.
Council staff informed the Committee in the October 20 packet that William
Kominers, representing the Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC), transmitted a proposal to amend
the law to expand HOC's exemptions by adding buildings that are "controlled", but not owned, make
certain units exempt when they serve households earning equal or less than 60% of area median income
(AMI), and to increase the options that allow a development to have all units exempt if 20% of units are
affordable to households earning 50% of AMI or 15% of units are affordable to households earning 40%
of AMI (©79-82).
In
response to questions from Council staff, Mr. Kominers has provided additional
information which is attached at ©83-85.
GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Approve the minor request for
"equal or less than 60%," but do not approve the other amendments.
The other two amendments
do not only apply to HOC, which raises-the following concerns.
The first amendment would expand the exemption to any building controlled, and used
primarily, by any agency or instrumentality of federal, State, County or municipal government.
If
this
amendment is needed for HOC, the Council should consider it separately and approve a clear definition
of control.
It
is not clear to Council staff how the proposed amendment might impact, for example, an
office building that would not be owned, but would be "controlled" by the federal government for a
period of time.
While the amendment to allow an exemption for providing a certain percentage· of very low
income affordable units is responsive to the need to increase the housing stock for those earning 50%
AMI and below, it does not only apply to HOC. Council staff expects that HOC would always have a
mix of incomes in its development and would be developing rental housing. However, the provision
would also apply to for-sale developments. Council staff believes it is preferable to get more MPDU
units (25%) and then work with other resources to buy the affordability down further, as was done at the
Bonifant, or to assist non-profit organizations to purchase MPDUs that can then be rented to very low
income households.
III.
GRANDFATHER CLAUSES/EFFECTIVE DATES
1.
SSP.
The Planning Board's Final Draft recommends that the provisions of the new SSP
would apply to any application for a preliminary plan of subdivision filed on or after January 1, 2017,
except that the school test provisions would apply to any subdivision plan filed after November 15,
2016. The past few SSPs have had the following grandfather clauses/effective dates:
The 2012-2016 SSP (approved on November 13, 2012) applied to any application for a
preliminary plan of subdivision filed on or after January 1, 2013, except that the school test
provisions applied to any subdivision plan filed after November 15, 2012.
The 2009-2011 Growth Policy (approved on November 10, 2009) applied to any application for
a preliminary plan of subdivision filed on or after January 1, 2010, except that the school test
provisions applied to any subdivision plan filed after November 15, 2009.
31
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The 2007-2009 Growth Policy (approved on November 13, 2007) applied to any application for
a preliminary plan of subdivision filed on or after November 15, 2017.
In summary, the Planning Board's proposal is consistent with the last two SSPs/Growth Policies.
In 2007 the effective date was essentially right after the resolution's adoption for both the transportation
and school tests, that was because the development industry was given notice more than six months
earlier that the Council had intended to tighten both tests considerably, and that whatever was approved
would go into effect immediately. However, Council staff sees no obvious policy rationale for not
applying a new transportation test at the same time as a new school test.
PHED Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Apply the 2016-2020 SSP to
any application for a preliminary plan of subdivision filed on or after January 1, 2017.
2. Bill 37-16: generally.
The Planning Board did not recommend a particular grandfather
clause/effective date for when a new impact tax rate schedule would go into effect, leaving that issue at
the Council's discretion. In the past, when the Council has raised the rates across the board, the new
rates were applied to any building permits applied for after a certain date. The effective dates have
varied. On November 15, 2007, when the Council raised transportation and school impact tax rates by
roughly 70%, the new rates went into effect for any building permits applied for on or after December 1,
2007: 16 days later (©86-88). In late fall of 2003, when the Council approved countywide impact taxes
for transportation for the first time, the rates went into effect for any building permits applied for on or
after March
1,
2004: about 4 months later.
