AGENDA ITEM #7
October 25,2016
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
October 24,2016
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Glenn
Council Administrator
#
Robert Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
V\.ft)
Worksession -resolution to adopt the 2016-2020 Subdivision Staging Policy;
Bill 37-16, Taxation Development Impact Tax Transportation and Public School
Improvement - Amendments;
Resolution to establish Development Impact Tax rates for transportation and public
school improvements
Please bring the SSP Report and
Appendi~
to this worksession.
Orl~eputy
1_
SUBJECT:
On July 27, 2016 the Planning Board transmitted to the Council its Final Draft of the 2016-2020
Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP), the quadrennial update to the rules by which the Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance is implemented. The Board also forwarded Bill 37-16 that would amend the impact
tax law. The public hearing on both the SSP and Bill 37-16 was held on September 13. The County
Code requires final action on the SSP by November 15; otherwise, the 2012-2016 SSP would remain in
effect. Because of several policy linkages between the SSP and Bill 37-16, the intent is that both
measures would be approved at the same time.
Bill 37-16 includes the Planning Board's impact tax rate schedule. Council staff pointed out the
problem that, since the rates are adjusted biennially by inflation, the rates as they appear in the Code are
out of date within a short period of time. The Council already has the authority to revise the rates by
resolution; there is a consensus that, to avoid future confusion, that such a resolution should be the
vehicle for amending the rates. Therefore, on September 27 the Council introduced a resolution that
would amend the rates just as Bill 37-16 would have. A public hearing on this resolution was held on
October 18. Action on it is also planned to occur at the same time as the SSP and Bill 37-16.
The Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee met on the SSP on
September 19 and 26, and October 10, 17, and 18, and it will meet again after the Council's October 25
worksession. The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy (GO) Committee convened on Bill 37-16
on September 26 and October 6 and 20, and it plans one more meeting for October 27. The plan for this
Council worksession is to review both the public school adequacy test in the SSP and the school impact
tax in Bill 37-16. The Council President plans for straw votes on the school test and school impact tax
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
be taken at the end of this worksession. (A similar process for the transportation test and impact tax is
planned for November 1.) This packet discusses each issue and their options; the addendum to this packet
lists the issues and optionS to facilitate the Council's decision-making.
I.
SCHOOL TEST
The SSP (and its predecessor, the
Annual
Growth Policy) has included a school test since the late
1980s. The initial test, which was in effect until 2007 , compared projected enrollment at a level (ES, MS,
HS) to capacity at that level 5 years later. Capacity (then called "Council-funded program capacity") was
standard across all classrooms: 22.5 students/room at the MS and HS levels, 25 students/room for Grades
1-6,44 students/room for half-day kindergarten and 22 students/room for all-day kindergarten. Then (as
now) only permanent teaching stations were counted in the calculations; relocatable capacity was not
counted. If projected enrollment 5 years out at any level in a cluster exceeded 110% of Council-funded
capacity, the cluster would be placed in moratorium for housing subdivision approvals: However, this
would occur only if there were not surplus capacity at that level in a physically adjacent cluster; the
assumption was that ifthis were the situation, the Board ofEducation (BOE) could solve the overcrowding
with a cross-cluster boundary change, which was not uncommon then.
In
applying this test, no cluster
was ever placed in a housing moratorium due to the lack of school capacity.l
In 2007 the Council significantly tightened the test. First, it eliminated the practice of "borrowing"
surplus capacity from an adjacent cluster. Second, it abandoned
"Council~funded
program capacity" in
favor of the program capacity figures used by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), which
assumes smaller capacities for specialty classrooms: 15/room for ESOL, lO/room for emotional disability;
6/room for autism spectrum disorder, etc. So, while it set the moratorium standard at 120%, the combined
effect of the first two changes produced a much tighter test.
2
The 2003 Growth Policy introduced the concept of the school facility payment (SFP), but not until
the 2007 Growth Policy, when the threshold was lowered, did it have an effect. Since 2007 a developer
has had the option to pay the SFP to meet the school test if the enrollment/capacity ratio at a cluster/level
exceeds 105%3 but is under 120%. The SFP rates have been set at 60% of the capital cost/student seat at
each level, based on the average cost of a new school at each level. The development would pay the
cost/seat rate for the number of seats at each level it generates above lO5% capacity, so in some clusters
there could be two or even three sets of payments. The payments are made concurrently with impact
taxes: 6 months after issuing ofa building permit or at final inspection, whichever is earlier. The first SFP
payments were made in FYll; over the FYll-16 period only $4,957,329
has
been collected. SFP
payments fund only 0.1% of MCPS's Approved FY17-22 CIP.
year during the 1990s the test might have resulted in a moratorium in the Paint Branch Cluster. The projected
enrollment at the HS level exceeded 110% capacity marginally, and there was no surplus HS capacity in an adjacent cluster
from which to borrow. However, it was noted that Sherwood HS would have an addition completed in 6 years, one year later
than what was "countable" under the test. Rather than having the Paint Branch Cluster go into moratorium for just one year,
the Council voted 5-4 to find that the Paint Branch Cluster was adequate for school facilities.
2
In 2007 the BOE and the Planning Board both had recommended setting the moratorium threshold at 135%, still a tighter
test than before. The BOE was concerned that the 120% threshold would have the effect ofdiverting too much funding for
additions, and short-changing funding for modernizations (now called "revitalizations/expansions").
3
In 2007 the Planning Board and BOE had recommended 110% as the threshold for the SFP.
1
For one
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
2013
: 2014
12015
i
2016
Total
School Facility Payment (SFPl Collections
$6,244
163.918
15,250
2,008,371
1,967,790
795,756
i
$4,957,329
Six years ago the Council recognized that some clusters that were about to exceed the 120% level
were at that point because the Board of Education (BOE) wasn't ready to request funding in the CIP for a
specific new school or addition. Since then the Council has approved a series of placeholder projects.
Each placeholder sets aside funding for a small generic addition in the cluster, enough to bring the
calculation beneath 120% (but not below 105%). This was done, however, only when MCPS concurrently
was developing a potential "real" project for that cluster/level as part of its facility planning program, and
when MCPS staff felt assured that the project ultimately forthcoming from facility planning would
be
,requested by the BOE for completion within the original 5-year timeframe. As a result only rarely since
2010 has a cluster been in moratorium.
The SSP calls for the Planning Board to assess clusters annually. The most recent assessment was
conducted on June 23, 2016, at which time the Board found that no clusters would be in moratorium.
However, 4 clusters at the ES level, 3 clusters at the MS level, and 10 clusters at the HS level were in the
105-120% range, requiring the developer to pay at least one SFP to proceed. Residential development in
the Einstein, Northwood, and Quince Orchard Clusters require payments at both the ES and HS levels,
and at all three levels in the Gaithersburg Cluster (©14).
Rockville and Gaithersburg, as municipalities with independent planning and zoning authority,
have their own adequate public facility tests for development within their respective boundaries. Recently
Rockville adopted the same test as the County's current test. Gaithersburg's school adequacy test is:
A school level test
Uses a 6-year test timefrarne
Moratorium is triggered at 150% utilization, using BOE program capacity
Mitigation/facility payments are required at 105% utilization, using BOE program capacity. Any school
payment must be used to relieve over-utilization at the school where it was collected.
If
no capacity can
be added there, the funds can be used to support additional capacity at a school that will relieve the over­
utilized school.
1. The moratorium thresholdfor clusters.
The Planning Board recommends retaining the 120%
threshold at any level for residential moratorium in a cluster. The Executive concurs, stating thata tighter
test would "immediately stop development without offering a solution to the problem" (©2). Several
development representatives also oppose tightening the threshold.
The BOE recommends tightening the cluster moratorium threshold to 110% as part of a strategy
to curb overcrowding. Several civic associations and individuals concur.
If
this rule were approved and
effective this year, then 12 of the county's 25 clusters would go into a housing moratorium: Blair,
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Churchill, Einstein, Gaithersburg, Walter Johnson, Kennedy, Richard Montgomery, Northwood, Paint
Branch, Quince Orchard, Rockville, and Wheaton. Under this test the following policy areas would be
entirely or largely in a housing moratorium: Silver Spring CBD Metro Station Policy Area (MSPA),
Wheaton CBD MSPA, Glenmont MSPA, Rockville Town Center MSPA, White Flint MSPA, Fairland,
North Bethesda, North Potomac, Silver SpringlTakoma, and Kensington/Wheaton, as well as parts ofthe
Rockville and Aspen Hill.
MCPS released its new enrollment forecast to the Board of Education on October 10, and it has
calculated the effects ofthe various school test options as of July 2017. The results are on 1.015-17. If the
cluster-level threshold of 120% of program capacity were retained, 4 clusters could go into moratorium
because of projected deficiency at the HS level: Blair, Einstein, Northwood, and Walter Johnson. All are
in facility planning, and 3 ofthem already have "solution" (placeholder) projects programmed. A solution
project for Blair HS would be appropriate, as would enlarging the other 3 solution projects. If a cluster-
.
level threshold of 110% were established, then 11 clusters could go into moratorium.
MCPS staff has compared Montgomery County's thresholds with those in other Maryland
jurisdictions that have adequate public facility ordinances (1.018). For those in the vicinity ofMontgomery
County:
Prince George's County has the same threshold: 120% ofprogram capacity
Howard County: 115% of State-rated capacity
Carroll County: 120% of State-rated capacity
Frederick County: 120% of State-rated capacity
State-rated capacity is a slightly different measure of capacity that the BOE's program capacity. For the
current schools in the County the cumulative capacity at each level according to the two calculations are:
BOE Program Capacity
; State-Rated CaQacity
I
BOE/State-Rated
Ca~acity
Ratio
..
.
Source: MCPS, FY 2017 Educational FacilItIes Master Plan, AppendIX
J.
CapacIty figures are from 2015-2016 .
ES
72,176
75,761
0.95
MS
36,219
36,875
0.98
HS
48,017
46,452
1.03
All Levels
156,412
159,088
0.98
This means that, at the ES level, 120% ofBOE capacity is about the same as 114% of State-rated capacity.
At the MS level, 120% of BOE capacity is about equal to 118% of State-rated capacity. At the HS level,
120% of BOE capacity is about the same as 124% of State-rated capacity. Across all levels, 120% of
BOE capacity is about 118% of State-rated capacity.
Council staffs primary recommendation: Retain the 120% threshold for a moratorium.
The
current threshold is roughly comparable to those in neighboring jurisdictions, when all levels are taken
into account.
Council staff's secondary recommendation: Should the Council nevertheless wish to tighten the
threshold,
it
should bring it no lower than 115%
This threshold would be tighter
than
neighboring
jurisdictions-including Howard County-at every level. If 115% were the threshold, 4 of the County's
25 clusters would go into moratorium now: Blair, Einstein, Northwood, and Rockville. As of July 2017,
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
8 of the County's 25 clusters project to go into moratoriwn: Blair, Einstein, Northwood, Walter Johnson,
Kennedy, Richard Montgomery, Quince Orchard, and Rockville.
PHED Committee
(and Council staff primary)
recommendation (3-0): Retain the 120%
cluster threshold for moratorium.
2. The SFP threshold/or clusters.
The Planning Board recommends retaining the 105% threshold
for school facility payments, and development representatives generally concur. The BOE, the Executive,
the Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Associations (MCCPTA), and several civic
associations and individuals recommend tightening it to 100%. If the standard were tightened to 100%, 8
more cluster-levels would enter the SFP range now: B-CC-HS; Blake-ES & HS; Poolesville-HS; Seneca
Valley-ES; Springbrook-ES
&
MS; and Whitman-MS.
Council President Floreen recommends eliminating the school facility payment threshold, and
instead increasing the school impact tax across the
board
by 10%. She points out that only about $5
million in school facility payments
has
been collected in the past 6 years; over the same period a school
impact tax 10% higher would have raised about $11 million more (©11). MCCPTA supports Ms.
Floreen's proposal, but with two caveats:
(1)
increase the impact tax by 20%, not 10%; and (2) introduce
an individual school test.
This proposal is simpler than the current approach, and is much simpler
than
what is proposed by
the Planning Board.
It
would generate more funds, and the amount of revenue collected would be
somewhat more predictable
than
from school facility payments. It is possible some developers are holding
back their proposals until new capacity is programmed in order to avoid the school facility payment, but
that also means the payment of school impact taxes is being delayed.
Council staff's primary recommendation: Concur with Ms. Floreen
's
proposal. Council staffs
secondary recommendation:
If
the Council nevertheless wishes to retain the SFP regime, then set the SFP
threshold at
lOO%.
The main effect is the potential for some more SFP revenue. But this revenue source
is small, so adding more cluster/levels to the SFP range would generate only a modest additional
contribution to the funds available for school construction.
