Toward Sustainable Growth For Montgomery County: A Growth Policy For The 21

Final Draft
2007-2009 Growth Policy
Toward Sustainable Growth for Montgomery

County: A Growth Policy for the 21st Century
Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Board

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
May 21, 2007

Toward Sustainable Growth For Montgomery County: A
Growth Policy for the 21st Century
Along Montgomery County’s northeast boundary
Statement of the Montgomery County Planning Board, M-NCPPC
INTRODUCTION
The 2007 Growth Policy marks an important evolution in the management of

growth and change in Montgomery County. It moves from its historical roots as
guideline for staging new development in concert with the provision of basic
public facilities, such as transportation and schools, toward managing growth and
change in ways that are sustainable and monitoring their consequences for the
County’s economy, environment, and social equity.
This evolution in growth policy is possible because of the cumulative experience

of the past 20 years and the development of better ways of modeling and
measuring growth and its consequences. It is necessary because of heightened
awareness of consequences of inappropriate or unwise development choices for
a maturing County. This is especially the case in light of the widely recognized
implications of global climate change for development patterns and practices that
conserve energy and protect the natural environment. Thus, the 2007 Growth
Policy is an initial step in a transition from measuring public facility deficits and
restricting development until the facilities able to support it are provided, to a
framework that more fairly allocates the marginal costs of growth and also
provides guidance for master plans, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and
the development review process to encourage patterns and practices of
development (including redevelopment) that, over time, produce better and more
sustainable places in which to live, work, conduct business, and enjoy leisure
time.
i
Although the analysis on which this policy is based is relatively complicated, the
public policy principles are straightforward and should be kept at the front of
deliberations and action on the details. Those principles are:
1. Development should pay the marginal costs of the capital facilities needed
to serve or accommodate it. This facilitates concurrent provision of
facilities and long-term fiscal stability.
2. In the aggregate, development should foster a more robust and diverse
economy, and a balance of jobs and housing opportunities.
3. Development, at a minimum, should not degrade environmental
resources, and at its best, should produce net environmental benefits and
stronger linkages between the built and natural environments.
4. Development projects should be designed and built “green” to foster
energy and resource conservation.
5. The design of the built environment should foster alternatives to the
automobile for a wide variety of trips.
6. Activity centers should provide a mixture of uses and activities.
7. Infill development should respect the scale and integrity of host
communities.
8. Development patterns should encourage social interaction through
attention to human scale, the pedestrian environment and streetscape,
and gathering places.
9. The consequences of growth policies should be monitored through the
use of indicators in order to assess the effectiveness of policy in achieving
outcomes and to identify areas for timely adjustments.
Applying these principles involves a conceptual adjustment from thinking of

growth policy as primarily an instrument governing administration of the
Adequate Facilities Ordinance (APFO) through the denial or delay of subdivisions
until facilities—primarily roads—meet certain standards for levels of service.
While growth policy continues to perform its traditional function, our
recommendations are designed to perform a broader set of functions. These
include:
Reinvigorating Growth Policy’s role in establishing priorities for the Capital

Improvements Program, which was an original impetus for its creation.
Over time, the focus migrated to an almost exclusive focus on
infrastructure needed for new development. As the County matures, equal
attention needs to be given to the needs of established communities. This
is especially the case when an increasing proportion of development
activity involves redevelopment of older centers and infill in established
communities. And as the staff report demonstrates, demographic
changes can have greater effects on demand for facilities and services in
ii
much of the County than physical changes to the built environment.
Furthermore, standards of “adequacy” evolve with public understanding
and tastes.
Shifting from reliance primarily on a strategy of denial or delay of

development projects until such time as adequate facilities are provided or
programmed and financed, to a strategy of requiring all development to
cover the marginal cost of the additional facilities needed to provide it with
an adequate level of service. This has been recent practice for water and
sewerage facilities, which are fee-based. It has not been the case for the
two most expensive facilities — transportation and schools. Aside from the
occasional Road Club, in which developer-members share the cost of a
needed road segment or interchange, or where a subdivision is required to
ameliorate inadequacies through intersection improvements or by
agreeing to a traffic management program, the needed incremental
transportation improvements have been made primarily through public
expenditures paid for by all County taxpayers. Transportation impact taxes
and, more recently, school impact taxes do not currently cover actual
costs of needs generated by either new development or population
turnover in established neighborhoods.
Linking Growth Policy and Area/Functional Master Planning more closely

so that infrastructure staging and design elements advance growth policy
objectives, and growth policy, in turn, implements the General Plan and
Master Plans. The biennial growth policy report should include analyses
of the status of capital improvements recommended by master plans and
their capacity to serve the residential and economic activities
recommended for planning or policy areas, and a review of development
on the ground and in the pipeline in order to assess whether the growth
policy and master plans are working in concert. If there are substantial
incongruities, the growth policy should recommend appropriate changes.
This review can also identify important priorities for the next CIP. Master
Plans ultimately define adequacy in terms of the way in which facilities
serve residents and firms. In this regard, design can have a substantial
effect on the carrying capacity of both the engineered and natural systems
in the immediate planning area, in a corridor, and in the County at large.
Providing a biennial analysis of the pace and patterns of growth, the

factors influencing development and demand for public facilities, and the
economic, environmental, and social consequences of public policies that
guide growth and development. One of the most important functions of a
biennial report on growth policy should be assessment of whether policies
are producing the expected and desired outcomes, and if they are not,
recommendations for improvement.
iii
Working within this conceptual framework, the Planning Board recommends that
the Council adopt the following elements in its 2007 Growth Policy Resolution:
1. The adequacy of transportation facilities to serve a development

project should be subject to a two-part test that assesses the
adequacy of transportation facilities for the Policy Area and the
impact of the project on local capacity.
a. Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) should be adopted as the best

method of measuring the adequacy of the transportation system
serving the policy area within which a project is proposed. Metro
areas should be included in the Policy Areas of which they are a
part for purposes of this test of adequacy. We recommend this
approach because it has a well-established basis in transportation
research and neither depends on nor is subject to subjective
manipulation; it focuses on the mobility experience of the traveler in
terms of the relative time it takes to reach one’s destination by
driving or using public transportation. This approach acknowledges
the tradeoff between auto and mass transit. It is simple and
inexpensive to administer. It is relatively easy to understand by
both the public and applicants. It can be annually revised to
account for changes to the condition of either mode, and it can be
used to assess the transportation performance of Policy Areas in
order to make recommendations for transportation improvements in
both the CIP and master plan amendments.
The PAMR test is dichotomous—an applicant either passes or fails

it. If failed, the applicant must provide transportation mitigation
measures in addition to any actions taken to meet Local Area
Transportation Review requirements and payment of the
transportation impact tax (discussed below). The board agrees
with staff’s “stair step” approach to applying the PAMR test, as a
more objective approach. Although in some instances it may be
counter-intuitive in that travelers may still experience congestion
induced delay on some roadways, the objective of this policy is to
encourage the choice of transit when it enables people to travel in
less time than it takes to drive. In this sense, relieving perceived
congestion (even when the total elapsed trip time may be well
within acceptable bounds) can defeat shifting travel behavior to
transit. Changing the stair-step to a continuous line that divides the
areas of adequate service from those with inadequate service does
not have a sound theoretical or statistical basis.
b. Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) should continue to be

used in the subdivision approval process. This process is well-
established and state-of- the-art. It requires developments
iv
generating more than 30 trips to prepare a traffic study by a
certified professional. While no major changes are recommended in
LATR standards, we do recommend the following adjustments in
administration:
i. A traffic study should be required for the Alternative Review

Procedure involving Metro Station Areas. This will assist the
staff and Board in evaluating an applicant’s trip mitigation
proposals, and assist in identifying and prioritizing needed
public investments.
ii. Payments-in-lieu of non-automobile transportation amenities
should be permitted in cases where Metro or the County
cannot or will not accept the optimal mitigation measures
agreed to by the applicant and Board. This will permit a
transit-oriented project to proceed and apply the payment to
a more acceptable mitigation project.
iii. LATR practices should be revised to allow applications for
expansion of an existing or approved project to focus on the
incremental increase rather than the entire project.
iv. To ensure an increased emphasis on non-auto solutions to
transportation capacity deficits, the policy should require that
all applicants document their consideration of traffic
mitigation or trip reduction measures.
v. The Transportation Planning staff should expand its
intersection database to provide an improved foundation for
traffic analysis and for verifying developer-provided counts.
This will require additional funding in the FY 2009 budget, or
a supplemental appropriation if instituted before July 2008.
vi. All applicant traffic studies must be conducted by a licensed
or certified professional.
2. The test for the adequacy of public school facilities should be

revised so that the threshold that triggers a School Facilities
Payment is 110 percent of MCPS program capacity. “Program
capacity” is the definition of capacity used by the school system. In recent
years the difference between “program capacity” and the capacity
definition used by the growth policy has increased due to class-size
reduction initiatives and other factors. Setting the standard at 110 percent
of program capacity should eliminate the concern about tying the growth
policy test too closely to Board of Education programming decisions, such
as specialized uses of some classrooms or other changes in curricula or
programming that can change capacities even though the physical
facilities are unchanged.
v
a. Revision of the School Facilities Payment threshold would mean
that several clusters would be designated “inadequate” and
residential development in those clusters would be required to
make the payment. The School Facilities Payment would be
required at the high school level in the Wootton cluster; at the
middle school level in the Clarksburg cluster; and at the elementary
school level in the Blake, Clarksburg, Einstein, Kennedy,
Northwest, and Wheaton clusters.
b. The Planning Board recommends that the School Facilities