The revenue estimates prepared by OMB and Finance have assumed that the new rates would be
in effect so that taxes at the higher rate would be paid starting on July
1,
2017. Since impact taxes are
paid within 6 months after a residential building permit is issued (within 9 months for a non-residential
permit) or final inspection, whichever is sooner, this effectively means they assumed the rates would go
into effect at the time of--or shortly after-the adoption ofBill 37-16.
In setting the grandfather clause/effective date for the new rates, the Council should balance the
burden placed on the developer or builder with the need for additional revenue. Past Councils have
grandfathered those who have applied for building permits, because by that stage the developers/builders
have detailed plans, secured financing, and most have likely received their building permits and are
under construction. More thaii 30% of the residential units in the pipeline of approved development-
and nearly 50% of the non-residential square footage in the pipeline-have applied or received building
permits, or are under construction. For such a development there is little opportunity to revise plans to
accommodate higher taxes unless last-minute savings in amenities and finishes are incorporated into the
construction, or unless the developer/builder is willing to accept a smaller profit margin than in the pro
forma. On the other hand, the level of investment prior to building application is but a fraction of the
overall cost of development, except land acquisition; but land that is bought may be sold to another
developer that might make the numbers work, even with the higher tax.
Another important consideration is to provide enough time for the Departments of Permitting
Services and Finance to prepare their respective collection systems to adjust to the new set of rates, and
any other new definitions in the law that would affect the
rat~s,
credits, or other aspects of the law.
32
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
---------
Council staff recommendation: With the exception for the provisions regarding enterprise
zones and the former enterprise of Silver Spring CBD (see below), set the effective date/or Bill 37-16
at January 1, 2017 and grandfather developments that have applied for building permits before
January 1, 2017.
This would match the effective for the SSP recommended by the PHED Committee.
It
would allow some time for subdivisions that are close to starting construction to lock in the current
rates.
It
should also provide DPS and Finance enough time to adjust to the new set of rates and
conditions.
If
this grandfather clause/effective date recommendation is approved, then the rates and
conditions would go into effect 6 months before the beginning of FY18, so the first impact tax payments
made at the new rates would not occur until after the start of FY 18.
The
GO
Committee did not make a recommendation on the grandfather clause/effective
date for Bill
37-16.
It
wished to wait until the Council had decided what its decision would be on the
effective date for the SSP and how the impact tax rates would be change in the aggregate before making
that decision. For example, Council President Floreen recommended that
if
the taxes were to increase
substantially (as in MSPAs under her proposal) the effective date for those rates should be applied over
a long term.
3. Replacement of foregone TPAR mitigation and SFP revenue.
Subdivision approvals
include any requirement to make a TP AR and/or SFP payment as a condition of approval. Any
development filed prior to the effective date of the 2016-2020 SSP will be subject to the TPAR policy
area test and the SFP test, and it may be required to make one or both of these payments.
If
the new
impact tax rates are in effect when a previously approved development applies for a building permit, it
may be charged a TPAR and/or SFP payment as well as impact tax rates that had been raised to offset
foregone TPAR and SFP revenue.
Council staff recommendation: Nullify any TPAR and SFP mitigation payment r'!quirement
for projects that have not yet applied for a building permit as of the effective date of the SSP and Bill
37-16.
The 2016-2020 SSP and Bill 37-16 should be adopted/effective at the same time. This means all
projects would be subject to the new impact tax rates following its effective date, and no further TPAR
or SFP payment would be required. This would remove the issue of how to treat projects with filed
applications not yet approved.
4. Enterprise zones and former enterprise zones.
There are currently four State-designated
enterprise zones in the county: Wheaton CBD, Long Branch/Takoma Park, Glenmont, and Old Town
Gaithersburg. Under current County law, development in these enterprise zones are exempt from school
and transportation impact taxes, as well
as-if
otherwise applicable-school facility payments and
traffic mitigation payments. In 2006 the Silver Spring Enterprise Zone expired, but in 2007 the Council
amended the impact tax law to extend these exemptions to former enterprise zones, too.
