SUBDIVISION STAGING POLICY
Overview Presentation
October 19, 2015
Intro
Todays Topics:
Overview of the Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP)
Transportation
Schools
Infrastructure funding
Schedule and Public Participation
2003-2005
Intro
Several initiatives currently underway:
Forum on Growth & Infrastructure held on March 7, 2015.
Council-directed transportation research.
Cross-agency work group on school design options.
Collaboration with MCPS on student generation rates.
Intro
What have we been hearing?
How can we better forecast what might happen in the future?
How can we best address school crowding and traffic
congestion?
How can we fund our infrastructure needs most cost-effectively?
How can new development help to pay for or provide
improvements?
Overview
Subdivision Staging Policy (aka Growth Policy until 2010) is
Adopted every 4 years by the County Council. Policy includes
criteria and guidance for the administration of the Adequate Public
Facility Ordinance (APFO).
The purpose of the APFO is to coordinate the timing of
development with the provision of public facilities such as roads,
transit and schools.
The next Subdivision Staging Policy will be adopted in 2016.
Overview
We mainly test the adequacy of the transportation network (roads and
transit) and schools.
Current tools used to measure transportation adequacy:
Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR)
Local Area Transportation Review (LATR)
Current tool to measure school adequacy:
Annual School Test
Transportation
Transportation Policy Area Review is a policy area test of adequacy.
2. Aspen Hill
3. Bethesda CBD*
4. Bethesda/Chevy Chase
5. Clarksburg
6. Cloverly
7. Damascus
8. Derwood
9. Fairland/White Oak
10. Friendship Heights
11. Gaithersburg City
12. Germantown East
13. Germantown Town Center
14. Germantown West
[Link]*
16. Grosvenor*
17. Kensington/Wheaton
18. Montgomery Village
19. North Bethesda
20. North Potomac
21. Olney
22. Potomac
23. R&D Village
24. Rockville City
25. Rockville Town Center*
26. Rural East
27. Rural West
28. Shady Grove*
29. Silver Spring CBD*
30. Silver Spring/Takoma
31. Twinbrook*
32. Wheaton*
33. White Flint*
34. White Oak
*Metro Station Policy Area
Transportation
Under Transportation Policy Area Review:
Roadway Adequacy
Policy area average arterial roadway congestion
cannot exceed specified standard.
Standard varies depending on transit availability and
usage.
Transit Adequacy
Focuses on the availability and quality of local
transit service.
Three metrics considered: coverage, peak
headway, span of service.
Transportation
Roadway Adequacy:
2014 TPAR Roadway Adequacy Test
Rural
Suburban
Urban
Relative to the 2012 TPAR test:
White Oak (WO) & Fairland/Colesville (FC) are reported as
separate policy areas
For most policy areas, results are generally similar Countywide
Three additional policy areas deemed inadequate North Potomac
(NP), Aspen Hill (AH) & Bethesda Chevy Chase (BCC)
9
Transportation
Transit Adequacy:
Transit Adequacy Standards
Minimum Coverage
Maximum Headway
Minimum Span
Urban
80 percent
14 minutes
17 hours
Suburban
70 percent
20 minutes
14 hours
Rural
>50 percent
<60 minutes
>4 hours
Coverage- How much of a policy area is within walking distance of transit?
Peak Headway How frequently do buses arrive?
Span of Service How many hours a day is transit service available?
If a policy area does not achieve adequacy for all three measures, that
policy area is determined to be inadequate for transit.
10
Transportation
Transportation Mitigation Payment
If projected transportation capacity in a policy area is
inadequate, the Planning Board may approve a
subdivision in that area if the applicant commits to either:
Fully mitigate the incremental traffic impact of the
subdivision by adding capacity or implementing a
trip reduction program; or
Pay a Transportation Mitigation Payment as
provided in County law.
11
Transportation
Local Area Transportation Review
Tests capacity of nearby intersections.
Applied to all projects generating 30 or more peak hour trips.
If an intersection fails, developer can make improvements,
mitigate trips or in limited cases make a payment to the
County.
12
Transportation
Direction from Council following the 2012 SSP:
Convert the most recently adopted version of the MWCOG regional
transportation model to a more refined tool suitable for application in
Montgomery County.
Update LATR trip generation rates to better reflect the traffic effects of
mixed-use development and access to multi-modal travel options (last
updated in 1989).
Identify and assess alternative LATR metrics and procedures (Traffic
Impact Study Technical Working Group).
Refine the transit component of TPAR to reflect the travel implications of
bus rapid transit.
13
New Ideas
Expand the pro-rata share concept beyond White Oak
Look at incorporating Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) metric into
the LATR process
Consider consolidation of LATR and TPAR into a single
transportation test
14
Schools
Annual School Test
School adequacy is measured for each school level by high
school cluster.
15
Schools
Annual School Test
School facility adequacy is based on projected school capacity
compared to projected enrollment.
16
Schools
Annual School Test
Projected capacity measures existing and planned school capacity.
Existing school capacity is defined as MCPS program
capacity.
Planned school capacity is the capacity funded in the 6-year
CIP.
17
Schools
Annual School Test
Projected enrollment is based on several factors:
Births in the County.
Aging of the school-age population.
Migration of residents into and out of the County.
Housing (new housing and the resale of existing homes).
Forecast 5 years into the future.
18
Schools
Annual School Test
Test is conducted annually at all three school levels (elementary,
middle and high) for a school cluster area.