PHED Committee recommendation (3-0): Concur with Ms. Floreen's proposal to eliminate
the SFP payment regime, but also to raise the school impact tax 10% higher.
3. Individual school capacity deficit test.
The Planning Board recommends a new test that would
restrict approvals if an ES's or MS's projected enrollment were to exceed both a certain percentage
utilization and a certain nwnber of seats in deficit. The rationale is to recognize that some individual
schools are considerably over capacity and cannot be addressed directly by a within-cluster boundary
change, such as where spare capacity exists only at the far end ofthe cluster from the overcrowded school.
The proposed test would be as follows:
• A moratorium would be imposed in an ES service area if utilization were to exceed 120% and
there were a deficit exceeding 110 seats.
• A moratorium would be imposed in a MS service area ifutilization were to exceed 120% and there
were a deficit exceeding 180 seats.
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
An
SFP would be required in an ES service area if there were a deficit between 92-110 seats.
An
SFP would be required in a MS service area if there were a deficit between 150-180 seats.
When a capacity project at one school is intended to relieve enrollment burdens at another, the school test
would continue to show a capacity deficit at the burdened school until MCPS approves a service area
boundary change, usually shortly before construction ofthe additional capacity is complete.
The BOE, MCCPTA, and several civic associations and individuals support this proposed test.
The County Executive and several development representatives oppose it. If implemented with the
adoption of the SSP in November, 6 ES service areas would go into moratorium: Rosemont, Strawberry
Knoll, and Summit Hall (all in the Gaithersburg Cluster), Highland View (Northwood), Lake Seneca
(Seneca Valley), and Thurgood Marshall (Quince Orchard). Two ES service areas would be in the SFP
range: Garrett Park (Walter Johnson), and Meadow Hall (Rockville). See ©19.
The three largest forecasted deficits are at the Gaithersburg Cluster schools.
In
FY16 MCPS held
a tri-cluster (Gaithersburg/WoottonlMagruder) roundtable to develop solutions to forecasted
overcrowding at four ES schools in the Gaithersburg Cluster: these three and Gaithersburg ES. The BOE's
decision was to request funds to program a $26 million addition to Gaithersburg ES; this spring the
Council included it in the FY17-22 CIP for completion by August 2020. As for the other schools:
• Rosemont:
much of the projected increase depends on the buildout of the new developments on
the Crown Farm and around the Shady Grove Metro Station. Then-Superintendent Bowers noted
that the pace of deVelopment could be lower than anticipated in the forecasts. Furthermore, he
recommended a cross-cluster boundary study to reassign some of the Gaithersburg Cluster service
area to the Magruder Cluster to resolve this overcrowding. On April 19 the BOE decided that the
portion ofthe Shady Grove Sector Plan located east ofI-270 would be reassigned to the Magruder
Cluster. The boundary study will begin next spring, BOE action would be in the fall of2017, and
reassignments would occur starting in the 2018-2019 school year.
• Strawberry Knoll.
This school has 6 portables on site.
It
sits on 10.8 acres, the largest ES site in
the cluster. Enrollment is projected to trend slightly lower over the next 5 years. As a result,
enrollment will be monitored and an addition will be considered in the future if warranted by
enrollment.
• Summit Hall.
Like Strawberry Knoll, this school's enrollment forecast is trending slightly
downward.
It
is currently in the Future RevitalizationslExpansions schedule for completion in
January 2024. The BOE, understandably, wants to include any capacity expansion here within the
rev/ex project. A further complication is that, based on OLO's study of the FACT assessment
ranking system of rev/ex projects, Summit Hall's place in the queue will be reevaluated. For these
reasons the BOE has not requested funding for an addition.
The SSP report states that MCPS considers an addition at an ES when forecasted enrollment
exceeds capacity by 92 seats, equal
to
4 classrooms. But, in fact, this is a flexible standard, depending
upon the overall MCPS capital needs and its understanding as to what it can reasonably request from the
Council.
In
the last CIP cycle the BOEjudged that, due to fiscal constraints, a projected deficit of at least
125 seats would be the trigger for it to request funding for an ES addition. Highland View ES, Lake
Seneca ES, and Thurgood Marshall ES were forecasted to exceed program capacity by 112, 113, and 118
seats, respectively, so the BOE did not request funding for additions at these schools.
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
In Council staff's view, the BOE made the correct judgment. Even with what it considered a
restrained request, it received the highest level of capital funding in its history: $1.73 billion, an increase
of $186 million (12%) over the prior CIP, while funding for most other County agencies-especially
County Government and Montgomery College-declined. MCPS's share of the CIP funding rose from
25% to an astounding 37%.
A further problem with an individual school test is the reliability of the enrollment forecast for an
individual school. A basic tenet of statistics, whether sampling voting preferences for an election or
forecasting student enrollment is: the smaller the sample size, the less confidence in the result. MCPS
staff has publicly stated that a forecast at the countywide level proves to be correct within 1
%
and within
2-3% at the cluster level, but only within about 10-12% at the individual school level, especially at
elementary schools. Therefore, applying a forecast at the individual school level has a fair possibility of
producing a "false positive" test failure.
Council staffrecommendation: Do not introduce an additional individual school test.
As noted
above, the BOE had specific reasons not to request funding for each of these schools at this time, for a
variety of reasons. Council staff does not see a rationale for placing restrictions on an individual school
level where the BOE itself could not justifY requesting funding for additional capacity. .
PHED Committee recommendation (2-1): Councilmembers Leventhal and Riemer support
the individual school test and setting the threshold moratorium at 120%•. Council President Floreen
opposes an individual school test. Since the Committee unanimously recommends eliminating the
school facility payment regime, there would be no individual school threshold for a school facility
payment.
4. Placeholder projects.
The Planning Board recommends limiting the use ofplaceholder projects
for no more than 2 years at a time. As noted above, the purpose of these projects is to serve as a bridge,
giving MCPS time to develop a project in facility planning until the BOE is ready to request a specific
project for funding in the CIP. This, generally, should not take longer
than
2 years. The BOE, MCCPTA,
and several individuals agree with the Planning Board. The County Executive disagrees with the
limitation, as do several development representatives.
The odd aspect of this recommendation is that it does not intend to control the timing of
development, per se, but to the control the Council's own ability to act if it finds an overriding reason to
thwart a moratorium. For example, what if the BOE were slow to make a decision as to how to add
capacity in a cluster? Should the BOE, by not requesting funds for a new school or addition, effectively
be allowed to control the timing of residential development? The Council must retain its prerogative to
extend the use of placeholders beyond 2 years. This prerogative is likely to be used only rarely, if at all.
PHED Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation (3-0): Amend the Planning Board's
suggested text in Section S3 as follows (see Appendix, p. 129):
Placeholder capacity for a particular cluster level or school [can only] should, in most circumstances,
be
counted as capacity in the ann.ual school test for no more than two years.
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Issues
5-6
only apply should the Council wish to continue the school facility payment regime. Since
the PHED Committee recommended discontinuing the regime, it made no recommendations on them.
5. Use of SFPfunding.
The impact tax is an excise tax. Its purpose is to collect revenue from
new development to pay its fair share of the cost of capacity. While impact taxes can be used only for
capital projects that add capacity, as an excise tax there does not need to be a close nexus between where
the funds are collected and where the funds are spent. For the school impact tax, for example, funds
collected in one part of the County can and have been spent on a new school or addition in another part of
the County. The school increment to the recordation tax is another example of an excise tax.
The School Facility Payment is something else entirely. It is an optional fee paid by a development
to pass a localized adequacy test where there is not enough capacity in a particular cluster at a particular
level. As a fee, there must be a strong nexus between what the fee revenue is used for and why the fee
was paid in the first place. County Code §52-94 reads:
(e)
The Department of Finance must retain funds collected under this Section in an account to be
appropriated for MCPS capital improvements that result
in
added student capacity for, to the extent
possible, the affected grade level in the school cluster, or, if no cluster is established, another
geographic administrative area, where the development for which the funds were paid is located.
In
other words, if a developer pays an SFP because of a shortage at the ES level in the Quince Orchard
Cluster, then the funds are to
be
spent to address a shortage at the ES level in the Quince Orchard Cluster.
The "to extent possible" language has been interpreted to allow funds to be spent to fund capacity
improvements at a different level-but still for the same cluster. In this above example, if there were no
ES capacity project in the Quince Orchard Cluster to which to put the ES SFP, it could be used towards
funding an active project to add capacity at the MS or HS level in that cluster.
The BOE, the Executive, and MCCPTA recommend using SFP revenue anywhere
in
the County.
This could raise an issues as
to
the legality of the fee. However, the example given by MCPS a PHED
worksession
is
allowable. Ifa capacity problem at an ES in one cluster can be addressed by an ES addition
in
an adjacent cluster-accompanied by a boundary change between the clusters--then the SFP collected
in the first cluster could be used for its intended purpose: solving the problem that caused the need for the
payment in the first place.
Council staff recommendation: Do not change the rule as to where SFP
revenue may be spent.
6. The rate structurefor the SFP.
Currently there are 12 rates for the SFP: an ES, MS, and HS
rate for each of the four housing categories: single-family detached, townhouses, garden apartments, and
high-rise apartments. The rates are shown below, and are based on the per-student construction cost of a
new school at each level: the existing rates are pegged at 60% of the per-student cost.
In
2007 school
impact taxes rates were set to collect 90% of the per-student construction cost, and the SFP was set at
60%. It was expected that nearly all housing development would pay the impact tax but relatively few
developments would likely pay the SFP, so a combination of 90% for the impact tax and 60% from the
SFP would generate about 100% ofthe per-student cost from new development.
The Planning Board recommends amending the impact tax rates to collect 100% ofthe per-student
cost from impact taxes and 50% from the SFP. This combination should generate a higher than 100%
share from new development. However, since the recently calculated per-student costs of construction
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
are different than what have been used, the Planning Board is recommending revising the aggregate rates
to reflect this fact. OMB and Finance did not forecast SFP revenue because the limited number of
payments to date, the uncertainty when payments will actually be made, and the uncertainty when a
specific clusternevel will be in SFP range.
Existing/Proposed
SFP
Rates (per student)
ES
$6,940/$3,812
$4,160/$4,351
$2,838/$1,169
$1,1661$1,320
MS
$3,2511$2,158
$1,743/$2,119
$1,169/$1,564
$5311$574
HS
$4,631/$3,469
$2,754/$3,352
$1,877/$2,414
$804/$891
Single-family detached
Single-family attached
: Multi-family garden
Multi-family high-rise
The BOE supports the Planning Board's proposed SFP rates. Several development representatives also
support them. MCCPTA and several individuals support a higher rate, equal to 75% of the per-student
cost; the rates would
be
50% higher
than
those shown in the table above.
Council stcif.frecommendation: Concur with the Planning Board.
The new rates, in combination
with the school impact tax, already would generate from new development somewhat more revenue than
its share of the cost of school construction. Given how little revenue the SFP generates, even a 50%
increase won't amount to much.
7. Updating the SFP rates.
The Planning Board recommends updating both impact
tax
rates and
SFP rates biennially based both on updated student generation rates by level and housing type as well as
updated costs of school construction.
Council staffrecommendation: Update the SFP rates following the
same methodology and schedule as the
GO
Committee recommends for school impact taxes (see below).
Even if the Council agrees with the PHED Committee to discontinue the school facility payment test for
future subdivision applications, this matter is important for the subdivisions that are or will have already
been approved with an SPF as a condition of approval.
II.
BILL
37-16,
GENERALLY
1.
A briefhistory ofimpact taxes
in
Montgomery County.
The Council approved the initial impact
fee law in 1986,
and
at the time it applied only
in
Germantown and Eastern Montgomery County (Fairland,
White Oak, and Cloverly), then the fastest growing areas. After the Court ofAppeals found in 1990 that the
County did not have authority to impose the impact fee it had enacted4, the Council enacted Emergency Bill
33-90 that transfonned the fee to an excise tax, but most other aspects ofthe law remained unchanged. After
the approval of the Clarksburg Master Plan
in
1994, the Council extended the tax to Clarksburg. Funds
collected in each ofthese areas could
be
spent only on projects within the respective areas that were explicitly
"listed
in
the law, most ofwhich were new roads, road widenings, and park-and-ride lots. Taxes were collected
prior to the issuance of building permits. The cost of capacity-adding projects built by a development were
creditable against the tax.
In
2001, Bill 47-01 (effective July 2002) established transportation impact taxes countywide.
It
created a new "County" District that encompassed all areas not within Gennantown, Eastern Montgomery
4
Eastern Diversified Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery County,
39 Md. 45, 570 A.2d 850 (1990).
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
County, and Clarksburg, and established its own rate schedule.