The State of Maryland established the enterprise zone to promote job creation, not housing.
Nevertheless, a recent review of enterprise zones in the county by the Office of
Leg~slative
Oversight
(OL0)
16
reported that 89% of the $14.4 million in school and transportation impact tax exemptions-
nearly all in the Silver Spring and Wheaton CBDs-have benefited apartment houses and
condominiums, not office, retail, industrial, or other job-related land uses. About $5.8 million of the
$14.4 million exemption has been for Silver Spring since it ceased being an enterprise zone.
16
Office of Legislative Oversight, The Experience and Effect ofCountv Administered Enterprise Zones, August 2, 2016.
33
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OLO's conclusion is that the enterprise zone has had a negligible effect to date on job creation in
the Wheaton CBD, Long Branch/Takoma, and Glenmont. Silver Spring is the only enterprise zone in
Montgomery County-and in the State-where there has been significant business investment. But
Council staff stipulates that this certainly had more to do with the County and State government's direct
investment of about $450 million and the government's direct involvement in assembling the land for
the Town Center, rather than the $8.3 million in impact tax exemptions over the years.
The Planning Board recommends phasing out the school impact tax and school facility payment
exemption for Silver Spring and for any other enterprise zone once it expires. The Board's
recommended phase out for the Silver Spring former enterprise zone exemption is as follows:
Amend §52-54(c) as follows:
(6)
any development located in an enterprise zone designated by the State or in an area
previously designated as an enterprise zone based upon the
@gfu
of time since the
expiration of its enterprise zone
status.
exemption must
~
Within
l
year of its expiration,
~
full
Within
2.
years of its expiration, 25% of the applicable
~
~
development impact tax must
development impact tax must
.d
years, 50% of the applicable
Within
1
years, 75% of the applicable
Within
development impact tax must
~
A project within an area previously designated
as an enterprise zone must be required to
oo
100% of the applicable development
impact tax for public school improvements beginning
1
years
after its expiration
with the exception of Silver Spring CBD whose entemrise zone status will be treated
as expired on November 15. 2016.
Any
exemption or associated discount. will
remain in effect only for the duration of the development project's validity period.
This means that in Silver Spring the phase out of the exemption would proceed as follows:
For subdivisions approved by November 15, 2017: full exemption
For subdivisions approved by November 15, 2018: 75% of exemption
For subdivisions approved by November 15, 2019: 50% of exemption
For subdivisions approved by November 15, 2020: 25% of exemption
For subdivisions approved after November 15, 2020: no exemption
The Board's recommended phase out for an existing enterprise zone, once it expires, is:
For subdivisions approved within 1 year of expiration: full exemption
For subdivisions approved within 2 years of expiration: 75% of exemption
34
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
For subdivisions approved within 3 years of expiration: 50% of exemption
For subdivisions approved within 4 years of expiration: 25% of exemption
For subdivisions approved after 4 years of expiration: no exemption
The Board does not recommend phasing out the exemption for the transportation impact tax and traffic
mitigation payments.
17
The Board is also not recommending any changes to the exemptions in the
existing enterprise zones.
The Council has heard from several developers in Silver Spring who oppose eliminating the
CBD's impact tax exemption, but stated that if it must be eliminated, it should occur according to the
Board's gradual phase out. Representative is a letter from Washington Property Company, a major
developer in the Ripley District of Silver Spring (©89-91). The Greater Silver Spring Chamber of
Commerce makes the argument that Silver Spring should retain the exemption because otherwise it,
cannot compete with Bethesda, which can command higher rents (©92-93).
The Montgomery County Civic Federation (MCCF) recommends a more complete and rapid
phase out of the Silver Spring exemption.