When projected enrollment exceeds projected capacity (termed
utilization level), either a payment is required for development to
proceed or a moratorium is imposed.
19
Schools
Annual School Test
The threshold for moratorium is 120 percent utilization.
This means projected enrollment 5 years in the future exceeds 120
percent of projected capacity (existing and planned).
Exceptions:
Senior or Age-restricted Housing.
No more than 3 new housing units, School Facility
Payment still required.
20
Schools
Annual School Test
Threshold for requirement to make a School Facility Payment (SFP) is
105 percent utilization.
This means projected enrollment 5 years in the future exceeds 105
percent of projected capacity but does not exceed 120 percent.
Payment is required for each school level over 105 percent.
Payment rates vary by school level based on construction costs and
dwelling unit type.
21
Schools
Annual School Test
Student Generation Rates - an estimate of the number of students
generated by different housing types.
New methodology developed in cooperation between Montgomery
County Public Schools (MCPS) and Montgomery County Planning.
Two major inputs:
Student addresses with grade-level information
attached (confidential information removed).
Parcel File with residential structure information.
22
New Ideas
Work with MCPS to update student generation rates and
develop measures of housing turnover.
Continue collaboration on school design. Cross-agency
Work Group on School Design Options report recently
released.
Continue joint community meetings such as the one held
Sept. 17th with the Walter Johnson Cluster.
23
Infrastructure Funding
Impact Tax, Facility/Mitigation Payment, Recordation Tax
Impact taxes are assessed on new residential and commercial
buildings, and additions to commercial buildings to help fund
improvements necessary to increase transportation or public
school capacity.
Some exemptions apply MPDUs, multi-family senior housing,
development in an Enterprise (or former Enterprise) zone.
School Facility Payments and Transportation Mitigation
Payments are levied on development located in an area with
inadequate facilities.
A recordation tax is an excise tax levied when a land transfer is
recorded in the Maryland Land Records such as the purchase of
new or existing home.
24
Infrastructure Funding
Transportation Impact Taxes - All new development is required to
pay a transportation impact tax levied on every dwelling unit
constructed, and on every new square foot of non-residential
development.
Building Type
Single-family detached (per unit)
Single-family attached (per unit)
Multi-family low-mid rise (per unit)
Multi-family high rise (per unit)
Multi-family senior (per unit)
Office (per sq ft of GFA)
Industrial (per sq ft of GFA)
Bioscience (per sq ft of GFA)
Retail (per sq ft of GFA)
Place of Worship (per sq ft of GFA)
Private School (per sq ft of GFA)
Hospital (per sq ft of GFA)
Social Service Agency (per sq ft of GFA)
Other non-residential (per sq ft of GFA)
Metro Station
Policy Area
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Clarksburg
6,984
5,714
4,443
3,174
1,269
6.35
3.20
0
5.70
0.35
0.50
0
0
3.20
General
$ 20,948
$ 17,141
$ 13,330
$ 9,522
$ 3,808
$ 15.30
$
7.60
$
0
$
3.70
$
0.90
$
1.35
$
0
$
0
$
7.60
$ 13,966
$ 11,427
$ 8,886
$ 6,347
$ 2,539
$ 12.75
$
6.35
$
0
$ 11.40
$
0.65
$
1.05
$
0
$
0
$
6.35
25
Infrastructure Funding
School Impact Taxes - All new residential development is required
to pay a school impact tax levied on every dwelling unit constructed.
The school impact tax = approximately 90 percent of the cost of a
student seat.
School Impact Tax
Single-family detached
$26,827
Single-family attached
$20,198
Multi-family Low-Mid Rise
$12,765
Multi-family High Rise
$5,412
26
Infrastructure Funding
School Facility Payments and Transportation Mitigation
Payments are levied on development located in an area with
inadequate facilities.
Transportation Mitigation Payments = 25 percent of the
transportation impact tax for roadway or transit inadequacy.
In areas inadequate for both roadways and transit, payment
rates are set to equal 50 percent of the impact tax.
School Facility Payments = 60 percent of the cost of a
student seat.
Montgomery County School Facility Payment Rates
Elementary
Middle
High
Single-family detached
6,940
3,251
4,631
Single-family attached
4,160
1,743
2,754
Multi-family low to mid rise
2,838
1,169
1,877
Multi-family high rise
1,166
531
804
27
New Ideas
Infrastructure Financing
Update school and transportation impact tax rates based on
current construction/capital costs
Consider localized use of school and transportation impact
taxes (within the cluster or policy where collected)
Evaluate the proportion of costs covered by impact taxes
Consider changes in recordation tax collected
Consider options for public private partnerships
28
Schedule & Participation
Briefing on New TPAR Transit Adequacy Component
and Trip Generation Rate Update
December 2015
Briefing on Advanced Modeling Tool by consultant
January 2016
Work Sessions on Draft LATR/TPAR Recommendations
February and March 2016
Draft Status Report on General Land Use Conditions &
Forecasts
February 2016
Draft School Test and Impact Tax Recommendations
March 2016
Working (Staff) Draft
April/May 2016
Public Hearing on the Working (Staff) Draft
May 2016
Work Sessions on the Working (Staff) Draft
June 2016
Planning Board Draft and Resolution
July 2016
Council Public Hearing on the Planning Board Draft
September 2016
PHED Committee Work Sessions
September/October 2016
County Council Work Sessions
October/November 2016
Council Adoption
Required by November 2016
29
30
QUESTIONS?