It
created separate accounts for Rockville and
Gaithersburg, noting that funds within each municipality could be spent only on projects that served them,
respectively.
It
set the rates in Metro Station Policy Areas at half ofthe County District rates.
It
also deleted
the explicit list of projects in the law, replacing it with several categories of projects that were eligible; the
categories were no longer simply auto-based, but included such elements as added Ride On buses and shelters,
new or expanded transit centers, hiker-biker trails, sidewalk connectors, and bike
~torage
facilities. Two years
later the County District and the Germantown and Eastern Montgomery County areas were combined into a
new "General" District. Early in this decade further amendments to the law deferred the payment of the tax
for housing to 6 months after permit issuance or fmal inspection (whichever is earlier)S, established
bikesharing stations as an eligible expenses, and extended the use ofcredits to 12 years. Several amendments
over the years exempted (or set $0 rates) for certain types ofdevelopment: development in existing and former
enterprise zones, affordable dwelling units, hospitals, bioscience facilities, social service agencies, and
charitable institutions.
The Council approved a countywide school impact tax in 2003 (effective 2004) which applied only
to residential deVelopment. Rates were set for single-family-detached houses, townhouses, low-rise
apartments
(up
to 4 stories) and high-rise apartments. The rates for single-family-detached houses and
townhouses also included a surcharge for larger homes. Senior housing had a $0 rate. There
was
one set of
rates countywide, and funds collected anywhere in the County could
be
spent on any capacity-adding school
project in the County. Under both the transportation and school taxes, affordable dwelling units and
development in existing and (starting in 2007) former enterprise zones were exempted. A law enacted in
2015 provides that if a development includes at least 25% affordable units, all units in that development are
exempt from both taxes.
Impact
tax
collections over the years have fluctuated widely, reflecting the varying activity in the
building industry. Transportation impact tax collections have been especially volatile, due to the
unpredictability of when credits (which can be substantial) are cashed in.
Revenue from Impact Taxes since FY 2005
Year
FY05
. FY06
I
FY07
. FY08
FY09
FYlO
FYll
i
FY12
FY13
i
FY14
: FY15
FY16
School
$7,695,345
6,960,032
9,562,889
6,766,534
7,925,495
11,473,071
14,480,846
16,462,394
27,901,753
45,837,274
32,676,773
23,349,333
Transp.ortation
$8,470,768
6,252,060
11,500,814
9,743,841
2,398,310
3,812,138
5,444,115
6,352,481
13,179,898
20,274,781
16,632,489
9,114,573
S
For non-residential,
12 months after permit issuance or final inspection. whichever is sooner.
10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Impact taxes constitute about one ofevery eight dollars spent on school capital projects. The funding
sources for MCPS's Approved FY17-22 CIP are comprised of:
Funding Source
G.O. Bonds/Current Revenue
Recordation Tax
State Aid
. School Impact Tax
. School Facility PaY!!lcents
Total
Funding Programmed
$834,292,000
$373,700,000
$308,628,000
$210,985,000
$1,854,000
$1,729,459,000
% of Total
48.3%
21.6%
17.8%
12.2%
0.1%
100.0%
Impact taxes are projected to fund $50,605,000 (4.5%) of the $1,120,821,000 transportation capital program
in FYI7-22.
2. Fiscal and Economic Impact Statements.
The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) and the
Department of Finance transmitted their initial analysis of the Bill on September 16 (©40-52). However,
over the past few weeks OMB and Finance, working with the Department of Permitting Services, has been
developing revised revenue estimates for Bill 37-16, as well as for the several options that have been proposed
during the GO Committee's deliberations. The estimates for the school impact
tax
options are presented later
in this packet; the estimates for the transportation impact
tax
will be ready very shortly.
In.
SCHOOL IMPACT TAX: USES, RATES, AND CREDITS
1.
Land acquisition.
The current law allows use of school impact
tax
funds for projects that add
permanent teaching stations: new schools, additions, and revitalizations/expansions. The understanding since
the beginning has been that impact tax funds may be applied to any cost associated with a capacity-adding
project.
In
the case of such school (and transportation) projects, impact
tax
funds have been used on all
elements ofcapacity-adding capital projects: planning, design, land acquisition, site improvements and utility
work, construction, and furniture and equipment needed for the facility when it opens. The Bill, as introduced,
would add text {§52-91 (d){4)) explicitly allowing funds to be used for acquisition ofland for a school. This
amendment is unnecessary since land acquisition can be funded with school impact
tax
revenue, and the
addition here could raise questions whether other cost elements are not eligible because they are not expressly
listed. GO Committee
(and Council staff)
recommendation
(3-O):
Do not include §52-91(d)(4) as a
separate item and include it along with other components of construction in the beginning of§52-91(d).
The language as amended by the GO Committee is:
52-91. Accounting; use of funds.
*
(d)
*
*
Revenues raised under this Article may be used to fund planning design, acquisition of land.
site improvements, utility relocation, construction. and initial
furniture
and equipment for any:
(1)
(2)
new public elementary or secondary school;
addition to an existing public elementary or secondaiy school that adds one or more
teaching stations; [or1 or
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(3)
modernization ofan existing public elementary or secondary school to the extent that
the modernization adds one or more teaching stations[[; or
acguisition ofland for
!!
public elementary or secondary school]].
ill
[[W
Any funds collected for the acquisition of land must be placed in the MCPS Advance Land
Acquisition Revolving Fund (ALARF), to be used for the purchase ofproperty for new public
schools.]]
2. Base School Impact Tax Rates.
In 2007 the Council raised school impact taxes substantially so
they would capture about 90% of the cost of adding capacity, on a per-seat basis. School facility payments
were set at 60% ofthe cost. The thought
was
that, since relatively few developers would be paying an SFP,
the net total of impact taxes and SFP revenue would capture about 100% of the cost of adding capacity for
emollment growth associated with new hopsing units. The Planning Board recommends changing the impact
tax rates so that they collect 100% ofthe cost caused by new housing units, and reducing the SFP rates from
60% to 50% ofthe cost.
The table on ©53 shows three scenarios of rates, all based on the student generation rates across all
homes ofeach
type:
single-family-detached, single-family-attached (i.e., townhouses), low-rise multi-family
units (in buildings of4 stqries or less), and high-rise multi-family units. Scenario # 1A is the Planning Board's
recommendation. Note that the single-family-detached rate under #IA would decline by nearly
$8,000Ihouse, the rate for townhouses would decline marginally (and higher than for a single-family-detached
house), the rate for low-rise multi-family apartments would rise by more than
$2,700/unit,
and the rate for
multi-family high-rise units would increase very marginally. These rates reflect the actual student generation
rate for all units ofeach type. The PlIED Committee's recommendation to eliminate SFPs and to increase
the school impact
tax
by 10% over the Planning Board's recommendation is Scenario # 1B, while MCCPTA's
proposal to increase the tax by 20% over the Board's recommendation is Scenario #1C.
The GO Committee discussed whether to use the student generation rates for all homes in each
category, or the rates for homes that have been built in the last decade. The argument for using rates for the
newer units is that it measures the near-term impact of new housing. The rates for the 100%, 110%, and
120% options using the student generation rates for housing built in the last 10 years (Scenarios #2A, #2B,
and #2C, respectively) are on ©54. Using near-term rates produces a distinctly different pattern: the rate for
single-family-detached is fairly static or goes up (depending on the option), while the rates for all other units
decline significantly.
On October 24 Council
staff
received the new revenue school impact tax revenue estimates from
OMB and Finance; they have calculated the revenue effects ofeach ofthe six scenarios, and has recalculated
the estimate from current rates as well. The results are on ©55. The Planning Board's proposal (#IA) would
generate virtually the same revenue as existing rates. Increasing these rates by 10% (#2A) to compens&te for
the loss of SPFs would generate about $14.8 million more (+6.9%) over the next 6 years, while MCCPTA' s
proposal (#3A) would raise about $30 million more (+14.0%).
On
the other hand, if the Planning Board's
proposal
had
used instead the student generation rates from housing 10 years old or less (#IB), it would
generate $51.6 million less (-24.1 %); increasing it by 10% (#2B) would generate $41.6 rnillionless (-19.4%);
and increasing it by 20% (#2C) would generate about $31.5 million less (-14.7%).
12
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council staff believes that impact taxes should represent the capital budget impact of a house or
building in perpetuity,
just
as the school capacity the tax would help fund is expected to last in perpetuity.
Impact taxes for transportation are based on average trip generation rate of all homes and buildings,
irrespective of their age; the same rationale should follow for schools.
Council staff recommendation:
Approve the rates for Scenario #lB ijSFP payments are eliminated, orfor Scenario #lA ijtheyare not.
GO Committee recommendation
(2-1):
Councilmembers Navarro and
Katz
recommend
Scenario #2B; Councilmember Riemer recommends Scenario #2C. Note
that
the Committee made its
recommendations on October 20, prior to these revenue estimates becoming available.
GO Committee recommendation (3-0): Add the following defmitions to clarify the term "cost
of student seat."
Construction
means the planning. design. acquisition ofland, site improvements. utility relocation.
.building. and initial furniture and equipment for a capital project.
Cost ora student seat
means the construction cost ofa school divided by the programmed capacity
of the school.
3. Surcharge for larger new homes.
The current school impact tax rate schedule also includes a
surcharge for larger single-family homes: $2/square foot (sf) for every sf over 3,500sf, up to 8,500sf.
6
Therefore, the actual school impact tax for single-family units could be as much as $10,000 more than the
rates in the table above. The Planning Board did not recommend any change to the surcharge.
In 2007 - the last time the school impact tax rates were reset - the base rate for single-family detached
and attached homes were $8,000IDU and $6,000IDU, respectively.
If
the Planning Board's proposed base
rates are accepted, then they will have increased nearly three-fold for detached homes and more than three­
fold for attached homes. Inflating the surcharge commensurately - three-fold, to $6/sf - would triple the
revenue from the surcharge.
It
would increase the tax by as much as $20,000IDU, raising the maximum
surcharge from $10,000 to $30,000, although very few would pay the maximum.
OMB and Finance estimate that tripling the surcharge to $6/sf would raise about $5.94 million
more in school impact tax revenue annually, or $35.65 million more over a 6-year period. The
Superintendent of MCPS has written in support of the surcharge (©56). The County Executive opposes it,
expressing his concern about how it would increase the cost ofhousing (©57).
Council staff recommendation: Increase the surcharge for single-family homes from $2Is/ to $6lsj
Ifthe Council were to adopt base school impact tax rates calculated from the trip generation rate ofall homes
in each category (as recommended by the Planning Board), then the rate for a single-family-detached house
was proposed in the original school impact tax law (the chiefsponsor was then-Councilmember and now-Labor Secretary
Thomas Perez) because it was believed larger homes generated more students, and because the surcharge would add a measure
of progressivity to the rates.
6
This
13
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
would
decline
by nearly $8,000. If the surcharge were raised from
$2/sf
to
$6/sf,
then a single-family­
detached house with less than about 5,500sfwould still pay less
than
under current rates. Furthermore, this
larger surcharge would provide more revenue to compensate, perhaps, for not having enough of an impact
tax contribution for future land acquisitions, and in general for the lower school impact tax revenue that Bill
37-16 would generate. One more advantage ofthis increase is, because it would touch the largest homes (and
the most expensive), it would be more progressive.
GO Committee recommendation (3-0): Do not increase the S2.00/sf surcharge.
4. Charge for expansions.
Christopher Bruch testified that tear-downs and renovations are not
subject to the school impact tax. Yet, he suggests, such projects has resulted in rising enrollment in the
schools in his Kensington neighborhood. He notes
that
the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
assesses a System Development Charge for net added plumbing fixtures and usage. He proposes applying
the tax to tear-downs and renovations, and recommends that it be based on the increased number ofbedrooms.
If there is a rationale for charging a new home a larger school impact tax, then there is a similar
rationale for charging the increment to an existing home. Charging for additional bedrooms is fraught with
enforcement problems. An unscrupulous builder could easily renovate a house with additional rooms without
closets and claim them
to
be dens, rec rooms, and the like, and then return after DPS's final inspection
to
add
closets.
Instead, a ready method would be to levy the tax on additional square footage, using the same range
and rate noted above for the large-house surcharge:
$6/sf
for each sf above 3,500sf up to 8,500sf. For
example, a tear-down replacing a small home with a new 4,500sfhome would
be
charged a school impact
tax
of$6,000 ($6/sfx [4,500sf-3,500s£]). The maximum tax for a tear-down or renovation would be $30,000,
although, again, very few would pay the maximum. Because they would not pay the base rate, these payments
would be relatively small for the homeownerlbuilder. OMB and Finance project that a
$6/sf
charge would
generate $2.06 million in school impact
tax
revenue annually, or about $12.3 6 million over a 6-year period.