It
supports reestablishing both school and transportation
impact taxes, with no phase in for residential subdivision approvals. For commercial subdivision
approvals MCCF supports a phase-in of 2 years: approvals by November 15, 2017 would retain the full
exemption, and approvals by November 15, 2018 would be 50% of the applicable impact taxes and any
applicable mitigation payments. After November 15, 2018, commercial development approval would
pay 100% of both impact taxes and applicable mitigation payments. Furthermore, MCCF recommends
collecting impact taxes and applicable mitigation payments on housing in existing enterprise zones,
since the purpose of such zones is to incentivize employment, not housing.
Council staff concurs entirely with MCCF's conclusion that the enterprise zone impact tax
exemption should apply only to commercial development, and that it should not apply at all in former
enterprise zones.
It
is a job creation program, not a housing creation program. There is no policy
rationale for continuing the exemption for the transportation tax while phasing it out for the school tax;
both should be eliminated. Continuing the housing exemption in existing enterprise zones undercuts the
potential for more affordable housing that was the objective of Bill 8-15; if a proposed residential
development in Silver Spring, Wheaton, Long Branch, Takoma/Langley, or Old Town Gaithersburg
would pay no impact tax, why would the developer provide 25% of its units as MPDUs rather than the
minimum required by law?
Silver Spring is no longer eligible for enterprise zone status and hasn't been for a decade; the
question should not be whether it can compete with Bethesda, but whether it has a built-in advantage
over development in Rock Spring Park, Twinbrook, Shady Grove, the Great Seneca Science Corridor,
White Oak, Twinbrook, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Germantown, Clarksburg, and other development
nodes, all of which must pay both taxes.
18
On October 18 the PHED recommended that school facility and traffic mitigation payments be discontinued as conditions
of some future subdivisions, but raising the school and transportation impact
tax
rates by amounts that would cover more than
the lost payment.
·
18
In
White Flint, housing developments must pay the school impact tax, and all development pays an annual property
tax
surcharge that, over time, is arguably larger than a one-time transportation impact tax payment.
17
35
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The phase out periods under consideration are also much too long. Eliminating an exemption is
equivalent to raising an impact tax, and impact tax effective dates have always been tied to building
permit filing. Recall, again, that when the taxes went up by 70% across the board
in
2007, the rates
went into effect on building permits filed
16 days later.
The proposed phase out applies at the time of
subdivision approval-and extended out over 4 years-and building permit filings are usually years
after subdivision approval. So, under the Planning Board's proposal, the foregone revenue for schools
and transportation projects effectively will not be recouped for years.
Council staff, above, has recommended that developments filing for building permits on or after
March 1, 2017 pay the new impact tax rates. The distinction
in
the case of enterprise zones and Silver
Spring is that the effective rate is rising from $0 to the rates charged elsewhere, a much larger change.
Therefore, a more somewhat more gradual grandfather clause/effective date is called for.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Council staff recommendations:
Eliminate all former enterprise wne school and transportation impact tax exemptions-both
in Silver Spring and any future former enterprise zone.
Eliminate the school and transportation impact tax exemptions in existing enterprise zones for
residential development. Retain both exemptions for non-residential development
In Silver Spring:
For building permits filed by November 15, 2017:full exemption
For building permits filed by November 15, 2018: 50% of exemption
For building permits filed by November 15, 2018: no exemption
Infutureformer enterprise zones:
For building permits filed up to 1 year after expiration: full exemption
For building permits filed up to 2 years after expiration: 50% of exemption
For building permits filed after 2 years after expiration: no exemption
In existing enterprise zones:
For building permits that include residential filed by November 15, 2017:/ull exemption
For building permits that include residentialfiled by November 15, 2018: 50% of
exemption
For building permits that include residential filed by November 15, 2018: no exemption
Councilmember Navarro recommends that the Council adopt a new process for identifying areas
that would be exempt from impact taxes, rather than coupling it to a State decision as to whether an
enterprise zone is established or is continued (©94). Until a new process is identified and codified, she
recommends keeping the current exemption rules in place.