Payment be set at the cost-per-pupil of school infrastructure, which
is the same basis that the Board recommends for the school impact
tax. The payment would be $32,524 for each full-time equivalent
(FTE) elementary school student, $42,351 for each FTE middle
school student, and $47,501 for each FTE high school student. The
Board recommends that the School Facilities Payment be assessed
only at the level that is inadequate and for the number of students
the development generates at that level. For example, the Blake
cluster would be inadequate at the elementary school level. Each
single-family detached home generates an average of 0.32
elementary students, so the School Facilities Payment for a single-
family detached home in the Blake cluster would be $10,407
($32,524 x 0.32).
c. A moratorium on development in an area should be imposed if

schools are operating at 135 percent of MCPS program capacity.
3. The normal time limits for the validity of a finding that public
facilities are adequate to serve a project should be limited to five
years. The time limit is for receiving the last building permit and, thus,
does not require that the project be completed, although most projects are
completed in five years. Large and complex projects should be allowed a
longer validity period, based on a staging plan, but initial validity periods of
greater than 10 years should not be granted. For the Planning Board to
approve a validity period longer than five years, the applicant must present
a staging plan for the project, the Board must find that the longer period
has a public benefit, and it may require additional transportation mitigation
measures. Traffic studies are generally valid for about five years.
Moreover, projects with long validity periods but low activity levels
essentially hoard capacity, and can prevent other projects that are ready
to build from proceeding due to lack of available capacity. This is a
particular problem in Metro station areas and other locations where
development advances County policy goals.
a. The Planning Board should have clear authority to require a new

traffic study when reviewing a request for extension of the validity
vi
period for APF. New traffic studies are not appropriate in all
extension cases, but the Board should have explicit authority to
require a fresh study where changes in capacity, facilities, traffic, or
development activity; any or all of which may have affected
capacity that was available when the application was initially
considered.
4. New development projects should be assessed impact taxes that

reflect the marginal costs of expansion of school and transportation
infrastructure capacity required to serve new development and
sustain current levels of service.
a. The cost of marginal additions to the transportation network

necessary to support person-trips generated by new development
should be recovered through transportation impact taxes allocated
according to trips generated by different kinds of land uses. The
transportation impact tax should be based on the total cost of new
transportation capacity in the approved Constrained Long-Range
Plan that is associated with new development. The tax rate for each
type of land use should reflect its relative trip generation rate. This
approach excludes projects that involve improvements designed to
improve service to existing development.
Table 1 (on the following page) reflects actual impacts on

transportation facilities and their costs for each type of development
in Metro areas, Clarksburg, and the rest of the County. For policy
reasons, we recommend that hospitals not be assessed the
infrastructure tax. They are important parts of community
infrastructure and are not profit-making institutions. It is useful,
however, to understand the fiscal effect of their impact, and to use
the information in this table in calculating the need for capital
improvements to the transportation system.
Bio-Science facilities are included as a separate category in the

current impact tax schedule, but, like hospitals, are not assessed a
transportation impact tax, as it has been the policy of the County to
stimulate such projects. The Board does not find a justification for
exclusion of such projects, which can generate substantial numbers
of trips, from the tax. Because of their nature, however, they are
often hybrid land uses, including some industrial and some office
uses. We recommend, therefore, that the tax on Bio-Science and
other mixed-use facilities be assessed according to the proportions
of each use contained in the project.
vii
Table 1. Projected Marginal Transportation Impact Tax Rates
General Metro Clarksburg

Station
Residential (per dwelling
unit)
Single-family detached $8,380 $4,191 $12,572
Single-family attached $6,856 $3,429 $10,286
Multi-family attached (except $5,884 $2,943 $7,591
high-rise)
High-rise residential $4,204 $2,102 $5,422
Multi-family senior residential $1,682 $840 $2,169
Non-residential (per square

foot GFA)
Office $11.55 $5.80 $13.90
Industrial $5.40 $2.65 $6.40
Retail $18.80 $9.50 $22.55
Place of worship* $0.55 $0.30 $0.65
Private elementary and $0.75 $0.35 $1.00
secondary school
Hospital* $4.85 $2.40 $5.80
Other non-residential $4.85 $2.40 $5.80
* The Planning Board recommends that hospitals be exempted from the
impact tax and that houses of worship be charged at the current rates:
General-$0.30; Metro Station-$0.15; Clarksburg-$0.35
Places of Worship and Private Schools are included in the current

impact tax schedule. The rates assigned to them are based on
their forecast proportion of “Other Non-Residential” development.
The new rates represent substantial increases for both categories.
These rates should also be reduced or excluded for policy reasons.
Religious institutions have unique traffic generation characteristics,
which can vary by denomination, and they tend to generate traffic in
off-peak periods. They are also important components of well-
functioning communities and, thus, are candidates for reduced or
nominal rates. We recommend that their rates not be increased
from current levels, as indicated in the footnote to the table.
Private Schools present a more complex issue, as some are
proprietary, while others are parochial or non-profit. Private
schools ameliorate the impact on public schools but they often
generate large numbers of trips, particularly in the a.m. peak hours.
b. The cost of marginal additions to school capacity necessary to

serve students resulting from new residential development should
viii
be recovered through school impact taxes allocated according to
the average number of students generated by each type of
residential unit. The school impact tax should be based on the total
cost of new school capacity associated with new development.
This approach excludes new capacity designed to meet
programmatic changes and demand for space generated by
demographic turnover in the existing housing stock. It also
recognizes that different types of housing tend to generate different
needs at the three levels of public schools. The tax should apply to
all new residential development, regardless of whether it is located
in a cluster with inadequate capacity because the new residents in
such communities are using capacity that has been paid for by all
taxpayers of the County. The tax is a one-time payment for the
marginal impact of new students on school facilities.
Table 2 contains the Board’s recommendation for the school

component of the infrastructure impact tax.
Table 2. Proposed School Impact Tax Rates
For each FTE Student,

Each new housing unit of: Would be taxed:
Single-family detached $ 22,729
Single-family attached 17,112
Multi-family non high-rise 10,815
Multi-family high-rise 4,585
As the table suggests, this component of the infrastructure impact

tax applies only to residential development. It applies to all such
development, regardless of where it occurs in the County and
regardless of the extent to which schools in the immediate cluster
serving it are operating above or below capacity. As with the
transportation component of the infrastructure impact tax, its
purpose is to fund the marginal cost of new development to the
system, in order to sustain the current levels of service over time.
After all, new development benefits from investments that have
been made by several generations of taxpayers in the infrastructure
systems of the County. These one-time taxes represent “buying in”
to a going system.
Once again, the County may decide, for policy reasons, to reduce
or forgive entirely the tax on some units, such as MPDUs,
workforce, or subsidized housing. It remains important to
recognize, however, the costs such tax expenditures impose on the
ix
school system, and to provide the necessary funding for them in the
capital budget.
c. The Board recommends that the transportation and school impact

taxes be phased in over 12 months as follows: Impose 25 percent
of the increase within three months; 50 percent in six months, and
100 percent in 12 months.
5. The Recordation Tax levied on housing sales, resales, and other

housing transactions should be increased to help fund school
improvements, modernizations, and additions.
The impact of turnover in existing ownership housing stock on school

capacity serving existing neighborhoods should be recovered in part
through an increase in the recordation tax. About 80 percent of the growth
in enrollment in the public schools is the result of demographic change in
existing communities rather than new development. A slight increase in
the recordation tax can recover some of these marginal costs. Although
the recordation tax falls on new owners without school age children as
well as those with children, it recognizes the importance of good schools
to property values. Rental housing is another source of turnover that is
typically much more rapid than the turnover of owner-occupied housing.
Students living in rental housing are more likely to move frequently, which
is an educational challenge that goes beyond issues of capacity. The
Board was unable to explore this issue in detail and meet the Council’s
deadline; however, we suggest that the Board of Education, in its Growth
Policy review, offer its perspective on the impact of rental housing turnover
on enrollment.
6. The FY 2007 Growth Policy resolution should direct the Planning

Board and other County agencies to develop policy
recommendations and adopt practices that foster high quality civic
design in planning sustainable centers and communities, regulation
of development projects, and construction of public facilities
Design is an important instrument of Growth Policy on two levels: (1) At

the macro, or Countywide level, it is concerned with overall urban form,
which is reflected in the Wedges and Corridors General Plan. (2) At the
micro level of corridors, centers, and neighborhoods, attention to civic
design refocuses growth policy toward the effect of development on
people and the quality of their experience as citizens, residents and
workers. In contrast to the almost exclusive focus of traditional growth
policy on hardware—public facilities and private vehicles—and its use as a
tool to prevent premature development in certain locations in the County,
the introduction of a design component helps direct development where it
x
can be more sustainable and provides guidance for the kind of
development that should occur.
To encourage placing a high priority on improving the design of public

facilities, the Planning Board and Executive agencies should cooperate on
a design summit to develop consensus on measures to ensure design
excellence becomes a core value in all public projects. Design excellence
matters in dealing with issues of facility capacity. Creating mixed-use
communities and pedestrian environments that encourage walking and
use of transit frees roadway capacity for traffic. Green building and
articulation of the built environment with natural systems can reduce
adverse impacts of growth, such as excess energy consumption, and
water and air pollution, which induce need for additional infrastructure.
Changes to the Road Code can help create communities and centers that
offer higher levels of safety, convenience, and interest.
Revison of the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations should

include provisions that establish standard expectations of and incentives
for high quality civic design. Because much of the new growth the County
will experience in the next generation will be higher in density than in the
past, the effect of major projects on sense of place and the quality of life
will be profound. Mistakes will be highly visible. The Growth Policy
should empower planners and regulators to demand design excellence of
applicants. Master and Sector Plans should include design guidelines that
lay a foundation that fosters development projects that aspire to more than
meet minimum regulatory requirements. In this sense, growth policy
inaugurates a different way of thinking about growth and a new level of
public and developer expectations.
7. The Planning Board should monitor the sustainability of the

development that results from implementation of the Growth Policy,
and include in its biennial report information on changes in
economic/fiscal, environmental, and social equity outcomes. With
assistance of an advisory group, a discrete set of indicators should be
selected that can measure changes in key outcomes or conditions that are
objectives of the Growth Policy. The initial set of indicators should make
intuitive sense, be supported by data that is available at appropriate
geographic levels and time series, enjoys a high level of confidence in its
accuracy, and has strong relevance to growth policy objectives. The list
below is illustrative, as is the listing in the staff report.
Indicators of Facility Adequacy;