Council staffrecommendation: Apply the same surcharge rate and range to tear-downs and renovations as
recommendedfor new single-family houses.
GO Committee (3-0): Do not impose an impad tax on teardowns or expansions that create
space over 3,500sf.
5. Proportional payments for school land.
MCCPTA and several individuals are calling for an
additional impact
tax
that would require all builders to contribute an amount proportional to the number and
type ofdwelling units into a fund specifically for acquiring land for new schools. There are several problems
with this approach. First, while parcels for new schools are in short supply for new middle schools
and
high
schools down county, that is not the case elsewhere, so unless this were a tax were only levied in Downcounty
clusters this would create an obvious inequity. Second, the amount needed for land acquisition is very
unpredictable. How would a rate rationally be set?
GO Committee
(and Council stafJ)
recommendation (3-0): Do not establish an additional tax
strictly for land acquisition. The BOE will request funds for land for specific projects as they occur; ifpast
is prologue, the Council will approve the requested funding ifnecessary to provide the needed capacity, with
whatever resources it has available. Remember
that
the overwhelming bulk of resources for school capital
14
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
projects does not come from impact taxes, school facility payments, or State aid, but from General Obligation
bonds backed by the County property tax, income tax, energy tax, and other General Fund revenue.
6. Inflation adjustments to school impacttax rates.
Current law calls for existing rates to be updated
biennially on July 1 in odd-numbered years, reflecting the percentage change in the regional construction cost
index during the prior two calendar years. Finance publishes the amended rates in the County Register in the
spring and they become effective for impact taxes paid on or after July 1 ofodd-numbered years.
7
Therefore,
the most recent adjustment was on July 1,2015, when the rates increased across the board by 3.4%.
The Planning Board recommends setting the school impact tax rates noted above with the adoption
of Bill 37-16, and that future rate adjustments use MCPS's reported construction costs instead ofthe regional
construction cost index. The adjustment would also take into account MCPS's most recent countywide
student generation rates.
GO
Committee
(and Council stafJ)
recommendation (3-0): Continue to adjust the school impact
tax rates biennially on July
1
of each odd-numbered year, but the adjustment would be based on
updated MCPS's most recent data on construction cost/seat and student generation/type of dwelling·
unit.
7.
Should there be a cap on the biennialrate adjustment?
The Planning Board recommends capping
any increase or decrease in the rate adjustment to 5%. The BOE supports the Planning Board's
recommendation; the Superintendent notes that the cap provides a level of certainty and stability for
development projects. MCCPTA and several individuals do not agree, noting that a limit might not mean
that the tax rates would no longer track the cost/student if inflation either soars or plunges.
GO
Committee
(and Council stafJ)
recommendation (3-0): Concur with MCCPTA; do not cap
these adjustments. The rationale for setting the proposed rates is the link
to
construction cost/student and
the student generation rate. This link would be broken under the Board's proposal
if
the change rises or falls
more than 5%.
8. Creditsfor land dedications.
Similar to the transportation impact tax, a deVelopment may receive
a credit against the tax if it pays for some or all of the costs for which school impact
taxes
can
be
used: for a
new school, addition, or the portion of a modernization (revitalization/expansion) project that adds capacity
[§52-91 (d)]. Unlike for the transportation tax, there have been few, if any, credits granted during the twelve
years the tax has existed.
8
The BOE is loath
to
allow a developer to build a new school or an addition, and
there have been no developments in the past twelve years that would generate enough students
to
warrant an
addition on its own.
The Planning Board recommends amending the first part of the credit provision of §52-93 on lines
261-271 as follows:
The same process applies to changes in the transportation impact
tax
rates.
8
A decade ago there was consideration ofa development in Clarksburg potentially receiving a credit for clearing and grading
land for a
future
elementary school, but Council staff cannot confirm whether or not this occurred.
7
15
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(a)
Section 52-55 does not apply to the tax under this Article. A property owner must receive a
credit for constructing or contributing to an improvement of the type listed in Section 52­
91(d), including costs of site preparation. [A credit must not be allowed for the cost of any
land dedicated for school use, including any land on which the property owner constructs a
school] A property owner may receive' credit for land dedicated for
!!
school site, if:
ill
the density calculated for the dedication area is excluded from the density calculation
for the site; and
ill
the Montgomery County School Board agrees to the site dedication.
This is the same principle that has been followed in granting transportation impact tax credits for land
acquisition over the past three decades.
If
a developer dedicates land for a road, for example, but can place
the development that could have occurred on the dedicated land elsewhere on the site, then no credit is
granted, because the developer has lost no value. This is usually the case. However, there have been some
instances when the development's cumulative units or square footage is
limited
by a dedication, in which
case it is eligible for credit equal to the loss of development potential.
GO Committee
(and Council stajj)
recommendation (3-0): Concur with the Planning Board
regarding credits for land dedications that result in less density than otherwise allowed. There are other
proposed changes
to
§52-93 that refer back to this provision.. There is general concurrence that this is a fair
way to deal with the issue. The GO Committee would add "development" before "site" on line 270 for
clarity.
9. Transferability ofcredits.
As noted in §52-93(a), the credit provisions for the school impact tax
law do not mirror those in the
transportatio~
impact law (§52-55). For clarity and fairness, Council staff sees
no reason why the two laws should not treat credits the same way. For example, a credit to the transportation
tax can be applied by the developer or his successor in interest, but only to the property for which the credit
was originally certified by DOT. There is no such provision
in
§52-93.
GO Committee
(and Council stajj)
recommendation (3-0): Include text noting that a credit to
the school tax can be applied by the developer or his successor in interest, but only to the property for
which the credit was originally certified by MCPS.
10. Creditfor providing a better accessibility standard.
§52-58 provides credits to the school impact
tax law for providing certain levels of accessibility standards:
(e)
(1)
A property owner must receive a credit for constructing or contributing to the cost of
building a new single family residence that meets Level I Accessibility Standards, as
defined in Section 52-107(a).
(2)
The credit allowed under this Section must be as follows:
16
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(A)
If at least 5% of the single family residences built in the project meet Level I
Accessibility Standards, then the owner must receive a credit of $500 per
residence.
(B)
If at least 10% ofthe single family residences built in the project meet Level I
Accessibility Standards, then the owner must receive a credit of $1,000 per
residence.
(C)
If at least 25% ofthe single family residences built
in
the project meet Level I
Accessibility Standards, then the owner must receive a credit of $1,500 per
residence.
(D)
If at least 30% of the single family residences built in the project meet Level I
Accessibility Standards, then the owner must receive a credit of $2,000 per
residence.
(3)
Application for the credit and administration of the credit be
in
accordance with
Subsections 52-1D7(e) and
(t).
(4)
A person must not receive a property tax credit under this Section if the person
receives any public benefit points for constructing units with accessibility features
under Chapter 59.
There is no clear rationale for loading the entire credit on the school impact tax; instead, it should be
split evenly between the two impact taxes. For example, if at least 5% of the single family residences built
in the project meet Level I Accessibility Standards, then the owner should receive a credit of $250 per
residence against the school impact tax and $250 per residence against the transportation impact tax. The
total credit to the owner would remain the same, but the revenue 'hit' would be split between the two taxes
rather than being borne entirely by the school impact
tax.
GO Committee
(and Council stajJ)
recommendation (3-0): Add these provisions to §S2-47,
but
split each of the credits evenly between the two taxes.
Attachments
County Executive's September 15 recommendations
ACAO Ramona Bell-Pearson's comments for the Executive
Board of Education's recommendations
Council President Floreen's proposal on school test and tax
MCCPTA (Next Steps Reps) talking points on Floreen proposal
Results of school test for FY17
Projected results of school test for FY18
School tests among jurisdictions with APFOs
Results of school test for FYI7, adding individual school test
©1-2
©3-6
©7-10
©11
©12-13
©14
©15-17
©18
©19
17
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill 37-16
Impact tax rate resolution
Sept. 16 fiscal and economic impact statement for Bill 37-16
Rate scenarios based on student generation from all units
Rate scenarios based on student generation from units built
in the last 10 years
Revenue estimates for school impact tax scenarios, 10-24-16
Superintendent's letter favoring large-house surcharge and
charge for large-house teardowns and expansions
.
Executive's memo opposing large-house surcharge and
charge for large-house teardowns and expansions
©20-37
©38-39
©40-52
©53
©54
©55
©56
©57
f:\orlin\ty 17\ssp\16J 02Scc.doc
18
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ROCKVlLLE, MARYLA1'<1) 20850
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
September 15, 2016
TO:
Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery County Council
Isiah Legge
L _ ' - ­
County Executive
Subdivision Staging Policy
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I have asked Executive Staff to prepare comments for me related to the FY 2016­
2020 Subdivision Staging Policy that was submitted to the Montgomery County Council by the
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Planning Board. My comments
related to transportation issues are attached as represented by the memorandum signed by AI
Roshdieh, as the Director of Transportation.
I have also had the opportunity to consider the Subdivision Staging Policy
recommendations related to public schools. While I generally agree with the comments made by
the Montgomery County Board of Education, I have some concerns about those proposals made
that are related to the annual school test.
• In
particular, the addition of an individual school level test using seat deficit thresholds to
trigger the capital project planning for Montgomery County Public Schools is of concern
because, while the overall cluster test may not indicate a deficit, the individual test might
present an impediment for the Community to move forward without providing any
opportunities to address the facility needs other than delaying development. While I
understand the Community interest in addressing the needs of the individual schools, I
am concerned that giving this level of attention to specific schools within any given
cluster will only trigger project planning instead of addressing the individual school
Issues.
• I am in agreement with the proposed addition suggested by the Board of Education to
decrease the cluster level test threshold from 105% to 100% as a trigger for facility
payment.
(j)
301~251-4850
TTY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Honorable Nancy Floreen, President
September 15,2016
Page 2
• I, however, have concerns about the Board of Education proposal to decrease the cluster
level test threshold from .120% to 1'0% as a development moratorium trigger because
this would immediately stop development without offering a solution to the problem.
Standing alone, the proposal does not solve or even address the problem of the over­
extended school. While it is important to maintain a balance in our schools to ensure the
high quality of education our children have now, it is also important to meet the needs of
the Community by providing solutions that not only address the immediate impact but
also the long-term problem.
Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Subdivision
Staging Policy. I will also have Executive Staff present at the upcoming Council work sessions
to participate in Council review of the many issues related to fr..is policy.
I am confident that collaborative work between the County Council, the Planning Board,
Montgomery County Public Schools and the Board of Education will result in the development
of an effective and successful policy.
Attachment
cc: Casey Anderson, Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board
Michael A. Durso, President, Montgomery County Board of Education
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
, OFFICES OF TIlE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
;+
:1
Tunothy L. Firestine
ChiefAdminiJltrative Officer
MEMORANDUM
September 20. 2016
TO:
The Honorable Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery County Council
'Ramona
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
I
~
FROM:
Bell-pearsoni~)\I\C~ Rl\:-f?.4t,~_
':
,
:1
SUBJECT:
School Impact
Tax
and School Test issues
This memorandum is consolidated
to
give comments from the County Executive
and
Staff
related to policy
issues
and related concerns
about
the school test issues proposed
in
the
Subdivision Staging Policy submitted
to
,Council by the Planning Board as well as the school
impact
tax
issues proposed in Bill 37-16. The County Executive comments related to the
transportation impact
tax
issues proposed
in
Bill 37·16 as well as transportation
t~
issues
contained
in
the Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP)
are
covered by the
memorand~
submitted by
the Director of Transportation.
During the course of the first round ofdiscussions on September 19,2016 for the
subdivision staging policy
Mr.
Orlin
suggested that school facility payments may actually be a
fee
rather than a
tax
and therefore are not subject to use outside of the
cluster
in
which they are
collected.
If
this is an
acc~e
classification for facility payments then there would
be
a legal
bar to the School Board proposal that suggests using school facility payments countywide
regardless ofwhich
clUSter
the development occurs' for which they were paid. The Executive
supports the flexibility that countywide use would provide and supports the School Board
proposal
to
allow use ofpayments countywide if
that
action
is
not legally barred.
An
additional
~mment'WaSmade
by Mr. Orlin during the September 19,2016
work session which suggested
that
there is no need for COlmcil
to
adopt the Planning Board
proposal
that
Developers who
dedicate
land
for new schools
be
given a
tax
credit because the
"
'current law already permits such actions based on
the
conditions and circumstances of the
dedication. The Executive does not support making any changes to the existing authority so that
the
conditions and circumstances
that
are currently imposed
to
determine
if
a credit will
be
permitted
are
still
available to decision makers when dedications occur.