GO Committee recommendation (2-1): Councilmembers Navarro and Katz recommend
continuing the exemptions
in
the former Silver Spring enterprise zone until a new County-
designation process is
in
place. Councilmember Riemer recommends 'phasing out the exemptions
for both the school and transportation impact taxes in Silver Spring according to the schedule
proposed by the Planning Board.
GO Committee recommendation (3-0):
zones.
Continue the exemptions in existing enterprise
36
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
--------~
Attachments
Planning staff summary of transit accessibility test
Results of transit accessibility test, as proposed
Results of transit accessibility test, with nearer-term BRT lines included
Clarksburg Road Code Urban Area map
Summary of the Transportation Mitigation Task Force's proposed TDM program
Summary of stakeholder input
re
the proposed TDM program
Council President Floreen's proposal
re
transportation test and impact tax
Councilmember Elrich's proposals
re
transportation test and impact tax
Planning staff analysis of future TPAR revenue
October 6 letter from Chairman Anderson and DOT Director Roshdieh
DOT's preliminary approach to Red policy area LATR pro-rata analysis
DOT/Planning staff summary of proposed approach to LATR
Draft schedule for preparing Unified Mobility Programs (UMPs)
White Oak LATR SSP amendment, adopted April 2015
Brian Krantz's analysis of Critical Lane Volume (CLV)
Sabra Wang's literary review of traffic impact study processes
DOT comments on Bill 37-16
Cynthia Barr's testimony on Bill 37-16
Christopher Ruhlen's testimony on Bill 37-16
Buchanan Partners' testimony on Bill 37-16
Planning Board's proposed transportation impact tax rates, by policy area
Agricultural Advisory Committee's testimony on Bill 37-16
Willco' s testimony on Bill 37-16
Clarksburg Premium Outlets' testimony on Bill 34-15
Council President Floreen's proposal
re
impact tax exemption for student-built houses
County Executive's proposed bill to exempt clergy houses from impact taxes
Councilmember Rice's proposal to allow impact tax refunds when rates decline
William Kominers' proposals
re
HOC and response to questions
Resolution 16-377 adopting impact tax rates, November 13, 2007
Washington Property Company's letter
re
enterprise zone exemption
Greater Silver Spring Chamber of commerce's letter
re
enterprise zone exemption
Councilmember Navarro's proposal
re
former enterprise zone exemption
Bill 37-16, with GO Committee's recommendations
f:\orlin\fyl 7\ssp\l 61101cc.doc
©1
©3
©4
©5
©6
© 18
©20
©23
©27
©28
©30
©34
©36
©37
©39
©44
©50
©51
©54
©57
©60
©62
©64
©66
©67
©69
©77
©79
©86
©89
©92
©94
©95
37
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
In lieu of the current Policy Area transportation test (TPAR), a new transportation adequacy test based
on transit accessibility (defined as the number of jobs that can be reached within a 60-minute travel
time by walk-access transit) is desirable to better reflect existing and planned multi-modal travel options
and transit supportive land use densities, and to better align growth with the provision of adequate
public facilities. The proposed definition of Policy Area adequacy is based on the proportion of transit
accessibility that can be achieved within the next 10 years based on changes in land use and the
implementation of transportation facilities within this timeframe. It is the estimated share of the Master
Plan vision, reflecting a 25-year (master) planning horizon, attainable within the next 10 years.
This assessment recognizes that not all Policy Areas are planned to have high levels of transit
accessibility. The degree to which areas have high transit accessibility scores is dependent upon the
balance and intensity of jobs and households in each area of the County, and the degree to which the
area is well connected
by
transit to jobs elsewhere in the region. The degree of transit accessibility is
therefore highly correlated to proximity to the Washington, DC core, where the number and density of
jobs are the greatest.
The recommended proposed measure of accessibility is not total transit accessibility, but rather the
degree to which the planned increase in transit accessibility is proceeding at an acceptable pace.