• Policy Area Mobility scores
• School Capacity
• Accessibility of residences to public transit
• Accessibility of residences to jobs
xi
• Accessibility of residences to public parkland
Indicators of Fiscal/Economic Sustainability

• Unfunded CIP projects recommended in Master Plans
• Cost of Deferred Maintenance
• Per capita debt service
• Jobs: Housing ratio
Indicators of Environmental Sustainability

• Air Quality Action Days (Red & Purple)
• Stream Index of Biological Integrity
• Percentage of Impervious Surface
• Forest area/ tree canopy
Indicators of Social Equity

• Percentage of households paying more than 30% of income for
housing
• The income gap between top and bottom quintiles
• Percentage of population with post-secondary education
• A public health index
• Labor force participation
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
The materials that follow are staff reports that support the Planning Board’s
recommendations. These are materials contained in the Staff Draft 2007-2009
Growth Policy that have been revised and updated to reflect the Planning
Board’s recommendations. The final section contains a draft Growth Policy
resolution and proposed changes to the County Code that would be necessary to
implement the Planning Board’s recommendations.
xii
Staff Report
Toward Sustainable Growth for Montgomery

County: A Growth Policy for the 21st Century
Established neighborhoods north of Viers Mill Road
Staff Report Supporting the Montgomery County Planning

Board’s Final Draft 2007-2009 Growth Policy
Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Department

May 21, 2007

Abstract
Title: Toward Sustainable Growth for Montgomery County: A
Growth Policy for the 21st Century. Staff Report Supporting
the Montgomery County Planning Board’s Final Draft 2007-
2009 Growth Policy
Author: Montgomery County Planning Board

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Subject: Recommendations for infrastructure financing, sustainable

development, design excellence, and the administration of the
adequate public facilities ordinance for Montgomery County,
Maryland for 2007 – 2009
Source of Copies: The Montgomery County Planning Department, 8787 Georgia

Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, 301-650-5600
www.montgomeryplanning.org
Date: May 2007
Number of Pages: 390
Abstract: Montgomery County Code Section 33A – 15 establishes the

process by which the Montgomery County Council provides
guidance for the management of growth. The Code requires
the Council to adopt a biennial Growth Policy by November of
each odd-numbered year. In December 2006, the Montgomery
County Council directed the Planning Board to complete its
study of growth policy issues by May 21, 2007.
This document contains the recommendations of the

Montgomery County Planning Board on growth policy issues.
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a bi-county

agency created by the General Assembly of Maryland in 1927. The Commission’s
geographic authority extends to the great majority of Montgomery and Prince
George’s Counties; the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M-NCPPC
planning jurisdiction) comprises 1,001 square miles, while the Metropolitan District
(parks) comprises 919 square miles in the two counties.
The Commission has three major functions:
1. The preparation, adoption, and from time to time, amendment or

extension of The General Plan (On Wedges and Corridors) for the
Physical Development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District in
Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties;
2. The acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of a public

park system; and
3. In Prince George’s County only, the operation of the entire County public
recreation program.
The commission operates in each county through a Planning Board appointed by

and responsible to the county government. All local plans, recommendations on
zoning amendments, administration of subdivision regulations, and general
administration of parks are responsibilities of the Planning Boards.
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission encourages the

involvement and participation of individuals with disabilities, and its facilities are
accessible. For assistance with special needs (e.g. large print materials, listening
devices, sign language interpretation, and others), please contact the Office of
Community Relations and Media Outreach, 301-495-4600 or TDD 301-495-1331.
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
COUNTY COUNCIL
Marilyn J. Praisner, President

Michael Knapp, Vice-President
Philip Andrews
Roger Berliner
Marc Elrich
Valerie Ervin
Nancy Floreen
George L. Leventhal
Duchy Trachtenberg
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Isiah Leggett
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Samuel J. Parker, Jr. Chairman

Royce Hanson, Chairman
COMMISSIONERS
Montgomery County Prince George’s County

Planning Board Planning Board
Royce Hanson, Chairman Samuel J. Parker,Jr., Chairman

Wendy Perdue, Vice Chairman William M. Eley,Jr.,Vice Chairman
Allison Bryant Jesse Clark
John Robinson Colonel John H. Squire
Meredith Wellington Sylvester Vaughns
Table of Contents
Summary Report--------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Concepts and Themes--------------------------------------------------------------2
List of Accompanying Reports -------------------------------------------------- 10
Summary of Recommendations ------------------------------------------------ 10
Montgomery County and Growth --------------------------------------------------- 23
History of Montgomery County’s Growth Policy -------------------------------- 32
APFO Reform Part 1: Identifying and Prioritizing Infrastructure,

the School Adequacy Test, Testing other Public Facilities,
and the Pipeline of Approved Development ------------------------------------- 49
APFO Reform Part 2: Tests for Transportation Adequacy ----------------- 111
Infrastructure Financing------------------------------------------------------------- 185
A Vision of Sustainable Development for Montgomery County ----------- 234
Design Excellence: Tools to Improve Growth’s Contribution to

Our Quality of Life -------------------------------------------------------------------- 276
Changes to the Growth Policy Resolution and the County Code

to Implement the Planning Board’s Recommendations----------------------A-1
TABLES AND EXHIBITS
1. Comparison of Projected and Actual Births ........................................................................................ 64

1.1 Residential Pipeline by Year of APF Expiration ................................................................................. 90
1.2 Non-Residential Pipeline by Year of APF Expiration.......................................................................... 91
1.3 Residential Plans in the pipeline with no Expiration Date .................................................................. 91
1.4 APF Limit for Residential Plans.......................................................................................................... 92
1.5 APF Limit for Non-Residential Plans .................................................................................................. 92
1.6 Length of time Between Non-Residential Plan Approval and Completion.......................................... 93
1.7 Length of Time between Residential Plan Approval and Completion................................................. 94
1.8 Completion Status of Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to 10/31/2006 .......................... 95
1.9 Completion Status of Non-Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to 10/31/2006 .................. 95
1.10 Completion Status of Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to 10/31/2006 .......................... 96
1.11 Completion Status of Non-Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to 10/31/2006 .................. 96
2.12 Characteristics of Alternative Tests to Supplement LATR................................................................ 126
2.13 LATR Intersection Congestion Standards ........................................................................................ 141
2.1 Montgomery County, Maryland, Policy Areas .................................................................................. 142
2.2 PAMR Transit Level of Service Standard......................................................................................... 143
2.3 PAMR Arterial Level of Service Standard ........................................................................................ 144
2.4 PAMR Adequacy Standard .............................................................................................................. 145
2.5 Year 2013 PAMR Chart ................................................................................................................... 146
2.6 Year 2013 PAMR Timetable ............................................................................................................ 147
2.7 Year 2005 PAMR Chart ................................................................................................................... 148
2.8 Year 2030 CLRP PAMR Chart......................................................................................................... 149
2.9 LATR Mitigation Options to Non-Auto Amenities ............................................................................. 150
2.10 PAMR Mitigation Options for Providing Roadway Capacity ............................................................. 151
2.11 LATR Superdistricts ......................................................................................................................... 152
3.1 Derivation of Recommended Transportation Impact Tax Rates....................................................... 193
3.2. Application of Table 1 to Current Rate Structure.............................................................................. 197
3.3 CPI Escalation .................................................................................................................................. 198
3.4 Rates for the Development Impact Tax for Transportation............................................................... 207
3.5 Rates for the Development Impact Tax for Schools......................................................................... 208
3.6 Ratios of School Impact Tax to Median Home Value ....................................................................... 210
3.7 Impact Fee/Excise Tax Rates and Revenues .................................................................................. 211
3.8 Housing Unit Growth -- Selected MD Counties ............................................................................... 213
3.9 Housing Sales and Values – Selected MD Counties (2005) ............................................................ 214
3.10 Round 7.10 Cooperative Household Forecast ................................................................................. 221
4.1 Principles of Sustainable Development............................................................................................ 253
4.2 Illustrative Sustainability Indicators .................................................................................................. 258
MAPS
MCPS Elementary Schools – 2012 – 2013 Projected Utilization by Percentage ..................................... 107
MCPS High Schools – 2012 – 2013 Projected Utilization by Percentage ................................................ 108
MCPS Middle Schools – 2012 – 2013 Projected Utilization by Percentage............................................. 109
MCPS Relocatable Classrooms – 2006 -- 2007...................................................................................... 110
Montgomery County, Maryland, Policy Areas .......................................................................................... 142
LATR Superdistricts ................................................................................................................................. 152
Montgomery County Employment Forecasts ................................................................................. 217 – 218
Montgomery County Household Forecast ..................................................................................... 219 – 220
Montgomery County Forecasts by Traffic Analysis Zones .............................................................242 -- 243
Final Draft 2007-2009 Growth Policy: Summary
Staff Report
INTRODUCTION
This report contains the recommendations of the Montgomery County Planning

Department for amending the County’s Growth Policy. The Growth Policy is a resolution
adopted by the Montgomery County Council that contains guidelines for administering the
adequate public facilities ordinance, or APFO.
Although commonly referred to as a separate ordinance, the APFO is actually part of