101
Monroe
Street '. Rockv:i1le. Maryland 20850
240-777-2500 • 24()..777·2544 ITY • 240-777·2518 FAX
www.montgomeryconntytnd.gov
240-773-35561TY
",'
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
School Impact Tax
and
Test
Issues
September 20, 2016
Page 2
School Facility Payments
i,
• Rates are now based on actual school construction data and changes to student generations
rates, resulting in significantly reduced
rates
for single-family' detached homes (decreases of
33%
to
82%), while rates increase for
all
other types of residential housing (up
to
25% for
multi-family garden units).
• Proposed SSP to implement a hybrid annual school test
that
combines cluster utilization tests
'with
individual school capacity deficit tests.
'
o
This
would maintain the
~luster
tests, and introduce individual school service area test
at the ES and MS level.
o The County Executive
does
not support implementing an individual school
test,
if it
would dis-incentivize using existing capacity within the cluster or neighboring
clusters to
address
capacity needs within an individual school service area.
If,
however, by establishing a hybrid school test that determines overcapacity
at
the
individual school level and restricts development only
in
that
school service area and
not throughout the entire cluster then a hybrid test
may
be
beneficial to the affected
school while not impeding the development progress of the remainder of the cluster.
This would not negatively impact other schools abilities
to
engage in revitalization
and other projects
that
would otherwise,be estopped ifthe individual school test
had
implications on the entire cluster.
o
Ifthis
is limited
to
consequenCes for the individual school service area, then existing
capacity in areas of the cluster outside of an overburdened individual school service
area could potentially be credited as a potential solution to the individual school issue
until a boundary change is approved.
• The Planning Board recommends that placeholder capacity for a particular cluster level or
school should only
be
counted as capacity
in
the annual school test for two years.
o Office
of
Management and Budget has indicated that implementing a hybrid school
test in conjunction with this recommendation to cap the placeholder at no more
than
a
two year duration would introduce additional moratorium pressures while restricting
the County'
8
ability to address moratorium through placeholder projects.
o The County Executive does not support restricting placeholder capacity projects to no
~ore
than
a
two
year duration. Nor does he stJpport reducing the threshold for
moratorium from 1200/0
to 110%.
He sees the
two
restrictions when imposed together
as constituting a hard stop to progress in any
affected
Community without offering
viable alternatives
to
the problem.
.
• The Board of Education recommends changing current policy so
that
School Facility
Payment revenues may
be
used
to
support any capacity project Countywide. School Facility
!'
,
'
. !.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
School
Impact Tax and Test Issues
September
20. 2016
Page 3
I'
Payment revenues are currently restricted
to
capacity projects in
the
clusters in which the fees
are collected.
o The County Executive supports this proposal from the School Board
to
use School
Facility Payment revenues to support any capacity project Countywide so long as
there is no legal bar to doing so.
.
Bill 37 16 (Development Impact Tax- Transportation and Public School
Improvements Amendments) is an amendment
to
current law which governs Development
Impact Tax for transportation and public schools which
also
serves to implement the Planning
Board's
latest
recommendations
in
the Subdivision Staging Policy.
w
!
I
II
r!
i
I
,
!
I
,
The comments below should be considered
in
conjunction with the Fiscal and .
Economic bnpact Statements (PElS)
that
were submitted by the Office ofManagenient and
Budget
and
the Deparbnent of Finance in advance ofthis memorandum. These comments raise
policy issues that the Executive wished
to
bring to the Committee's attention that should be
considered
in
conjunction with the economic
and
fiscal analysis.
School Impact Taxes
.
;
• ,Rates are now based on actual school construction ,data .and changes to
student
generations
rates. resulting
in
significantly reduced rates for single-family detached homes (almost 3(010).
slight decrease for single-family attached (2.7%) and increasers for multi-family garden and
.
high-rise (22%
and
2.9%, respectively).
o While this allows for increases to multi-family garden and high-rise homes which
should address their increased affordability for families as the units age
and
become
more affordable to rent; it does not account for the single family homes that have
populations aging out ofthe school system who then sell to younger families who are
then absorbed back
into
the school system.
• Revenues in the amounfequal to
10%
of per-student-seat costs are proposed to be restricted
for land acquisition ofnew schools
o The Executive does not support restricting revenues for land acquisition. He
completely agrees with the School Board and believes that flexibility
is
necessary to
support imniediate capacity needs. Creating such a
~triction
wouldjeopardize
revitalization projects and would hold money
in
a fund that could not be
used
unless
and
until
enough need and money exists for land acquisition. While there is a need to
provide for the acquisition of land for schools, he does not believe that a diversion of
revenues is an effective or cost beneficial means of achieving the desired outcome.
• Credit proposed for developers who dedicate land for new schools.
o The Executive does not sUpport making any changeS to the existing authority so
that
the conditions and
circ~es
that
are currently
imposed
to
determine
if
a credit
will
be
permitted
are
still
available
to
decision makers when dedications
~ur.
~
:
;
~
"
.
0'
I:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
School hnpact Tax and T-est Issues
September 20.2016
Page 4
i
I
!"<
o The County Executive also does not support granting credits to developers when a
.Master.
or Sector Plan requires
the
Developer
to
dedicate property for public facilities
such as schools as part of their development approval process.
Ifthe
Master or Sector
Plan
does not reqUire
the
Developer
to
dedicate at no cost
to
the
Co'lmty
then
assuming
the dedication
is
equivalent
to
or exceeds the amQunt that the County would
acquire
through impact taxes there may be no objection
to
issuing a credit
This
is an
issue
raised
by
Mr.
Orlin in the
:first
work session where he suggested that the current
practice
is
for the
County
to give credits toward impact taxes when a Developer
dedicates property
as
part
ofthe development approval process.
Enterprise zones are no longer exempt from paying school I-tax, with the amount of tax
phased-in over a 4-year period after the
first
year after EZ-status expires. .
o The County Executive does not offer a position on this proposal at this time because
he needs
to
collect more
data
on the consequences associated with this plan. He is
concerned that Developers may have relied on these exemptions when.they made the
detennination to build in a particular
area,
even after the Enterprise Zone status
has
expired.
He is concerned
that
a reintroduction of the school impact
tax
will create a
'negative surprise' and
will
jeopardize the momentum moving forward
in
those areas.
1:­
I
!
!
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY.
COUNTY.BOARD
OFfDUCATION
:850
Hl!ngerford
Drive ..
ltoom
123.:ltDtk:vi!le
l
Marykmd20850
thQ HUhQmbJe,
:Nan<:yf'iOiW:n.
h~idtmt
MOlltgpmetyCduntyCouncil
Stella B.
Wert;l~r
Council
bTffCe Building
100 Maryland
Av.enue
RMkvfn~~Mal'YJi:lna 2(j~"o,
an August 25,
lo.16~
th-e
MorttgometyCoUi1tyBtiarti
ti{Edueauon
(:Boattlof.Educatlon)
t.ev~d
the
M~n~g<imery
CoUnt}'
Plaqrripg
lloar(rs(p~ning B'().litdlr~rtnnelid.¢d F.'!Y2fJJ6~2I)2~
SU&iWfsil;U!
8iaikt}$lt
penaiMt0
Pllhl1C
$ChQQls~ ;flle-nQar.d;.Qf:~atiOJl waS1llSkettQprQ"id~~omttieftts
ttl
the :ounty
Co;tihc11 on
~ teCPro.~ded>pGficy
by.Septetribet
1,ltr16~1'his;
lettei" Ism
ihlbJ!ni~l,l
.that
the<
BOaf{{
ofRdueatipn
geoonmy
supports
1\hepoii'qmodi~tiQns
fl'cqmmermed
byihe.P1an.riing
BQar~,
witbfour
ex~tions. Etn;k>~e.u.~A ~pY' Qflh~ ~sPl}!tfi;m~d~pf;ed
.
by'
B~rd pfFA~i:on~·
me
" .
A",,,,,
!
Ul.~WJnUijl
",.
I"H·.
U" '..
I ' : '
~CpmlJlenl,W\.l,
bv .,.. ,
Pl'~'
, Boatd
f
'tf
~W\.;\~~
j.~
lHl'
i:'hm
Ie
PQ~lC¥
J;l;l~
":0
QW"",~;
(1) mQdi,fi:ed ,siuQent
~~ti9fi ~~$'~d
t9'
~ine
thp
stq4ent.~ld
of
~identiai
sttultttites;.
(~) adep~lpn
:Qra,
ne,w,
cumpon~nt
of tfic
lUlllual
s~~ool t<;:s~
that
aeiermjne.s,theadt.iqu4fSY
of
...
'@'SOOf
sc
JS'~dlt.~:..
..
WRetf>. ,Vela'
';""e"'f'is'
prop.....
00
.14
u,~
..'
e.yi ,
.p~n'!>t>
0)
biennial
updates of'tne
'SchonI
'facllltypa.yrnent1lnd;s(}hool.impact
~calcul'ations;;
(4:)
mQ{Jif1e~
**001
f~~mty p.~eiltsrid"s.chQPJ
imp,ctfwrfoxmu.1at\;
(5)
J1mit$
QjJ
Ole
\lS¢'QfP'l~ITQl~ca~(:itYproj~
in
tb~ annq~t$ch{>01 t~st:
(~
dedIcatiOn
of' a
poition11f
the
scn'OOl'irnpact.tax
revenue
tt>
So
land
aequisitiotl:furui
for
ihe'
·. ••....
t.ase '
""It-I).,
il
P
,#~
..
,u". .
P.
f"""t:.ool s'!e.s·
*
O}
aUowance of
a creditagainstthe
Schoof impaeHaX'ftn' land dedicated
to
$fj'Qols~and
(8,
te:JutrQducti~n
ottilescl1apltmpaet
tax
and
llchool
faoHlty
paymentm
former
EtiteJ1lrlstr
I'>; .
0
1ol1~S,
.
•.b
UI
"iff ,.
j'f:{\
t
~
ra"i.M,
~1.."'it
on
'
the
y
!eId
'
of:~'CtUres:
VI,I,
~
withIn
a
..
vr,..
."""1., .
~~.Thise:fiSttres
.
kili1',
.' .. ' ",
iiWeclfi~
time
~l-<;UHI\I
... , .. , ..
.
.nany
.1.\1VllJ!l1,
..
.. .
that.the
average' impactor-new
houSing on:
schools
over
time
is captUred,.
as
opposed
m
just
the
m,rual
h.
rh¢;¢pJ~UI4tiP.Il
()f'$c1t¢Qlfitt;i1.itt
P~Jni~t$
antt
sc~i
impaQl
tl'!Xe'S
telies'OfIstude4t
.@nerationrates~
which irtdiQ!Ue
the
o'mber
Df's{Uoonis
per
unit-of
resid~tial tW¥elopment.tb~;ptil1cyre~nded
:"y~:
Planning Board
~puIates
that these
tates. 'Debased
On
the student yield
.Qf.hous1ng,sint~
'i).\,l"".
.,,'
l.rQPllvt; TheUQatrl' ofEducatioflSqppo:rt&
th~Plann:mg,
Board®ommendatloo. .
Phone.
301-279~36V
Fax
'3Ql-219-3860 •
boe@mcpsftKterg
.wwvtmonfgGJ'nery.scnoolsmd.,Qrg
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.Anna~l ScboQLT~t
t
Thea:t1t1uai scliool
teSt
has
long
et>.mplUl'lda~¢bool
'clUstert
¢i'lrrertt
aIld'.
,plartti~eapadiiy
with.iS
pxjj~Jl;dentQllment, /4~rm1pID.g rf:~ ~h;oQl
fa,cilitr:paymentifs
requirellbr
residenthildeve1Dfll'Rent
to
proCtedin
til
a r
Th'po.I'e
Y
·,,,,~nun9.!~"'\.!
b iLe Pl
..
":t>.~\ol ~
tif'jT11·es"tJi~
thearurual
t
tlustB;
e
.
'.
t
n>........ "
~';'A...A
,)'
1,11, .•
~
riW:'n~hwt'
t'''ratl,.,
~'"
, <
school
test
GOIltinue tQlISSCSS
capa~i1)ati
theetuster
kw~I..:
and;
.addi~On,
U$ess
~ity
at
1fw
S:ehool$
(MCPS)
capitalpr6~Ot
planni:ng. Thishybtid
te~
prevent$
tn"
isstJe
qf
qhls~wtf;tyeJ
S9hoql
testS.
"~~~ldng)
individul.{f school-level'
Spaoedeftcits~
partioolarly
given.
widely
varyirig
sehoo1
,siies
rndividnalscliool
level
using
the..seai-dmcit
~holds
that
trlmu:r Mon1gt»nery'Couftty
Publk:
in
and
sqnool
_plifiS.lon
pQ$Sibiliti~~
Within
Qlu~ts.!