The transit accessibility metric considers three conditions:
Current (year 2015) transit accessibility.
Planning horizon (year 2040) transit accessibility with transportation improvements recognized
as fiscally feasible from a regional planning perspective and therefore included in the
Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) such as the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway.
These transportation improvements are assumed in combination with the Countywide Transit
Corridors Functional Master Plan (CTCFMP) network reflecting service attributes in the non-CCT
corridors which are largely by average speeds that are faster than local bus service but less than
speeds that would be attained operating in fully dedicated lanes.
Regulatory horizon (year 2025) transit accessibility with transportation improvements included
in the state Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) and County Capital Improvements
Program (CIP). Notably, the Purple Line is fully funded for construction by 2025 in the current
state CTP, but the Corridor Cities Transitway is not funded for construction at all by the state or
County.
The 10-year regulatory horizon (from 2015 to 2025) is 40 percent as long as the 25-year planning
horizon (from 2015 to 2040). Areas that have at least 40 percent of their planned 2015-2040 transit
accessibility by 2025 are, therefore, considered to be "on pace" with respect to reaching a key indicator
of future non-auto travel options and are therefore considered "adequate.# The remaining areas are
"behind pace" and are considered to have inadequate transit accessibility. The recommendation is that
the mitigation requirement for these areas to help fund transit capital projects or transit access projects
should be specified as follows:
If transit accessibility in 2025 is between 30% - 40% of 2040 transit accessibility, a partial
mitigation payment of 15% of the applicable transportation impact tax is required.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
If transit accessibility in 2025 in less than 30% of 2040 transit accessibility, a full mitigation
payment of 25% of the applicable transportation impact tax is required.
The results of the transit accessibility test by policy area are reported in the following tables for two
scenarios:
The scenario described in the Planning Board draft SSP, in which the full complement of BRT
lines in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan are assumed as part of the
2040 scenario
A refined 2040 scenario developed in the past two weeks in response
to
coordination with
MCDOT and Council staff that assumes only the highest priority BRT lines are in place, including
the Corridor Cities Transitway, MD 355 (north and south), US 29, Veirs Mill Road, New
Hampshire Avenue, and the North Bethesda Transitway.
For both tables, the following information is provided for each policy area:
The total increase in transit accessibility between 2015 and 2040. This reflects the effects of the
planned master planned land use and transit system investments.
The percentage of that 2015-2040 increase that will occur by 2025.
The policy area requirement following the 30% and
40%
criteria for partial and full mitigation
above for Yellow and Orange policy areas; Red and Green policy areas are exempt.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Transit Accessibility Mitigation Requirements
2040 Includes BRT Plan
6/24/2016
2015-2040
Increased
Transit
Accessibility
Percent of 2015-
2040 increase
by2025
Mitigation Status
PA_Name
RED Policy Areas
Friendship Heights
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
White Flint
Grosvenor
Twin brook
Wheaton CBD
Glenmont
Rockville Town Center
Shady Grove Metro Station
Orange Policv Areas
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
North Bethesda
Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Kensington/Wheaton
Rockville City
White Oak
Derwood
R&DVillage
Gaithersburg City
Germantown Town Center
Oarksburg
Yt:llow folig Areas
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Potomac
North Potomac
Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/Airpark
Olney
Cleverly
Green follcy Areas
Rural East
Rural West
Damascus
515167
513033
468746
437498
425356
418386
374648
526166
363238
292100
432512
364476
233689
375324
264023
440229
166121
283345
175671
141449
5472
141072
213473
62153
94161
105769
86314
27944
83166
74593
7167
195
710
47%
52%
46%
41%
44%
42%
35%
33%
42%
41%
62%
29%
66%
27%
19%
65%
36%
8%
19%
2%
0%
13%
31%
60%
5%
2%
15%
N/A
4%
22%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Partial Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Partial Mitigation
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate- Full Mitigation
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate- Full Mitigation