Montgomery County’s subdivision regulations: Section 50-35 (k) of the County Code. The APFO
was adopted by the County Council in 1973 with the goal of synchronizing development with the
availability of public facilities needed to support that development. The introductory sentence
states, “A preliminary plan of subdivision must not be approved unless the Planning Board
determines that public facilities will be adequate to support and service the area of the proposed
subdivision.” How, exactly, the Planning Board should make that determination, is the focus of
the Growth Policy resolution.
The Capital Improvements Program, or CIP, is the vehicle through which the County
increases the capacity of its public facilities to support additional growth. One role of the Growth
Policy is to determine how much additional growth can be supported by public facilities that are
added to the CIP. Another role is to highlight where in the County additional public facilities are
needed.
Between 1986 and 2003, the Growth Policy was adopted annually, and was called the
Annual Growth Policy, or AGP. Many people still refer to the resolution as the AGP. Since 2003,
most Growth Policy-related work is conducted every two years, although school adequacy is
still reviewed by the Planning Board every year.
SUMMARY STAFF REPORT: FINAL DRAFT 2007-2009 GROWTH POLICY 1

Since its inception, the focus of the Growth Policy has been the timing, or staging, of
development and public facilities. The County’s General Plan, master plans, and sector plans,
determine the amount, type and location of development. Because of its name, many people
expect the Growth Policy to be a typical policy document, containing the County’s goals and
objectives with respect to growth. Instead, the Growth Policy contains few broad policy
statements but focuses on the administrative procedures needed to test the adequacy of public
facilities when new development projects are proposed.
In spite of this, or perhaps because of this, the APFO and the Growth Policy has been the
subject of much discussion, debate, research and study in the 34 years since the APFO was
adopted. One of the documents accompanying this report is a history of growth management in
Montgomery County. It is a testament to the importance and complexity of the growth
management issue that many of its aspects have been studied in depth numerous times. This
is particularly true of the two tests for transportation adequacy, called Policy Area Transportation
Review and Local Area Transportation Review, and the test for school adequacy. It is also true
for an equally difficult issue: finding sources of the funds needed to finance infrastructure.
One such comprehensive review of the Growth Policy occurred in 2003 and resulted in
substantial changes that placed less emphasis on staging development and greater emphasis
on generating revenues for infrastructure. In December 2006, the County Council adopted a
resolution directing the Planning Board to conduct a study to revisit many of those issues.
This report responds to the Council’s resolution. In simple terms, the resolution deals with
three primary topics: (1) possible changes to the guidelines for administering the adequate
public facilities ordinance; (2) setting desirable rates for new development’s financial
contribution to infrastructure; and (3) other ways to improve the County’s approach to growth
management now and in the future. This report is organized around these three main topics.
CONCEPTS AND THEMES
Staff developed a few concepts or themes to help us organize and evaluate the various
growth management options that are the subject of this study. These concepts provided a basis
for us to treat one type of public facility differently than another, to distinguish between new
development and existing development’s responsibility for increasing demand on public
facilities, and to recommend whether the remedy for inadequate public facilities should be
moratoria, developer contributions, or other means.
Point Facilities and Network Facilities
The adequate public facilities ordinance cites the following as public facilities by which
development is to be regulated: transportation, schools, water and sewerage, and public safety
(police, fire and health) facilities. These facilities differ in their characteristics, and hence must
be measured differently. Schools and public safety facilities are what may be called “point”
facilities, in the sense that they occupy “points” of land, relatively small spatial areas that stand
alone within the larger area that they serve. For example, each school receives students from a
2 FINAL DRAFT 2007-2009 GROWTH POLICY: MAY 21, 2007

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 16-17:
PLANNING BOARD STUDY OF GROWTH POLICY ISSUES
Adopted December 12, 2006
1) The County Council directs the Montgomery County Planning Board, in cooperation with appropriate
County Executive agencies, to prepare an analysis of growth policy issues and recommendations for
managing growth in Montgomery County. By May 21st, 2007, the Planning Board must submit:
a) A recommended set of tools to manage growth and fund infrastructure as needed to maintain and
enhance Montgomery County’s quality of life, including:
i) proposals to direct future growth and manage the pace of that growth to promote the
objectives of the General Plan;
ii) identifying and prioritizing the infrastructure needed to support existing and future residents,
businesses, and visitors; and
iii) recommendations to strengthen the relationship between the pace of growth and the provision
of public facilities, services, and infrastructure.
b) Recommendations to better coordinate the County’s growth management and affordable housing
goals.
c) Analysis and recommendations regarding:

i) the current test for public school facilities and alternatives to it;
ii) the current Local Area Transportation Review test and alternatives to it, including those
considered during the 2005 Review of the Growth Policy;
iii) Reinstating a form of Policy Area Transportation Review;
iv) Treatment of traffic originating from outside the County and/or to destinations outside County
borders,
v) Treatment of traffic generated by federal government installations in the County, and
vi) Any other adequate public facilities-related issues the Board finds relevant.
d) An update of Planning Board’s 2005 analysis of the number, age, and other characteristics of
projects in the pipeline of approved development. The Board must also analyze regulations
governing the time limits for the validity period of a finding of adequate public facilities, including
extension provisions.
e) Recommendations for measuring the success and evaluating the outcomes of the County’s growth
and development policies.
2) The Planning Board must also analyze the County’s impact tax program and ways to improve them,
including analysis of the full impacts of growth and possible expansion of impact taxes for public
benefits other than transportation and public schools.
3) The Planning Board must submit analysis and recommendations sufficient to allow County Council
action on major recommendations prior to its August recess. The Planning Board may also submit
recommendations for further study, analysis, and Council consideration.
4) The Planning Board must submit interim summary reports of progress on or before February 15 and
April 15, 2007.

catchment basin of housing units, the boundaries of which are set by the School Board in
accordance with educational criteria. Although the educational criteria include a variety of
factors, the essential nature of the “adequacy” test is spatially static, being based on the number
of students per classroom – a number that is assumed to not vary with time of day or ebb and
flow of student volume over time and distance.
Transportation and water/sewerage facilities, on the other hand, may be called “network”
facilities. In the case of transportation, the combination of road, transit, and pedestrian facilities
form an interconnected web or network of pathways over which people travel in a wide variety of
directions. This travel volume fluctuates widely over both time and space. The measurement of
traffic capacity, therefore, must take into account variations in travel volume that derive not only
from the size and shape of the channels through which it flows (analogous to classrooms
spatially), but also from the desires and modes of people to travel to and from different
destinations along these pathways. While school capacity is a static phenomenon, traffic
capacity is essentially a dynamic phenomenon. Measuring traffic capacity is inherently a more
complex matter than measuring school capacity. The water and sewerage system is also a
network, and while considerably simpler than the transportation network, is subject to some of
the same complexities.
Of course, we are primarily concerned with how the differences in the nature of point
facilities and network facilities affect “adequacy’ – that elusive balance between demand and
capacity. It is comparatively easier to adjust the demand for and capacity of point facilities than
to do so for network facilities. For a school, either adding classrooms or adjusting the service
boundaries can rebalance demand and capacity. It isn’t possible, however, to reassign some
auto drivers to other, less-congested roads. Moreover, and more challenging, is the downstream
effect – the source of demand for roads (and water and sewerage capacity) at one end of the
network could be located a considerable distance “upstream.”
Share of Responsibility: Existing and New Development
Another issue or theme running through growth management studies is: to what extent is
new development “responsible” for increased demand on public facilities, and to what extent is
increased demand the result of changing behavior of residents of existing development? The
logical result of answering that question could be: new development should contribute toward
new infrastructure an amount that is proportionate to its share of new demand.
Planning staff accepts that logic to an extent, but not entirely. There are a couple of
thoughts that undermine the pure application of a principle of proportionate share. The first is
that local government can legitimately place a higher priority on safeguarding the quality of life
(that is, preserving the adequacy of facilities) for current residents than on providing for new
residents. It is not that far from that thought to a position that, when public facilities are not
adequate, it is fair to hold new development responsible for not making the inadequacy worse.
The second thought is that the value of land for development comes principally from
prior public investments in infrastructure. A parcel of land has considerable added development

value once it is served by roads, water and sewer, schools, and public safety facilities. The
public sector could seek to recapture some of the added value that its infrastructure
investments have created, or not. But the fact of added value from previous public investments
does weaken the argument that new development’s only responsibility is to contribute to added
infrastructure and only a small share of that.
Measures of Adequacy/Remedies of Inadequacy
In one of the interim reports, staff pointed out that the Growth Policy consists of two steps:
measures of adequacy, and remedies for inadequacy. Over time, both have been adjusted to
yield desired outcomes. The Growth Policy’s school capacity standard isn’t just the dividing line
between acceptable and unacceptable school crowding conditions. It also reflects a judgment
about the relative importance of school capacity to the overall adequacy of schools, the role that
new development plays in school enrollment, etc. If one decides that these two relationships are
weak, one could develop a test that is difficult to fail (a loose standard of adequacy), or one
could have a stricter standard of adequacy but make modest additional requirements on new
development when the test fails.
Staff’s general preference is that the Growth Policy’s standard of adequacy be as close as
possible to what most people would consider the dividing line between acceptable and
unacceptable. This principle guided our recommendations for Policy Area Transportation
Review and the School Test especially. We recognize, of course, that “adequacy” is inherently
subjective and that others will have their own, equally valid, viewpoint.
The options for remedies for inadequacy include: development moratoria, provision of
public facilities by the public or private sector, and financial contributions by the private sector.
Our guideline for evaluating these options has been: are they fair, and are they likely to result in
improvements to the inadequate public facilities?
Staging Versus Payments (Time or Money?)
The original purpose for adopting an adequate public facilities ordinance is to synchronize
the time of development and facilities. In practice, this has meant building infrastructure as
expeditiously as possible, and restraining new development where it is not yet provided. The
tool for staging, or pacing, development has been the staging ceiling – that point when the
Planning Board may no longer approve additional development. When approved and existing
development reach the ceiling, a moratorium is declared until the public sector adds more
infrastructure.
In other jurisdictions, the blunt instrument of a strict moratorium has been softened by a
moratorium of limited duration, say four or six years. In this case, a developer knows that the
moratorium will last no longer than some predetermined amount. The locality gets additional
time to provide needed facilities, if it has the financial resources to do so.