1t
alsQ bdflgs
ffte'~M1f~l ~I
te$
itlt~;iHgpmeflt
with
the MCPS
CMifiiJ
Impl'QVementsPtQgram:~s
imJj'ltrimef1tatloupracesses.
The
BoattiQiEducat1gn
sutmortsth~addition
o{schoof..le:velrestinglntbeannualscllQQl
test.
However;
th~
Bgatd
fifEdueation
requeststhattheCountyCgW»iiconsmerrethroIng
the
eurremellSer~revel
g
t~ijs
lrQtnHI5
petcent,to
100:
pereent
fOE,triggeringi~o.1
frurlfitYlAA$nenf: and
fi.trin
1M
pjftGentw
1
J
Op¢rceotfa,t
.fdgg¢tint
lit
development
moratorium:
InQt4(;t
toad4ress
oo~j;ii;m,inj~vetu~ilizatianle:ve
Is
afa
majority
·of
Gutsehffols,tHe
Boal'd
uf
Bducation
feels~ihatadditionaJ jit}\fe.ilu~'tlU:o~
the
faQJIitYpatrn~tf:Ul'd
pollcy~e.ch8flisms.such
as
development
lnQratonUll'1.. ate
,d(lsperawly
'AAed~
to
all9w
public
itlttllStnt¢to~
to
I{~et? P~Cf!
With
the,.oo~ty
grpwth.
lJifuutiQl
Updates
~hoqr ))t~ifity
J;laym..,utan.d
School
l~pacl
'tax
S~l
facility paymell1S
1,t'Qd
impacf
t;l~ell,
:sMula. DOtltiuuetG
be
updftted
U$it~g
the
latest
.sfUdfml
generation
l'tlteaand
scboolconstruonpn
CilS,til~~teeomfil~nde4
bythePltlnning
,Bdard..
'the:&ard
of
EdU(lation
supports. the
pfanlii.il~
Board
reoommettda.tItinfot
bieftiliaiup~
of SMoot faciIifo!
,payment and
school
i1n~Clta.x
oaleulations
wiih,a
limlt,\on the
·changes·fn;paYirWnts
an:d.taxes. to
five
·percenl'
.
"
Modified
SdWi11
FaeiUty
Pay~nt
3lld,$eJi901Impll¢t
Ta;tF()nil~lae
SChool
fulpa~Ha~:curtentty
are
ealwWedbyapplyi"QglimultipJier
ofil~9
(90
~rtt}to
p¢r-seat
SchoOl
constrUction
oo~ts,
'fl1:ePQlr¢y
~Ca,n1men'ded
by
tile
Piam:t
in
g:1:JQarU
m9di~l;!$thj~ f(;;rm~laby
t'tni'l\dVirrg
t~emultiPlieti
so'ihatihe
tax repJ:6$entB:
tll~JuU
oostQfcPliSttucnon
pfa
~~t ~,eiat~
with
a
new reSi4eijtia1\ltiit.,TI16
Boo1'd:;ofBdugtIDr! SUPtmris the
Pl@ooingBoatd
rooommendatioo,
per-seat
sobm:d
~Qt1s@ctiQ1;)y~ ·~.ptj1fey r¢~~,bjl
the 'Planning: Board
modifies
thiS
f.Qrmul~
W'tbat
the
multiplier
is!
OS
(SO~ttt).Thi$: ensUi'~tfuitQeVelQPm~t ~n~ ~~y
nt)
rtlpte
than
lSQ
P\1t~nt
of
th¢
ger';s,¢.!1t
T!(ISf;,
bf~Q1C1)fl$f;111iit1On
where
:sChool
Facilities
have.
been
,de'etnM inadequate {JOO perctmlof
per.,.tCQst$
ioirnpapt
~
plus;?Q
~t
of
~':~
00StS
In
School
~iUtypa;ymetlts,
are
currently
caIeula~
by
appiymga
ttHlltipiie.t
(If
Q~ (Wpe~) ~the
facility
Ptlyments. instead
ofthellUtrentlx
required
9Ope~ht()ff!er,.seat
cOsts
In
f.rnpaGttax:¢~
plw;,6Q
perCent
Qf
~-seat
.Q(iSts
rn
f'acitltypsynreilts},The.Bootd
,of Educat1'Onsupports
the
.PlanningBoard,
recommendation.
.
Placeholder 'C3pital
Projeets
,Pla~hoiq¢rc~!iitalprojedsI:~~ Ctap~n~proYem~Piv~
fundtngfor
~ecl ~l cap~ity
projects
ta
prevent a, cluster falling Into:
$'
~dtitlti.x~l~pm~·
4lqr!lfaPUJ;t1"
·th¢poli~·
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
teCQmmended by the
Plann1ngBpardteWgni~sjhebetuWt(!f
piru::¢btllclet }?toj«.ts
bQtrestdets
th¢lr
.incl(lsi~n
ittfh¢:
AAl'l.I.I~~Qho(ij ~tp.t;WQ ~n~qtive)'~a,tS4fth~
test.
~ f,(~:te$th~tlf
a
pl~1101det:
project: is
notreptac~
with a capital
prQjeot in
MCPB;,six~yeatCapita1Improvement$'P'rD&tam
for two
'cotts.ec
Q.,
1 , ;
lb'e
.'n:u,,1
S
~ch~l
teb+
r.ciect$
"
iiddressedea .
c{ht
'iWL
The:
~ard
dt
tlve ears,
,
.au4.\.
,~ ,~, .~l
'
thb
,}1&, '" '. ,
,.pa, ")'
A":fieft
_..I.A!
,
_
'Educratroosu~
the:P1arming
Boardre~endation~
.
:Dedi~tioIiQf
".
Portio"
;QfS~hot)I
Purc~
bnpaet
Tax
.Revenue to
'Ii
Land AcA:JuiSifio,n
Fund:
fc,lf'
the
of
SclioolSite$
The PI
an
nin
g
.Board has
reo"''';'''~
'ded.that,lO:
pe, .'
"'~ QP~." ~ ,n~ ~.
d~cate{lfo:a
'.
"toeiltoft<Anl
1m
"ct
taxvet'el:...
. "," ," " .
.,
.
,
U-qlLl:Len.. .
lartd
I,lcql,JtsitiQ,n
f\md
ffit
the
pllreh~e
atscbnol
sites.
The80ml of
Edueati20
strongiy.opposes,this
dedicatiQIl ,reguirementWhile.,tne
demi:Cfiti~ll Ofitl1Pllctta"'4rtwerttl~ $pectl1~Uy
for
the
,ptln;1mse
of
lana,
fur S£hooI si.tes
.is:
purporttmtf1
prGvid.~
MCrS
with
"'~dij:iQll~t
llptioll$ fo(
funaipgpotell:(:j:a,i
purchase'S.,~
it
weuJd dive!tfundS
ftomtho3e'tleeded
capacityptcje.cmthat
do
nntrequltethe iroquJsitiori
'Of
lisch' ,} sir
e. a
It
ow
fj"ds
,w
.,tt
lu~
utllili
C
lU
':'f',
vt}
WP
rnA
to
'8
Vi
~,,:
.
~
ift'e
,~nt,-"
1'."...........
',;4'.c'A.,.,
'and'
f~l'"
n.,...
7
r'<"fri,'kir.
.I~
'.
.
1<'\(11'
00
un
+.....
....
~.of
""'~"'7'
PJ:oj:ect~ne
that'C'an,tlof move
forwatd
without
the
putehase
of
a
school
slie.,A;g MC!iS
con'tinues
to
exIWd.e~ ut1p~dent¢d
$t\ident
~ntdllnient
:gtQWtl\;,
it
is
hnp~iiYe
·that.
IOOpetcettt
oftheimpapt
ta~
revenue is:
inve.stecf
:~.
addressingtbe
DO,'Wtll'
n~.'1;'he:
Boam
()f
Bclitecaiio(l;
slJpt>(>Jit$:a,
silhool
impaettwr.
that
re~l:flts
the
~11 ~ofasedt
associated
wit4
a,
DPW
tesidenuaI
nnit;
bilt
\Vithout
~tlstrtUnts
.on
tb:~ @plfo~tj~ti
'Or
tllat
tCV¢llUC
~~pa¢ltyptoj~ct.%
't].1e.·Mcps
:Qam~al
Imp(OYe{l1tmtS
Prognunpriori&es
proj~
based
on
~ity
needs
regatdlesS
ofWhethertlle
potential
purcli$~
Qf
g
'schQOl
Sittis,:t:equiteClThe Board
orEducBt1jJn~ti.em
develqpjngj
A
ftmdingsow;ce
for sellool site,
itcqur:$itiQ!1 (slmpbrtartt,
but
tbrQ:u,gh~n(!~t'ty~ ~irn.p~
ta;x or -exceeding
the
roo
~reent l~v¢LfQr
't/1e.schoQlltripacttax;
,
,
q
.
Credit AgainsttheScnool Jmpad TaxfDr
Land .Dedicated
to
~hoo15
;(;\litent polie,
pro:vi:d~~
a.
credit
agttlnst
th.es¢h~Ql
'mpact
'tBxfMCOliS1:~~i9ti Qf'B~Qgltaeilitie:$,#
The,policy teoprriruentledby
the
Planning :B.oard ui1QW$ror'a.n
a4didonaI ,cte£1lt
M~instt1ie.s,c.ht101
impact faX fot land dedi¢ate<l tQ.$¢hools. The Board of:WucatiM 1;uIlPDrtsthis· strpulati<m,;,u
$
:approprfate
~ndtimeJy
dedication ef
lan~
for
a
school
site
can:beas
usef'ufas
school impact
taXes in
ptuvidlfig.schooJ
f.cilities,
'
lJ.eintrQdp.cdpllof'd.I~
$.ellQollmJlflcttaxand :Scliool. '»cility
Pa~~,!n
F.r»fl'Uet Enterprise
U!neg,
Additional Change
Tite Hoard
Qr
Education
pl'op:~
one
addititwal
tbangc:not
lidrlress~
t?y
·th~Ptamrlll§
BOln'd.
CurrenfpolicyrequiflCS
rtW'enue collected
Ii;®;!
sChMI
f~jitl'pa'(l'1~t1;w
be used
on
capiW
projects
wlthi!l'tb~
¢I\($tel'
which
tbeyare collected.
Altbo.ugh,thJ;poIiey
retiQnmjeD:dedby thePlatmintBP,am
m
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4
does not
adq~S this.OO4straint~n rev~l¢,.:thcBoord ~fEd;Qcation
p,roposes
l:fu.tttheupdated
policy
,al1~w
for facility
pa,yme11t
te.YetlU~ tbb~al'pli~.d
tOP
'any
Mt;;P.s:capitai
prajeetthat-addresses- capacity.
This policy revision
would better
enable
MCP.Bt<xaddressits
highestptlOi'ity capacity
i'leeds~erever
thyyar~
!hereby
fa~Hitati.ng
:t1m¢ly
impL~hlerttlrtkfrt
;Qf
tl'fl>
$~y(!ar
Cap.ita.l
f~Qv$m~$
Prqgram.
'This·approach
win
ensure
that Qv-ctutilized
schools:
aeroSlf
the.
<»lJilty.
aI'e'ie.uev~:in
th¢
or4.et
m
w.hich
they
fta;v.e
beenp116r1ti~(L
MOpS has
beenan4
C9mtrilJe~
to
explore:
~iblrrtf¢s
:o!'ldlevUrttug
the
dvel"Ct9wded
s<t.h:oJ:)tsbyeK.mtrtb;IgtJ1e.@Jacent~lusterS.
Twrecentexamples
iruihlr;te,pmvid~gre1ieI
to
Clatksbu~
and
Northwest
Irlgbscltaols
ibybailding
Jatger.
~t1at
Setl®d
V~.uey
High
Seft~ol
as
it
pm1
Qr~ r¢vtta:l~exp~~1J PJ,:tJj:ccl;~' ~1I ~
p4lnl1ing;f"rihe
CQI.
Zaaok.Magruderand
Thomas S.WootWn
clusters
'te
'$l1evJa~
Qwrutillz3tiOnm
the;
G&itb~r$blttg
Chlater,
B{)~
the
rounQtable
lfi$¢U~i9n
in
th~Wtll~t JQIUlS(~ILCluster ~Ild
strategies
being considered,to
provide
reli¢f
fet
hlgh
schools
itt
th~
Downoourtty
Consortium
will
reqmte a
broad
Qo~ntywMe perspec~jV:e.
Forthls .
reason,
the
BoW
QfBthl,cati.on
proposes
allowance
-offacUity
:paW.ent revenue
to'be Awlied
to·~any
.MCP8capital
Pl~Qjecttha:t adttl~s~
capacity.