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Transit Accessibility Mitigation Requirements
2040 Refined BRT Plan Concept
10/5/2016
2015-2040
Increased
Transit
Accessibility
Percent of 2015-
2040 Increase
by2025
Mitigation Status
PA_Name
RED Policy Areas
Friendship Heights
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
White Flint
Grosvenor
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
Glenmont
Rockville Town Center
Shady Grove Metro Station
Orange Pollg Areas
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
North Bethesda
Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Kensington/Wheaton
Rockville
City
White Oak
Derwood
R&DVillage
Gaithersburg City
Germantown Town Center
Clarksburg
Yellow
Poll~
Areas
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Potomac
North Potomac
Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/Airpark
Olney
Cloverly
Green Pollg Areas
Rural East
Rural West
Damascus
512866
506296
459977
409350
425210
387500
355450
331539
350026
261067
417974
356814
233195
295303
228717
389724
148700
219843
167844
120902
71402
73619
124890
83278
60014
66030
73869
26230
48%
53%
47%
43%
44%
46%
37%
52%
43%
45%
64%
29%
67%
34%
22%
74%
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Partial Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Partial Mitigation
Inadequate -
Inadequate -
Inadequate -
Inadequate -
Full Mitigation
Full Mitigation
Full Mitigation
Full Mitigation
40%
11%
20%
2%
0%
24%
53%
45%
8%
3%
17%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
No Mitigation
No Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
Inadequate - Full Mitigation
No Mitigation
No Mitigation
No Mitigation
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
608
18612
6853
989
838
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
10
0
N
'
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT-RELATED TDM PROCESS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS
October
2016
TDM Process Review Work Group
The Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) convened a diverse work
group of Executive, Council and M-NCPPC staff to provide input regarding improvements to the
process for Traffic Mitigation Agreements
(TIJl.Ags)
and other Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies used
in
the County.iNelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates
facilitated the discussions, consolidated recommendations from the group and contributed
information regarding best practices nationally. The objectives were to improve consistency and
predictability in the development process while enhancing the ability to achieve the County's non-
auto driver mode share (NADMS) and broader TDM goals.
After consideration of national best practices and alternatives for local application, the TDM
Process Review Work Group ("Work Group") recommended consideration of a number of
modifications to the development review and subdivision process with the goal of sustaining
mobility in the County to support the economic strength of the County and the quality oflife
offered to residents and workers. Working with the consultants, MCDOT has incorporated the
Work Group recommendations into a plan for revision of the process, as highlighted with
additional recommendations (in
bold italics)
below.
Summary o(Key TDM Work
Group
Recommendations:
1.
2.
Expand Transportation Demand Management efforts to all areas ofthe County
(excluding Agricultural Reserve areas)
Establish a tiered system for applying TDM that responds to the variety and
quality of local mobility options, using geographic units and/or boundaries
already established
in
the County.
3.
Expand TDM efforts beyond commercial projects to include moderate-to-high
density
residential develop,ments
4.
Establish project-specific mode slwre targets that help the
County
achieve
Transportation Management District (TMD), area and/or Countywide goals
5.
Develop and adopt a TDM
"menu"
ofrequired tools and strategies.
The
recommended menu or "toolbox" should provide both flexibility
and
consistency.
6.
Improve monitoring and reporting and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
After review of these alternatives,
the
Work Group determined that a hybrid approach was
preferred - one that provided a flexible toolbox of expected measures combined with
performance requirements to ensure the package of programs chosen delivered the required
results. The following conceptual approaches are proposed:
Geographic Application
The current areas of application for TMAgs, as established by County
Code,
are fairly narrow at
present - limited only to projects within designated TMDs.
It
is recommended that the program
be modified under the Code to apply to the whole of Montgomery County, excepting only areas
within the designated Agricultural Reserve. The application of the program throughout the
@