The use of delaying development has always had a competitor as the primary remedy
for inadequate public facilities. That competitor is the developer contribution – either in-kind
(providing more of whatever facility is inadequate) or by agreeing to reduce trips, by providing
some other public benefit (such as affordable housing), or by making a payment to the County
to be used for public facilities.
The in-kind contribution (called “developer participation” in previous iterations of the

Growth Policy) had several conditions, among them: construction on the infrastructure had to
precede construction on the development project, and the resulting combination of development
+ infrastructure could not make the situation worse.
“Developer participation” works most easily in parts of the County that are relatively
undeveloped. This is because two of the necessary components are: a potential supply of larger
development projects that can absorb the cost of substantial transportation improvements, and
a long list of planned-but-unbuilt transportation improvements. This situation reminds us of the
essential “lumpiness” of public facilities – an observation made in the first growth policies – that
infrastructure typically comes in larger increments than private development, so it is not often
easy to match a specific development project with a specific transportation improvement, for
example.
At times, the County has sought to find ways to solve the lumpiness issue. One of these
was the “road club,” where developers could band together to build one or more roads needed
for their collective projects. These arrangements could be complicated for the participants as
well as the public sector, whose job it was to monitor them. Another was “partial-cost developer
participation” which was intended to allow development to pay toward its share of a
programmed transportation improvement. This provision was never used, probably because
use was tightly controlled and the approval mechanism was elaborate. A third way was to allow
developers to reduce their impact on inadequate facilities through trip mitigation programs that
could include running shuttles to Metro stations, sponsoring carpools, or agreeing to limit traffic-
generating operations during peak travel periods.
The issue of lumpiness goes away if the developer’s contribution becomes a

requirement to pay money rather than to supply infrastructure. There are several valid ways to
assess a per-unit or per-job payment on new development to be used by the public sector for
infrastructure. This would be a perfect solution from one perspective, but problematic from
another: revenues from these payments are often not sufficient to pay for needed
improvements. As a result, one might have lots of partially-funded, or a few fully-funded
infrastructure projects – either situation is unsatisfactory if it leaves some areas with new
development and inadequate facilities.
Allowing development to “pay-and-go” essentially eliminates the timing aspect of the

APFO – development is not delayed – in favor of increased revenues. If revenues are insufficient
to provide facilities to keep pace with approvals, then the pace of development and facilities is
no longer synchronized.

A solution to that last problem is to raise fees so that they are sufficient to pay for
needed infrastructure. This can result in some payment rates that are much higher than public
officials and the private sector are used to seeing.
The prospect of very large development approval fees or impact taxes brings us full circle,
perhaps: Very large fees might act as a de facto time delay (for those developers who prefer to
wait for public infrastructure over making such a large payment. But they may be an attractive
alternative for developers for whom a time delay would be a bigger penalty than a large
payment.
The recommendations that follow are based on staff’s judgments about the relative roles
that time delay and payments play in the County’s administration of the APFO.
Effect of Impact Taxes
The Saturday, April 28, 2007 Washington Post reported that Prince William County officials
are proposing to increase the fees that developers pay the county for permission to build
houses to $51,113 for each single-family detached house, $43,262 for each townhouse, and
$26,545 for each multifamily unit. The article’s headline was “Higher Builder Fee Sought; Home
Price Increase Feared.”
Among the issues that staff explored during this review of the Growth Policy: the potential
for impact taxes to support County land use policies by encouraging or penalizing development
in certain locations (or other attributes), and the possibility that impact taxes would have a
negative effect on the cost of housing.
Our conclusions on this issue, facilitated by academic research and other widely-reviewed
studies, are:
• Impact taxes are not “passed on to the homebuyer” but are instead recaptured by the
developer by paying less for land, and
• Because of this effect, impact taxes are not an effective tool for steering development to
certain locations.
A developer or builder typically cannot pass impact taxes onto homebuyers because he is
already pricing his product at the highest price the market will bear. If the builder has determined
that he can sell a new home for $500,000, he will not be able to sell that home for $520,000 just
because the locality has imposed a $20,000 impact tax. Particularly as impact taxes become
routine, the developer includes the impact taxes into his calculations of the cost to develop and
finds economies elsewhere. Research shows that this is often done by bidding less for the
developable parcel....in other words: passing the impact taxes onto the land seller. Over time,
this might mean that large impact tax rates would not have the time delay effect discussed
above.
In a tight housing market with escalating home prices, a builder may be able to recapture
impact taxes through higher than expected profits on the sale of his homes, but that is not the

same as passing the taxes onto the homebuyer. There is also some research that indicates that
when impact taxes result in a higher level of services in a community, the value of the homes in
that community also increases.
If developers are successful in bidding less for land to account for impact taxes, then there
is little benefit to the developer of choosing a low impact tax area over a high impact tax area.
This makes theoretical sense and is borne out in the real world. San Diego imposed a very high
impact fee (in the $80,000 range) on rural development but saw no slowing of development in
rural areas.
Planning staff circulated two studies on this and related issues in mid-March to the Planning
Board and the County Council.1 One of these studies also looked at the effect of growth
management on housing prices and displacement (pushing development to a different location).
Staff’s conclusions from reading these and other studies: the housing supply must be
constrained on a regional basis (and not just in one or two jurisdictions) to exert substantial
upward pressure on housing prices; zoning is the “growth management” tool that has, by far,
the greatest effect on limiting the supply of housing; and adequate public facilities ordinances,
unless they result in moratoria for long periods in large areas, have a weak housing price and
displacement effect.
The Growth Policy and the CIP
The first set of recommendations in this report are designed to reinvigorate the Growth
Policy’s role as a source of information for capital programming. This is a role that the Growth
Policy was literally “born to play” as it was a reason why the Growth Policy was instituted.
Our recommendations add some value to the historical focus of the Growth Policy, which
has been on the infrastructure needed to support new development. We would now include in
the biennial Growth Policy’s CIP review increased attention to the needs of established
communities. In part this is because the dividing line between “facilities for new development”
and “facilities for established neighborhoods” is often blurry.
Growth Management Improvements
The Growth Policy is only one tool in the toolkit of the County’s growth management
system. Coordinating as it does with the CIP on a biennial basis, it provides the opportunity for
the Council and Executive to pause, in the midst of the daily/weekly/monthly flood of decision
making pressures, to take stock, from a larger time and spatial perspective, of the degree to
which the County’s land policies and fiscal policies are in balance with each other. Other equally,
and in some cases even more, important tools for maintaining a high quality of life include: the
General and community Master Plans; the Zoning, Subdivision, and Building Ordinances; and
the coordination that takes place between the administrative decisions of the Planning Board
and those of the various agencies and departments of government responsible for building and
maintaining the service facilities of the County. Only good coordination across all these decision
making points can effectively bring about and maintain a high standard of livability as growth and
change occur over time.

In response to the Council’s request for analysis and recommendations regarding other
ways to enhance the growth management in the County, staff has prepared reports on two
important topics that we believe should be kept in mind when considering the overall growth
management system at this time. The first is on the topic of Sustainability, and the second on
the topic of Design. Both are somewhat “conceptual” topics, in that they deal with goals and
values that are still evolving in the public consciousness, and have not yet matured into
precisely defined criteria such as those the Growth Policy deals with in regard to the APFO
factors. But evidence from around the nation, and indeed the world, is strong that the future will
require ever more attention to be paid to exploring their meaning and application by governments
at all scales.
The mounting evidence that climate change presents a problem of enormous magnitude
already has been recognized by the Council in numerous ways, including its recent public forum
on this subject and its initiatives in finding ways to save energy and promote “green” buildings.
“Sustainability” has become globally a one word shorthand for the idea that public policy should
be designed to take into account the interaction of the environment, the economy, and social
equity in guiding growth and making decisions about public investment. Considering how
actions can reinforce improvements in all three areas can help the world avert the worst of the
effects of global warming and adapt to the changes that are unavoidable.
A number of County agencies have begun thinking about and working on this issue. The
staff paper on this topic is the Planning Department’s contribution to this growing dialog. It is a
preliminary work that evaluates how other places have approached this issue, and offers some
suggestions for further refinement of how these insights might be developed further to keep
Montgomery County in the forefront of creative public policy.
The Design report reminds us of the importance of good urban design to the perceptions of
citizens that they live in a community that cares about its quality of life. As we know from the
favorable public reaction to the streetscapes and building improvements made in recent years
to the central business districts of Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Friendship Heights, good urban
design is a highly valued commodity. It may be difficult to define, but there is no question that it
is important. We believe it will become increasingly important in the future, as the County
matures from a rural “edge” jurisdiction into a more mixed use “creative class” working and
living environment.
This paper rehearses the ways that the Planning Department seeks to assist both the
private and the public sectors to continually search for better design solutions in each of the
decision points that naturally occur in the development process. Sustainability may be the new
goal of good planning in the twenty-first century, but Design is the process by which it will be
achieved. The roots of these two ideas, Sustainability and Design, are already deep in
Montgomery County’s growth management system. Elevating their profile and the public
understanding of their value to the future, while challenging to be sure, should not be as difficult
in this County as in many others without as much of a planning tradition.