. .
..
.
1
~\ln
eortfidenttlJat
MOPS~
the·
PJanningll(llarr:t:the;
cmunty
exeeutive~
and·
the
COWity
C~f
wiil
eontj(iu~
toworlc
toge.thef
tn,
enSUre·
that
'pubfl¢'
l'n~~tute;
"partioruadywt
,$diQ'Ols>.. adeqqatdy
.serv.~sour
growing
oomltnmity~
TI:te
BO.ard
of
Educ.atkm
app~.j~
the
Plannmg<BQatd'·s·etfhrts.
~
adq~s
1l1e
t>Ghoil~teni"'s
:enroUment
growth,
challenges:
t'brpugkia
~~~
pl!'2(JJ6.--1.Q2(J
Subdivision
·Staging PMiey.
Tht
aQ~
(ft
Eap.catf~a. t~Qi)gnjzYs
tbe$e.
potential
:onanges
@quire
ihoughtfidronsiderauon
of
how
to
halance,
pubJi~.infra-struQttUie
ne.eds
ami'
the.CQQtltY;:$'~ootrii¢
$ro:wth.
F.orttiis
f~the
BQard
of'
Ed~~tOJ1 ~,1lerally
$,'9P1lorts't;he
ppli~y modif.~tibns
:recomm~fIded
by
'the Planning J3oard, 'W11h
thl;l
noted' :exceptions, White
the
PlarintngBoan.i
.,-et!(:)tpmentiations"
~ well,~
out
suggested
CO,l1"ttnents,
~re:lliteriipts
.to
im~e th~c(jtlnty"s
$uo4ivisioh
sWing,
pqnpy~ th~
BO)li'd
or$du~~)Jt b~l~ves m'()~
far.-reathing
me:a&u:res
wiHbe
'neeqedto
l'ld4re,~
the
eurrentandfuture
needs.
oHMs
c~:unty'.
'l'1WBQafd
ufBdu*t>p
looks f'otw&td
to
working
wftbtheCbUtit¥'CPJll}Cili~~ w~I1 ~'1be
PlafIDiJJg
aoard~.an(tcounty ~tiVe~;Qn,thiS vi~t
policJI: . . , '
.
Miohael
A.
DurSQ·
Pl'esidf:ot
MAD':AMZ.:bJs
Enclosure.
(;oPYto:
Mernb¢rSofme Mpl1tgOmro C:QUpty
~il
,Members,oftbeB.oardofEducation
Dr.
SmIth
Dr. Navatr\}
Dr. Statham
Dr. Jono'Spn
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
NANCY FLOREEN
COUNCIL
PRESlDENT
MEMORANDUM
October 5. 2016
To:
From:
councilmemb~
Nancy
Floreeh!~uncil
President
Subdivision Staging Policy provisions for School Facilities Payment
Subject:
As
we proceed through the Subdivison Staging Policy, I
ask.
for your support for an approach that would
continue this year's Council theme: "Education First."
At our PHED committee meeting on September 26 we learned that, over the past six years, a bit less than $5
million
has
been collected in School Facility Payments under the SSP (required when school clusters exceed the
105% threshold of cluster school capacity). The number has ranged from around $6,000 one year, to $2 million
another year, with varied amounts throughout. ' This year, the Planning Board proposes a somewhat more
complex and granular approach to measuring capacity at all school levels. While I applaud the Board's good
intentions, I would cut to the chase and focus our attention on generating more money for school capacity
needs, and minimize the complexity of the effort.
To that end, I propose that we increase the school impact
tax
by ten percent, to address our increasing capacity
needs across the county, and eliminate the School Facilities Payment. Ifthis approach had been in effect
previously, I am advised that we would have raised around $16 million in the past six years, or about $11
million more than we actually received.
I would retain the existing provisions for moratorium, as well as the current approach with respect to
placeholder capacity, and the cluster measures that we've employed in the past. The increased impact tax
revenue will more than supplant current School Facility Payments and will provide support for addressing our
capacity needs below the 120% threshold.
Thanks for your attention
to
this issue. I'll be happy
to
answer any questions you may have.
cc: Tim Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer
Casey Anderson, Chair Montgomery County Planning Board
Gwen Wright, Planning Director
Glenn Orlin, Deputy Staff Director
Dr. Jack Smith, Superintendent MCPS
Bob Drummer, Council Staff Attomey
Paul Bessel, President MCCPTA
Melissa McKenna, VP Programs and elP Chair MCCPTA
100
MARYLAND
AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR. ROCKVILLE,
MARYL....
ND 20850
240n77-7959 • FAX 240n77·7989 •
COUNCILMEMSER,FLOREEN@MONTGOMERYCOUNTYMO.GOV
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Talking Points - Next Steps Reps Subcommittee of the MCCPTA
President Floreen's School Test
Follow~up
Proposal for the Subdivision Staging Policy
PHED Committee Meeting - October 10, 2016
A.
Appreciation:
We appreciate very much President Floreen's efforts to address school
funding needs through the SSP.
B.
Funding Needs:
In the last 3 years, the average amount collected through school impact
taxes was about $35,500,000. Based on that, 10 percent of the construction cost of a seat
(CCOS)
1
is, on average, about $4,000,000.
So, the Floreen proposal would adopt the Planning Board's proposal to add 10 percent of
the CCOS and add another 10 percent of the CCOS adding about $8,000,000. She
would eliminate school facility payments, which in a good year are about $2,000,000.
End result about $6,000,000 more per year.
Our subcommittee of MCCPTA has asked for 100 percent ofthe CCOS for school
construction, an additional 10 percent of the CCOS for land acquisition (which the Board
of Education did not oppose if 100 percent of the CCOS goes to school construction), and
school facility payments that, in a good year, would
be
about 6 percent of the CCOS. End
result - $8 - 9,000,000 more per year.
We therefore ask for at least that amount in this proposal- at least 120 percent of the
CCOS. In a time of scarce dollars for school construction, we think it fair that the PHED
Committee require that amount from developers - especially since the Floreen proposal
may include dropping some of our priorities, and the Planning Board's proposals, such
as
the limit on placeholders.
Otherwise, the additional money needed for school construction and school land is paid
for by the taxpayers - and many taxpayers already funded an increase in the CIP budget
last year through recordation tax increases.
C.
Existing School
Test: President Floreen's proposal would eliminate one part of the
school test. We believe it maintains the part of the school test that requires a moratorium
when a cluster level is at 120 percent of capacity.
Note that this is 1/9 of the $35,500,000, because the current impact tax is collected at 90 percent of the
construction cost of a seat.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
That moratorium part of the school test must remain. As the Planning Department says,
"The Subdivision Staging Policy seeks to ensure that Montgomery County's
infrastructure, particularly schools....keeps pace with new development". The
moratorium part ofthe school test provides that essential link between development and
school facilities.
D. Individual School Test:
Similarly, we believe President Floreen's proposal does not
determine the fate of the Planning Board's proposal for an individual school test tied to
moratorium.
We continue to request a hybrid school test tied to a moratorium. Many individual
schools have reached dramatic levels of overcrowding. The test should highlight the
needs of these individual schools as well as overcrowded cluster levels.
While some of these schools (Barnsley at 178 percent of capacity, etc.) now have projects
in the CIP there were many years when they were well over 120 percent of capacity,
and the cluster-level school test did not help them. 6 schools are described in the packet
as being affected by this test - but in other years there would be more.
Please note that the Board does not request funding for all schools that need additional
capacity. The last CIP requested about 12,000 seats, when about 16,000 will be needed
within this timeframe.
E. Summary:
So, the Next Steps Reps Subcommittee of the
MCCPTA
can support-­
(1) raising the School Impact Tax to at least 120 percent of the cost of a seat, to cover
school construction costs, school site acquisition costs, and other impacts of
development; and
(2) as a result of that increase­
(A) eliminating the School Facility Payment; and
(B) establishing an individual school test with respect to schools over 120 percent of
capacity, as described by the Planning Board; and
(C) accepting the current County policies on placeholders.
Thank you for your consideration, and let us know if we can provide additional
information.
Liz King, Coordinator, Next Steps Reps Subcommittee of the MCCPTA
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Staging Policy
Results of School Test for FY
20,17
Reflects CoumyCounciI Adopted
fY
2017 capital Budget and the FY 2017-2022 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Middle
Oust«s over 105% utilization
&-year test
Effective July 1,2016
School facility
payment required in
inadequate clusters
to
~e<t
Einstein
(101-4%)
Gaill1ersburg
(112.4%)
Northwood (116.0%)
Quince On:hard (1132%)
Gaithersburg (107.5%)
Rockville (116.2%)
Wheaton (110.7%)
Test
year
2021-22
Blair
(116.3%}
Chun:hill (1 13.5%)
Einstein (116.9%)
Gaithen!bufg
(107.6%)
Waller
Johnson
(113.9"4}
Kennedy
(1125%)
Richard Molltgomery (1122%)
Northwood (114.8%)
Paint
Branch
(111.0%)
Quince
Ormard (110.4%)
(:::::\
:
,-c.
ClU5tern om
120%
utilizatign
Moratorium required in clusters
!hat
are inadequate.
5-yeartest
Effective July
1, 2016
Test
year
2021-22
Twenty
elementary school classrooms
in
1Ile Northwest.
Cluster
Six high school dassrooms
In
the EinStein ClUster.
Eight
high
school
dassrooms
In
the
Walter Johnson Cluslser.
Ten high school
dassrooms
in
the
NOOhwood
Cluster.
i
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
feO:rEC
r6
]>
Facility Payment at
HS
Level, 105% Threshold
Kennedy
Gaithersburg
Richard Montgomery
Blake
Paint Branch
Poolesville
Quince Orchard
Rockville
BCC
Churchill
Blake
Poolesville
Rockville
Watkins Mill
117% Affected by supplement
114%
118%
106%
110%
105%
115%
107%
103%
103%
106%
105%
107%
104%
t.B"UL1S
~
:rU'-1
'2ot,
HS Level Cluster Tests
Moratorium at
HS
level, 120% Threshold
Blair
Einstein
Northwood
Walter Johnson
123%
129%
124%
120%
133% Relieved by Seneca Valley
120% Relieved by Seneca Valley
ClarkslH.:IFg
Narth'....est
Facility Payment at
HS
level, 100% Threshold
Moratorium at
HS
Level, 110% Threshold
Blair
Einstein
Northwood
Kennedy
Gaithersburg
Walter Johnson
Richard Montgomery
Paint Branch
Quince Orchard
ClarkslHJrg
Northwest
123%
129%
124%
117%
114%
120%
118%
110%
115%
133% Relieved by Seneca Valley
120% Relieved by Seneca Valley
u,')
;'
"
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
f
f.J)J€CTGi)
Facility Payment at the ES Level, 105% Threshold
109%
Quince Orchard
Blake
Clarksburg
Einstein
Walter Johnson
Springbrook
Facility Payment at the ES Level, 100% Threshold
103%
106%
104%
102%
103%
109%
101%
101%
t!..eS-Uf-TJ,
.Ju
uy
21:>/7
ES Level Cluster Tests
Moratorium at the ES Level, 120% Threshold
.Qar"'~
137% Relieved by new school 19-20 SY
Moratorium at the ES Level, 110% Threshold
116%
115%
Northwood
Gaithersburg
Quince Orchard
Seneca Valley
Watkins Mill
MS Level Cluster Tests
Facility Payment at the MS Level, 10S% Threshold
108%
Kennedy
Wheaton
106%
Gaithersburg
106%
Rockville
117%
Kennedy
Wheaton
Gaithersburg
Springbrook
Watkins Mill
Facility Payment at the MS Level, 100% Threshold
108%
106%
106%
104%
102%
Rockville
Moratorium at the MS Level, 120% Threshold
Moratorium at the MS Level, 110% Threshold
117%
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
f
Lo:fEcTEl>
i£>ULrS",
'J"vLy
-a:u.'7
Elementary Schools in Moratorium, 110 Seat Deficit
School
Deficit
CIP Notes
Beal+
233
Relieved by new school
18-19
SY
Burnt
Mills
174
283
Relieved by DuFief
22-23
SY
Raehel Carsen
201
Relieved by new school
19-20
SY
Cesar GrEwe
269
Relieved by new school
19-20
SY
Clarks91:lrg
116
NW Placeholder project
Clellller Mill
153
Relieved by new school
18-19
SY
Cellege Garsens
121
Farmland
206
Relieved by others
20-21
SY
Ferest Knells
Garrett Park
118
Highland View
135
Kemp
Mill
113
165
lake Seneca
135 NW Placeholder project
Renals MeNair
114
Relieved by new school
18-19
SY
Ritehie
Park
Reiling Terraee
133
Relieved by others
22-23
$V
290
Rosemont
139
South lake
193
Strawberry Knoll
200
Summit Hall
549
Relieved by new school
19-20
SY
'Nilsen l,Virns
Middle Schools in Moratorium, 180 Seat Deficit
184
Neelsville
197
Parkland
729 Affected by supplement-OK
Westlans
School
by
School Test
&
HS Level Cluster Test
Elementary Schools in Facility Payment, 92 Seat Deficit
School
Deficit
ClP Notes
Ashburton
98
Capacity affected by supplement
Captain James Daly
93
Greencastle
93
JoAnn leleck
106
.....l
~f1
Middle Schools in Facility Payment, 150 Seat Deficit
Earle B. Wood
161
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
School Tests Among Jurisdictions with APFOs
Test Thresholds
I
I
I
Jurisdiction
Moratorium Threshold
I
LESS THAN 100% UTlLlZATlON
(ES): 90% Utilization @ State-Rated Capacity
Washington County
(HS): 100% Utilization @ State-Rated Capacity
100% UTILIZATION
100% Utilization @ State-Rated Capacity
• Anne Arundel County
100% Utilization @State-Rated Capacity
~harles
County
100% Utilization @ BOE Program Capacity
; Calvert County
100% Utilization @ BOE Program Capacity
Caroline~,~ounty
100% Utilization @ State-Rated Capacity
Queen Anne's County
110% UTILIZATION
110% Utilization @ State-Rated Capacity
Harford County
(ES): 107% Utilization @ State-Rated Capacity
"
(MS): 109% Utilization @ State-Rated Capacity
St. Mary's County
(HS): 116% Utilization
@
State-Rated Capacity
115% UTlLlZATION
115% Utilization
@
State-Rated Capacity
Howard County
Baltimore County
115% Utilization
120% UTlLlZA TlON
120% Utilization
@
BOE Program Capacity
• Montgomery County
I Prince George's County 120% Utilization
@
BOE Program Capacity
120% Utilization
@
State-Rated Capacity
i
Carroll County
Frederick County
120% Utilization
@
State-Rated Capacity
Jurisdiction
School
Pa~ment
Threshold
I
I
100% UTlLlZATlON
Frederick County
Howard Countyl
105% UTILIZATION
Montgomery County
Prince George's County
110% UTILIZATION
Carroll tountf
100% Utilization
@
State-Rated Capacity
100% Utilization
@
State-Rated Capacity
105% Utilization
@
BOE Program Capacity
105% Utilization @ BOE Program Capacity
110% Utilization
@
State-Rated Capacity
I
Summary: The threshold for moratorium ranges from 100% utilization to 120%. Some districts that have a higher
moratorium threshold have an initial threshold at which school payments are required. However, most districts do not
collect school payments based onadequacy tests. Some limit development prior to moratorium (Carroll/Howard Co.).