ACCOMPANYING REPORTS
Immediately following this report are two background reports: Montgomery County and
Growth, and History of Montgomery County’s Growth Policy.
The Planning Department’s Growth Policy recommendations that are summarized below
are explored in detail in attached reports. These are:
• APFO Reform Part 1, which includes the Planning Department’s
recommendations for improving the Growth Policy’s role in identifying and prioritizing
new infrastructure. This report also contains Planning staff’s recommendations for
modifying the school adequacy test, the test for adequacy of other public facilities,
and staff’s analysis of the pipeline of approved development.
• APFO Reform Part 2, which addresses the Department’s recommendations for
transportation adequacy tests, including reinstating a form of Policy Area
Transportation Review and modifying Local Area Transportation Review.
• Infrastructure Financing, which includes recommendations for modifying the
County’s impact taxes and other infrastructure financing issues.
• A Vision of Sustainable Development for Montgomery County, which
addresses how to assure that all policy changes and physical investments in
Montgomery County direct growth and development in a way that is sustainable.
• Design Excellence: Tools to Achieve a Quality Environment, which
discusses the role that design plays in achieving Growth Policy, General Plan,
sustainability, and other policy objectives as well as the planning and regulatory tools
that could be strengthened to better ensure high quality design.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Montgomery County Planning Department recommends several changes to the

County’s growth policies, including changes to the guidelines for the administration of the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (the “Growth Policy”) and its infrastructure financing
mechanisms. Moreover, Planning staff has identified opportunities to increase the application of
principles of sustainability and quality design in the land use planning process.
Identifying and Prioritizing Infrastructure
Planning Department staff recommends that the biennial component of the Growth
Policy review be substantially expanded to provide improved information and guidance for
the Capital Improvements Program and other public decisions. The Growth Policy was
designed to provide input to the Capital Improvements Program by identifying areas where
public facilities are inadequate. Over the years, the Growth Policy has had varying success in
meeting this responsibility. More recently, the Highway Mobility Report is succeeding in providing
detailed analysis and recommendations for prioritizing roadway improvements.

Planning staff suggests that the biennial component of the Growth Policy include:
• An analysis of current and future pace and pattern of growth in the County and the
factors affecting demand for public facilities in established communities.
• An update on the County’s success in meeting a set of indicators (if the County
agrees to institute an indicators program, such as a Sustainability Indicators program
based on General Plan principles and more that Planning staff recommends).
Sample indicators: percentage of development that is mixed-use and location within
one-half mile of a transit station; percentage of non-SOV commuting trips; acres of
impervious surface. These indicators may also include desired levels of service for
public facilities that are not regulated by the APFO: parks, libraries, community
centers, etc.
• An implementation status report for each master plan and sector plan, that will
include a review of how planned development is proceeding, and whether the public
actions/facilities in the plan are occurring in a timely way. If the plan contains a
staging element, this would be an opportunity to review the current status determine
if the Growth Policy is reinforcing or working against the staging envisioned when the
plan was adopted.
• A comprehensive list of priority facilities that are recommended for addition to the
Capital Improvements Program. The report may also recommend other public
actions needed to achieve master plan objectives, or to improve the County’s
performance on its adopted set of indicators (if the County chooses to pursue an
indicators program).
• The current biennial Growth Policy schedule requires a staff draft report in May and a
Planning Board final draft in June in odd-numbered years. This schedule would result
in Planning Board facility recommendations as the County Executive is beginning the
biennial Capital Improvements Program cycle.
When the County Executive’s Recommended CIP is released, Planning staff would use the
Growth Policy recommendations and analysis as the basis for preparing comments on the CIP
for Planning Board review and transmittal to the County Council.
Schools
Planning Department staff recommends that the County revise the test so that the
definition of adequacy more closely conforms to the MCPS definition of capacity by
lowering the threshold that triggers the School Facilities Payment. That threshold should be
based on “MCPS program capacity,” not “Growth Policy capacity” but should be inflated to avoid
the problems that have kept the County from using program capacity in the past. In addition, for
the purposes of determining if a School Facilities Payment is required, the practice of
“borrowing” high school capacity should not be used. Staff recommends that the threshold be
when enrollment reaches 110 percent of program capacity, which would cause development in
the following clusters to pay the school facilities payment: Blake, Clarksburg, Einstein, Kennedy,

Northwest, Wheaton, and Wootton. If policymakers prefer to continue to use “Growth Policy
capacity,” staff would recommend that the threshold for the School Facilities Payment be set at
the point when enrollment reaches 95 percent of capacity. This would cause residential
development to pay the School Facilities Payment in Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Blake,
Clarksburg, Kennedy, Northwest, Quince Orchard, and Springbrook.
Planning Department staff recommends increasing the School Facilities Payment from
$12,500 per student to $35,524 per elementary school student, $42,351 per middle
school student, and $47,501 per high school student. This figure is derived from per-
student costs for new schools by type of school. If enrollment exceeds the capacity threshold in
a particular cluster, the school facilities payment would equal the per student rate for the type of
school exceeding capacity.
Planning Department staff recommends retaining an upper limit so that when

enrollment greatly exceeds capacity, development approvals in that cluster stop. This
upper limit has very rarely been exceeded, but when it was, new school facilities were promptly
programmed. This suggests that this upper limit is serving an “alarm” function when enrollment
and capacity are severely out of balance.
Planning Department staff recommends that the County consider capturing

development that occurs outside the subdivision process. As smaller housing units are
replaced with larger ones, or are expanded with additions, some additional student generation
can be expected. There is sufficient academic study of this issue to legitimately link student
generation to size of home. Although the total number of additional students is small, the County
could consider applying the School Facilities Payment or the School Impact Tax to these
properties.
Planning Department staff recommends some technical corrections to the Growth

Policy resolution regarding schools. The current Growth Policy resolution implies that the
Planning Board must continue to conduct the School test annually even if the Council fails to
pass a new Growth Policy resolution, but explicit language is needed. The language in the
Growth Policy concerning school clusters in municipalities is confusing, now that municipalities
have passed APFOs that are more stringent than Montgomery County’s.
Planning Department staff recommends monitoring the Office of Legislative Oversight

(OLO) review of indicators for Montgomery County Public Schools to see if they serve as
a basis for further modification of the School Test.
Water and Sewerage Facilities
Planning Department staff recommends no changes to the adequacy test for water and
sewerage systems. For purposes of the APFO, our primary concern is the potential for new
development to be approved even when water and sewerage systems are not adequate to
support that development. Staff believes the current test, backed up by planning and
implementation of system improvements, is working as intended.

Police
Planning Department staff recommends no changes to the adequacy test for police
service. Planning staff reviewed public safety facilities and services in detail in 2005 and
recommended no changes at that time. For police services in particular, staff noted that the
number and location of police “facilities”-that is, police stations - is not closely related to levels of
service. Staff suggests that there are benefits to having the Police Department participate in the
Development Review Committee for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
review of new development.
Fire and Rescue Services
Planning Department staff recommends no changes to the adequacy test for fire and
rescue services. Planning staff reviewed public safety facilities and services in detail in 2005
and recommended no changes at that time. For fire and rescue services in particular, staff
noted that the number and location of fire stations is correlated to adequacy (as measured in
response times) because, unlike police, fire and rescue personnel are located at a station until a
call comes in. Staff’s 2005 research indicated that the major challenge for adding stations was
finding suitable locations and that the master plan process is the best mechanism for
designating those locations. Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services representatives
participate in the master plan process, and MCFRS has an up-to-date master plan.
During the course of our study this year, staff noted several aspects of fire and rescue
services that may be useful for making land use recommendations during the master plan
process. These include the fact that the great majority of calls are for emergency medical
services, which suggests that Planning staff discuss with MCFRS the possibility of identifying
locations for emergency medical units in master plans. The observation that only 12 percent of
calls are for fires, and that most of these are for brush and vehicle fires, suggests to Planning
staff that there are opportunities to increase the use of smaller fire trucks in the fleet, which
allows use of smaller fire stations and road turning radii. Planning staff raises these issues only
from a land use perspective: larger parcels of land are becoming rare, and the future of
neighborhood design depends in part on narrower streets with smaller turning radii.
Other Public Facilities
Planning Department staff does not recommend adding to the list of public facilities
tested in the APFO. However, Planning staff’s review of these facilities has prompted us to
offer some suggestions about how the adequacy of these facilities can be strengthened. The
chief suggestion has to do with the Growth Policy itself.
Planning staff recommends that the Recreation Guidelines applied in the regulatory
process be revised. This project is included in the Planning Department’s requested FY08
work program. Among the issues to consider: whether to eliminate provisions that allow
developers to count existing public facilities as part of satisfying the recreational requirements
for new development.

Planning staff’s research indicates that additional study of parking policies and
procedures is warranted. In this study, Planning staff reviewed Parking Lot Districts (PLDs)
as a “public facility” for APFO purposes. Although we don’t suggest that they be incorporated in
the APFO, we note that broader application of PLDs can support trip reduction initiatives and
serve revitalization objectives outside of Central Business Districts. County parking policies
could bear re-examination, including the minimum parking requirements in the zoning
ordinance.
Transportation
Policy Area Review
The Montgomery County Planning Department believes that a second transportation

test, in addition to Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), is desirable to stage
growth in concert with the implementation of adequate public facilities. However, based
on the level of concerns regarding the importance, coherence, and reliability of the Policy Area
Transportation Review (PATR), Planning staff staff recommends against reinstating the PATR
system as previously defined.
Instead, staff recommends that the Planning Board support continued development
of a new policy area test, tentatively called Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR), that we
find builds upon the many positive characteristics of PATR while improving:
• Coherence, as the adequacy standards are based on forecasted traveler delays
rather than the forecasted Average Congestion Index
• Reliability, as the equivalency between transportation system capacity and vehicle
trips for areas that “fail” the PAMR test is defined in a lookup table, rather than
through an iterative process of travel demand model runs
• Applicability, as the lookup table allows both the public and private sector
opportunities to address areas that fail the PAMR test through a wider range of
actions in the form of non-auto amenities such as transit and pedestrian facilities in
addition to providing roadway capacity.
Staff suggests that the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) system have the following
characteristics:
• Uses the existing policy area geographies.
• Considers a horizon year that includes current jobs and households, all the approved
development in the pipeline, and the transportation system of current plus future
projects fully-funded in the six year CIP and CTP.
• Uses the travel demand forecasting model to determine the relative mobility for both
transit vehicles and autos and compares these relationships against a standard for
groups of policy areas.