This is not an initial test threshold for school payment, but rather a threshold for building limits - the planning dept. will only allow
up to 300 new units in one year in'an elementary school district if the school "region" exceeds 100% capacity, There are no school
payments for development based on school overutilization in Howard County.
2
This is not an initial test threshold for school payment, but rather a threshold for permit restrictions - development might receive
;;;;,
conditional approval.
@r
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Table 2. FY2017 Annual School Test Results Including Individual School Threshold Tests
~
~
-
Inadequate Outcomes by Level
Middle
• Gaithersburg Cluster
(107.5%)
(116.3%)
-
~
Action
School
Facility
Payment
Elementary
• Einstein Cluster
(107.4%
utilization)
• Gaithersburg Cluster
(112.4%)
High
• Blair Cluster
• Churchill Cluster
(113.5%)
• Rockville Cluster
(116.2%)
• Northwood Cluster
.(116.0%)
• Wheaton Cluster
(110.7%)
• Einstein Cluster
(116.9%)
• Quince Orchard Cluster
(113.2%)
• Gaithersburg Cluster
(107.6%)
• Garrett Park ES
(-128 seats, 117.0% utilization)
in the Walter Johnson Cluster
• Meadow Hall ES
(-106, 130.0%)
in the Rockville Cluster
• Walter Johnson Cluster
(113.9%)
• Kennedy Cluster
(112.5%)
• Richard Montgomery
Cluster
(112.2%)
• Northwood Cluster
(114.8%)
• Paint Branch Cluster
(111.0%)
I
• Quince Orchard Cluster
(110.4%)
Moratorium
~
~
~
• Highland View ES
(-1
137.6%)
in the Northwood Cluster
• lake Seneca ES
(-113,127.2%)
in the Seneca Valley Cluster
• Thurgood Marshall ES
(-118,122.1%)
in the Quince Orchard Cluster
• Rosemont ES
{-2S0, 140.8%)
in the Gaithersburg Cluster
• Strawberry Knoll ES
(-144,129.9%)
in the Gaithersburg Cluster
• Summit Hall ES
(-191,141.0%)
in the Gaithersburg Cluster
~
~
~
;,
f;
"
tI
~
;;
-
iii
till
till
i
~.
~.
"'
,
"
@
104
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Effective: - - - - - - - - ­
Sunset
Date:
.....iNo~ne~_:__:::__--_
Ch. _ _,
Laws
of Mont
Co. _ __
Bill No.
37-16
Concerning: Taxation - Development
Impact Tax - TransDOrtation and
Public
School
Improvements -'
Amendments
Revised: August 15. 2016 Draft No. _2_
Introduced:
August 2. 2016
Expires:
February 2. 2018
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _
__
Executive:
~
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President at the request of
the
Planning Board
AN ACT to:
(I)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
modify the method of calculating the transportation
and
public school impact
tax;
create new transportation
tax
districts associated with policy
area
categories;
adjust the transportation impact
tax
for residential
uses
based
on Non-Auto Driver
Mode Share
associated
with each
tax
district;
adjust the transportation impact
tax
for non-residential uses based on Vehicle Miles
ofTravel associated with each
tax
district;
authorize an
adjustment
to
the transportation impact
tax
for providing
parking
below
the
minimum
required
under Chapter 59;
modify the public school impact
tax
payable for property located in
a
former
enterprise zone; and
generally amend
County
law concerning the transportation
and
public school impact
tax.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 52. Taxation
Sections 52-47, 52-49,52-53,52-55,52-57,52-58,52-59,52-89,52-90,52-91, 52-93,
and
52-94
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double
boldface
bracketsD
*
*
*
Heading or defined
term.
Addedto existinglaw
by
originol bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added
by
amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or
the
bill by
amendment.
Existing law unojJected
by
bill
The County Councilfor Montgomery County, Maryland appraves thefollowing Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BIll. No. 37-16
1
Sec. 1. Sections 52-47,52-49,52-53,52-55,52-57,52-58,52-59,52-89,52­
90, 52-91, 52-93, and 52-94 are amended as foDows:
52-47. Definitions.
2
3
4
In
this Article the following terms have the following meanings:
Additional capacity
means a new road, widening an existing road, adding an
additional lane or turn lane to an existing road, or another transportation
improvement that:
(1)
5
6
7
8
increases the maximum theoretical volume of traffic that a road or
intersection
can
accommodate.! or implements or improves transit.
pedestrian and bike facilities
.Qr
access to non-auto modes oftravel; and
9
10
11
12
(2)
is classified as a minor arterial, arterial, parkway, major highway,
controlled major highway, or freeway in the COlmty's Master Plan of
Highways, or
is
similarly classified by a municipality. The Director of
Transportation may find
that
a specified business district street or
industrial street also provides additional capacity as defmed in this
provision.
13
14
15
16
17
Additional capacity
is sometimes referred to as added
"highway capacity,"
"transJJO.rtation capacity,"
or
"intersection capacity".
18
19
*
(a)
*
*
20
21
52-49. Imposition and applicability of development impact taxes.
A development impact
tax
must be imposed before a building permit is
issued for development in the County.
22
23
(b)
An
applicant for a building permit must pay a development impact
tax
in
the amount and manner provided in this Article, unless a credit
in
the full
amount of the applicable
tax
applies under Section 52-55 or an appeal
bond is posted under Section 52-56.
The following impact
tax
districts are established:
24
25
26
27
(c)
~
/--­
f;\la'Mb11s\1637 inpact
tax •
amendments ssp'bl1l2.doc:x
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 37-16
28
29
30
31
(1-)
[Metro Station:
Friendship Heights, Bethesda CBD, Grosvenor,
White Flint,
Twinbroo~
Rockville Town Center, Shady Grove
Metro, Silver Spring CBD, Wheaton CBD, and Glenmont Metro
station policy areas, as defined in the most recent Subdivision
Staging policy, except as modified by paragraph (3) for the White
Flint policy area;
(2)
Clarksburg:
Clarksburg policy
area,
as defmed in the most recent
32
33
34
35
36
Subdivision Staging Policy;
(3)]
White Flint:
The part ofthe White Flint Metro Station Policy Area
37
38
included
in
the White Flint Special Taxing District in Section 68C­
2; [and]
39
40
ill
Red Poliq Areas:
Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights, Grosvenor,
Glenmont, Rockville Town Center. Shady Grove Metro Station,
Silver Spring CBD, Twinbrook, and Wheaton CBD Metro Station
Policy Areas;
41
42
43
44
ill
Orange PoliqyAreas:
Bethesda/Cheyy Chase, Chevy Chase Lake,
Clarksburg, Derwood, Gaithersburg City, Gennantown Town
Center, Kensington/Wheaton, Long Branch, North Bethesda, R &
D Village, Rockville City. Silver Spring!fakoma
Park,
45
46
47
48
TakomaILangley, and White
Oak
Policy Areas;
(4)
Yellow Policy Areas:
Aspen Hill, Cloverly, Fairland/Colesville,
Gennantown
East,
Gennantown
West,
Montgomery
Village/Airpark, North Potomac, Olney, and Potomac Policy
Areas; and
49
50
51
52
53
ill
GreenPolicvAreas:
Damascus, Rural East,
and
Rural West Policy
Areas.
t\law'lbills\1837 impact
tax·
amenClmenlS
ssp'lbil 2.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
37-16
54
55
[(4)
(d)
General:
Any part of the County, including any municipality, not
located in an area listed in paragraphs
(1)-
(3).]
56
57
58
Reserved.
*
*
(h)
*
*
52-53. Restrictions on use and accounting ofdevelopment impact tax fQnds.
59
60
*
*
Development impact
tax
funds collected from the [Clarksburg impact
tax
district] Red Policy
Areas
must be
used
for impact transportation
improvements located in or that directly benefit [the Clarksburg1 those
policy [area1 areas.
61
62
63
64
52-55.
Credits.
65
66
67
*
(d)
* .*
Any credit for building or contributing to an impact transportation
improvement does not apply to any development that [is] has been
previously approved under the Alternative Review Procedure for Metro
Station Policy
Areas
in the County Subdivision Staging Policy.
68
69
70
71
72
73
*
52-57. Tax rates.
(a)
*
*
The
tax
rates for each impact
tax
district, except as provided
in
subsection
(b)
are:[
74
I
Tax per Dwelling Unit or per SqUilre Foot
ofGross Floor Area (GFA)
Building Type
Metro
Station
Clarksburg General
:
I
f:\law\b11s\1637 impact
tax -
amendments
ssp\bl12.docc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 37-16
$2,750
Single-family
detached
residential (per
dwelling unit)
$2,250
Single-family
attached
residential (per
!
dwelling unit)
Multifamily
$1,750
residential
(except high-rise)
I
(per dwelling
I
unit) .
High-rise
$1,250
residential (per
: dwelling unit)
Multifamily­
$500
senior residential
(per dwelling
1
unit)
$2.50
!
Office (per
sq.
ft.
/GFA)
I
Industrial (per
sq.
$1.25
ft.
GFA)
$0
Bioscience
facility (per
sq.
ft.
GFA)
Retail (per sq.
ft.
$2.25
GFA)
Place ofworShip
$0.15
(Qer sq.
ft.
GFA)
Private
$0.20
elementary 3ll:d·
secondary school
(per
sq.
ft.
GFA)
$0
Hospital
(per
sq.
ft.
GFA)
$0.20
Cultural
I
institution
I
$8,250
$5,500
$6,750
$4,500
$5,250
$3,500
I
$3,750
$2,500
$1,500
$1,000
$6
$3
$0
$5
I
$2.50
I
$0
I
I
$5.40
I
$4.50
$0.30
$0.40
1
I
$0.35
$0.50
$0
I
$0
$0.40
$0.50
:
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 37-16
Charitable,
phil~thropic
$0
I
I
$0
$0
i
: institution
Other
nonresidential
(per sq. ft. GFA)
75
]
$1.25