• Makes a single finding for each policy area; either the policy area is adequate or not
adequate in terms of PAMR.
For policy areas that are found inadequate, the Planning Department recommends that
development applicants (other than those with de minimis impacts) given the following options
to meet the policy area-level transportation conditions:
• Conduct a trip reduction program with an agreement signed with MNCPPC to reduce
or eliminate peak hour trips.
• Provide non-auto amenities such as sidewalks, handicap ramps, or bike lockers to
gain vehicle trip credits as specified in the LATR guidelines (up to a maximum of 120
trips).
• Construct additional roadway capacity with the amount based on a table that will be
provided in the Growth Policy that will be related to the type of development, its size,
and the type of roadway to be widened or added to – major highway, arterial/
business district street, or master planned primary. All improvements must be in the
master plan, and be a logical continuous segment, from one intersection to another.
The Planning Board would have the approval authority over the segment to be
constructed.
• Provide transit capital improvements in terms of adding to the fleet of transit vehicles.
• Apply for a fee-in-lieu of provision of capital improvements, but only after
demonstration to the Planning Board of a good-faith effort to pursue capital
improvement implementation.
The PAMR process outlined by staff does not yet contain proposals on some of the more
specific procedures that were part of PATR in the past, although we have given them attention.
These include procedures for special treatment of affordable housing, strategic economic
development projects, and other land uses. Staff can bring these recommendations forward
fairly quickly once there is consensus on major points.
Local Area Transportation Review
The Planning Department recommends retaining the Local Area Transportation

Review (LATR) congestion standards currently in effect, but recommends other
changes to strengthen the intersection congestion test.
Planning staff recommends requiring an LATR traffic study from development that
takes advantage of the Alternative Review Procedure in Metro Station Policy Areas.
Staff recommends revising the practice for already approved development sites
being expanded to provide for:
• Allowing an increase of five peak hour trips to avoid a traffic study altogether based
on “de minimis” logic.

• Basing the number of signalized intersections in the study on the increased number
of peak hour trips rather than the total number of peak hour trips, in cases where use
and occupancy permits for at least 75% of the originally approved development were
issued more than twelve years prior to the LATR study scope request for the
expansion.
The Planning Department further recommends: allowing payment in lieu of

implementation for non-automobile transportation amenities with the agreement of the
DPWT, WMATA, SHA, or Maryland Transit Administration; requiring documentation that
traffic mitigation or trip reduction measures were considered in all cases; and requiring
traffic studies be submitted by certified professionals (Professional Engineer, Professional
Transportation Planner, or Professional Transportation Operations Engineer).
Planning staff recommends continuing the Highway Mobility Report on a two year
cycle, and expanding the traffic data collection program to allow for improved reporting of
intersection conditions and travel time analysis in the report and verification of developer-
submitted traffic studies.
Additional procedural clarifications to the Planning Board’s LATR Guidelines are described
in the Appendix to this report. These clarifications are for the Board’s information and will be
considered when an update to the LATR Guidelines is prepared.
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
Planning staff understands that the Council may devote the summer to addressing
changes to the Growth Policy resolution itself and may defer discussions of impact tax issues to
the fall. Staff has prepared “short term” infrastructure financing recommendations which focus
on changing the tax rates only, which staff understands does not require changes to the County
Code. Staff has also prepared “long term” recommendations, which principally focus on issues
that would likely require more study and deliberation.
We have noted that the market eventually accommodates impact taxes by reducing land
values, but we also recognize that developers will have varying abilities to adjust to abrupt
increases in taxes. Planning staff believes that the period required for the market to reach a new
equilibrium level could be fairly short, given the sophistication of the home building industry in
managing risk, but this is not an issue we have explored in any detail. We also recognize that
delays in implementing new impact tax rates in the past created a rush for building permits that
was undesirable from a revenue-generation perspective. If the Council plans to take up impact
tax issues in the fall, they may wish to direct staff of all relevant agencies to look into these
issues before then, possibly with the assistance of economic consultants.

Short Term School Impact Tax Recommendation
The Planning Department recommends that the County adopt school impact tax rates that
reflect the cost of planned increases in school capacity. The schedule of tax rates that would
accomplish this goal is the following:
$ 22,729 single-family detached*

$ 17,112 single-family attached
$ 10,815 multi-family non high-rise
$ 4,585 multi-family high-rise
* For single-family units there is a surcharge of $1 per square foot for each square foot of gross floor area above 4,500
square feet to a maximum of 8,500 square feet (gross floor area calculation includes basement).
This proposed impact tax rate schedule reflects the marginal costs for schools associated
with new housing. They are adjusted by housing type to reflect the student generation rates
calculated from the 2005 Census Update Survey. These rates would be more than double the
rates that will go into effect in July, when rates will be adjusted for inflation.
Short Term Transportation Impact Tax Recommendation
The Planning Department staff recommends setting transportation impact tax rates at
levels that reflect the full cost (approximately $1.2 billion) of planned increases in transportation
capacity. The schedule of tax rates that would accomplish this goal is the following:
General Metro Station Clarksburg

Residential (per dwelling unit)

Multi-family attached (except high-rise) $5,884 $2,943 $7,591
Non-residential (per square foot GFA)
Office $11.55 $5.80 $13.90

Industrial $5.40 $2.65 $6.40
Retail $18.80 $9.50 $22.55
Place of worship $0.30 $0.15 $0.35
Private elementary and secondary school $0.75 $0.35 $0.65
Hospital $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
In addition to being more closely tied to the cost of infrastructure, staff’s methodology for
calculating transportation impact tax rates varies from the current approach in some other
ways. One of the more notable is that staff is basing the cost allocations on total daily auto trips,

rather than peak period auto trips. The result of this change is to allocate more of the costs to
retail uses. Retail excepted, these rates would be an 85 percent increase over the rates that will
go into effect in July, when rates will be adjusted for inflation.
Phasing In Impact Tax Rate Increases
A phase-in of the impact tax rate increases is suggested. This assumes that near-term
projects are especially cost-sensitive, but that the most cost-sensitive projects can move
forward fairly soon.
• Impose 25 percent of the increase within 3 months
• Impose 50 percent in 6 months
• Impose 100 percent in 12 months.
Short Term Recordation Tax Recommendation
Planning staff reviewed the role that the recordation tax plays in infrastructure financing and
notes the tax’s ability to generate revenues from the turnover of existing housing units, which is
one source of changing demand for infrastructure. The current tax in Montgomery County is
$6.90 per $1,000 (with the first $50,000 exempt), with $4.40 going toward the general fund and
$2.50 dedicated to MCPS and Montgomery College. The share of school infrastructure
improvements generated by the turnover of existing units could be funded with an increase in
the school’s portion of the recordation tax of $11.20. Planning staff recommends that the
recordation tax be increased to $11.20 with the total revenue generated dedicated to schools.
Long Term Infrastructure Financing Recommendations
Planning staff’s longer term recommendations identify infrastructure financing issues to be

explored. These include more sophisticated approaches to account for the various factors that
affect the success of an infrastructure financing program: forecasts of growth, estimates of
needed infrastructure, the use of exemptions, etc. These ideas have application beyond fine-
tuning the tax rates; we think they may also be useful in planning and implementing needed
facilities.
The Infrastructure Financing report echoes recommendations in the APFO Reform report
to strengthen the planning and delivery of infrastructure and other public facilities and services,
with, for example, regular evaluations of the status of master plan implementation. The
Infrastructure Financing report also suggests that long-range capital facilities plans, tied to
master plan requirements and other standards, will improve the County’s ability to set and meet
goals for infrastructure financing.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
“Sustainability” became a common term through a 1987 United Nation’s World

Commission on Environment and Development report titled Our Common Future. Since its
inception, the notion of “Sustainability” has provided a holistic worldview of how social equity,
economic, and environmental forces work together to create the world in which we live and,
more importantly, how we may harness these forces to create something better. Planning staff
proposes using the following definition to guide future growth and development in Montgomery
County:
Sustainable Development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs. It recognizes the fundamental inextricable
interdependence between the economy, the environment, and social equity, and works to
promote each to the benefit of all.
The concept of sustainability allows us to discuss policies and plans in relationship to one
another as plans and development proposals are considered. In this way, we can explore the
advantages, conflicts and trade-offs associated with each proposal. Without this examination
and measures or targets for sustainability, we will continue to approve development based on
the rules it doesn’t violate rather than on the goals, objectives and targets it achieves.
Planning staff believes that growth management policy in Montgomery County should
incorporate sustainability as a guiding principle. The growth it guides should contribute to the
sustainability of the County’s environment, economy and social well-being, and it should be
updated regularly to account for better information as well as changes in people’s concerns and
priorities. The sustainability principle should be applied to both new growth and changes in
existing development.
The risk of not including sustainability in the growth policy is that growth will continue to be
managed only in terms of how and when infrastructure is provided rather than on how well it
serves the county’s overall needs as a community and as a responsible part of the national
effort to address the sustainability problem
This paper discusses how well the General Plan Refinement (GPR) expresses principles
and goals that support sustainability, and finds that the General Plan already identifies most,
although not all, of the principles needed to guide Montgomery County towards coming to the
forefront of the sustainability movement. We suggest how the goals of the GPR can be
modified to reflect sustainability more comprehensively.
Our survey of what other local governments are doing to implement sustainability plans
around the country shows that many use “indicators” to establish specific targets and evaluate
progress in meeting specified goals. Indicators allow residents and decision makers to track
and monitor select social, economic and environmental conditions by measuring progress
toward specific quantifiable goals or targets. Indicators simplify vast amounts of information and

data, and thus provide a common ground on which communities create relationships, build
trust and consensus, and base decisions.
Communities take different approaches in developing suitable indicators, but the dialogue
between stakeholders both informs the process and engages the public to offer clear direction
for the future. Generating a sustainability indicators program offers a logical compliment to
effective growth policy. These tools provide a means to accurately gauge the economic,
environmental and social conditions within a community over the long term, allowing for more
effective and informed decision-making.
The Planning Department currently is exploring how the broader perspective of the
sustainability principle may be applied to the 355/I270 Corridor Study. Of necessity, this initial
effort at applying this broad principle to a local land use exercise will be conceptual in nature.
But it is expected that the product will yield some insights useful to the further refinement and
practical application of this new approach.
The Water Resources Element required by state law (HB 1141) presents another
opportunity to explore sustainability. This law requires that we demonstrate how planned
growth will be supplied with drinking water and wastewater treatment capacity and show how
our streams can accommodate the anticipated stormwater runoff while protecting local
streams and the Chesapeake Bay.
Sustainability Recommendations
We face a tremendous challenge in the next decade: how to assure that policy changes
and physical investments in Montgomery County direct growth and development in a way that
is sustainable. The Planning Department suggests the following actions to begin meeting that
challenge:
• Work towards adopting a definition of sustainability tailored to the needs of
Montgomery County for use in our County programs.
• Expand the goals of the General Plan Refinement to include appropriate
sustainability principles.
• Incorporate into the Planning Board’s existing 2007 work program initial
efforts at further refining sustainability principles for application to land use
related plans and studies, such as the 355/I-270 Corridor Study and the State
mandated Water Resources Element, to be undertaken in FY 2008.
• Using this experience, undertake a public involvement process to establish
countywide indicators and targets as soon as feasible within upcoming budgets.
• Apply sustainability principles and goals to the ongoing Growth Policy and
Capital Improvements Program process, especially the analysis of trends and
evaluation of public investments that repond to or anticipate growth.

DESIGN EXCELLENCE
The attached report, Design Excellence: Tools to Improve Growth’s Contribution to Our
Quality of Life, is intended to address methods to achieve the objectives identified in the other
papers included in the Growth Policy report. Design is not an end unto itself; it is the means by
which we use the forces of growth and change to achieve objectives that we mutually set. As an
example, if the report on sustainability identifies a set of objectives for the preservation of the
environment, the design excellence report provides the tools to achieve those objectives.
Planning in Montgomery County in the next century will require significant attention to design
quality in community building. Directing development to more dense Metro station areas and the
I-270 Corridor and away from rural areas is a hallmark of the General Plan …on Wedges and
Corridors for Montgomery County. Montgomery County has a limited amount of available land
for development. Redevelopment of existing areas including older retail centers will be a focus
of development pressure in the coming decades. Preserving the character of the existing rural
communities continues to be a challenge. The character of the major transportation travel
routes could be significantly improved. From an economic point of view, design excellence
should also be part of maintaining the County’s competitive edge in attracting quality businesses
in the 21st century global market place. These development conditions require attention to
design in community building for success as part of a comprehensive growth policy.
The attached report provides options for augmenting and enhancing the planning tools and
methods authorized for Montgomery County. Among the design issues that relate most closely
to the Growth Policy are: implementing sustainability goals, augmenting and enhancing the
public realm, and improving pedestrian access in Montgomery County:
Design Excellence and Sustainability
Emphasizing the design of communities will assist in accomplishing the objective of

creating a sustainable environment. Planning for sustainability should occur early in the design
of communities. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards have been
developed as part of a pilot program for planning green neighborhoods. Montgomery County
could take a leadership role in reviewing the pilot program and establishing new standards in the
design of green communities to assist in creating a sustainable environment.
Design Excellence and the Public Realm
Emphasizing design excellence in the public realm would significantly improve the
character of Montgomery County. The following three areas of the public realm should be the
focus of design excellence:
• Streets and Highways (coordinate with the revisions underway to the Road Code) -
The design of streets represents a major determinant of the function and character
of neighborhoods in Montgomery County.

• Public Spaces (clarify and enhance the requirements for public use space, green
space, and active and passive recreation identified in the Zoning Ordinance) - The
design of public spaces (the space between buildings) has a significant impact on
the character of Montgomery County.
• Blocks and Buildings (coordinate with the finding for compatibility, and the finding
for the provision of adequate, safe and efficient layout of buildings and open space
specified in the Zoning Ordinance) - The layout of blocks and buildings provides the
form and structure for the space between buildings.
Design Excellence and Pedestrian Access
Enhancing the design of sidewalks, pathways and park trails would provide opportunities to
improve the connections to transit facilities, commercial centers, and recreation areas in
Montgomery County. Improving pedestrian connections and enhancing the pedestrian
experience provides the opportunity to significantly benefit the overall health of the residents in
Montgomery County by encouraging alternatives to travel by the automobile.
(Footnotes)
1
Been, Vicki. 2005. Impact Fees and Housing Affordability.
Citiscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research
. Volume 8, Number 1, 2005. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research.
Nelson, A.C., et. al., 2002. The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability; The Academic
Evidence
, The Brookings Institution Center on Urban Metropolitan Policy,
February 2002.

Montgomery County and Growth
Today
Ranked 45th in population, Montgomery County is among the most affluent and well-
educated counties in the nation.
The County’s 2004 median household income of $83,830 is among the highest in the
United States; roughly 41 percent of County households have incomes of $100,000 or
more. In the latest American Community Survey rankings, Montgomery County placed
first among large counties1 for the percentage of residents with graduate degrees, and
third for college-educated residents. The unemployment rate has remained below state
and national levels over the past decade, ranging from a low of 1.9 percent in 1999 to a
high of 3.5 percent in 2000, standing at 2.9 percent in 2006.
More striking is the fact that, to date, Montgomery County has sustained these very high
levels of income, education and employment through an extended period of dynamic
growth and change that has dramatically reshaped its demographic, economic and
physical environment. Its ability to continue doing so, however, will depend on how well
Montgomery County absorbs and manages the long run impacts of this ongoing growth
and change.
Housing, educating, protecting, employing and transporting a larger—and far more

diverse—population are among the critical challenges that Montgomery County faces
now and in the future. The purpose of this report is to outline some of the key trends
and underlying forces that are shaping this future.
Educational Attainment
Montgomery County
Adults Ages 25+
Less than High School High School Graduate Associate’s Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree
1997 8% 28% 5% 29% 31%
2003 9% 22% 7% 29% 34%
2005 8% 22% 6% 29% 35%
Source: M-NCPPC, Census Update Survey
1
Counties with populations of 200,000 or more.
23
Rapid expansion followed by
sustained, slower growth Population of Montgomery County
1980 to 2030
Population growth peaked in the 1980s,
then surged again in the late 1990s. 1,075.0
1,145.0
During the first half of this decade, the thousands 990.0
869.5
County added roughly 69,000 people—an 752.6
8 percent increase in just five years. A 578.9
combination of record birth levels and an
influx of new residents drove the most
recent population boom.
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Most new residents (60%) come from Source: Metropolitan Washington COG Round 7.1 Forecast
outside the Washington area.
Montgomery County serves as a
“gateway” to both Maryland and the
United States – when people move to
Maryland, more of them move to Montgomery
30% Population % Change by Decade
County than to any other county, by a wide Montgomery County
margin. 1980 to 2030
Between 2000 and 2005, births exceeded

14% 14%
deaths by 38,000 individuals. Over the same
period, nearly 25,000 more people moved 9%
7%
into the County than moved out; foreign
immigration accounted for nearly 90 percent
of this net population gain. By 2005, one in
five residents—181,000 people—was new to 1980 to 1990 to 2000 to 2010 to 2020 to
Montgomery County, having moved in within 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
the past five years. S ou r c e : Met r opolit an Washingt on COG Round 7.1For ecast
The immigration of new residents is replacing

out migrating residents. Between April 2000 and
Components of Population Change
July 2006, the County saw an increase in Montgomery County, Maryland
population of 62,627 from foreign immigration April, 2000 to July, 2006
while 50,872 residents moved from Montgomery
County to other places in the United States. Natural Increase 49,076
Births 83,692
Within Maryland, the most frequent location to Deaths -34,616
which Montgomery County residents move is Net Migration 11,755
Frederick County, followed by Howard County. Net international migration 62,627
Net internal migration -50,872
Residual Change -2,865
The past high rates of growth probably will not be
seen again. Montgomery County has entered a Total Population Change 57,966
phase of slower growth typical of larger, more
developed counties and the supply of Source: U.S. Census Bureau
undeveloped land has dwindled. The County is approaching buildout – especially for
24
Projected Growth
single family suburban houses, 72% of 2000 to 2030
our future housing will be multi-family Population Households Employment
units, many of which will be infill in
1,300
developed areas.
1,200
1,100
Population growth began tapering off 1,000
in the middle of this decade, and is 900
expected to slow to about 7 percent 800
thousands
per decade—about half the pace of 700
recent years. 600
500
With an estimated 2007 population of 400
958,000, Montgomery County will 300

200
reach the 1-million residents mark
100
around 2010. As of January, 2007,
0
there were an estimated 355,700
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
housing units and 518,000 jobs in the
Source: Metropolitan Washington COG Round 7.1 Forecast
County. Though the rate of growth will
naturally moderate, the County retains
significant planned additional job,
housing and population capacity through
At-Place Employment Growth
2030. Montgomery County
1975 to 2007
518.0
The latest Washington Council of 474.3
Governments (COG) Cooperative thousands 414.4 414.1
Forecast envisions that between 2005
and 2030, Montgomery County will add 349.3
207,000 people, 94,300 households, and
170,000 jobs—roughly 23 new people, 10 280.9
new households, and 19 new jobs per day 220.3
for 25 years.
Emergence as a major job center
By any measure, Montgomery County’s

economy has been very healthy for the
past three decades, adding nearly
300,000 jobs since 1975. As a regional 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2007
employment center in the Washington, Source: Metropolitan Washington COG Round 7.1 Forecast
D.C. area, Montgomery County provides
jobs to the majority of its residents with 60
percent of the employed residents living
and working here in 2005. The labor force
increasingly reflects the County’s changing demographic profile, becoming significantly
more diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, educational attainment and earning power.
25
Maintaining a relative balance in job and housing growth is a key objective. When jobs
exceed housing capacity, an area must import workers, leading to an increase in the
number and length of in-commutes and pushing housing prices up. Too few jobs can
create unemployment and undermine fiscal stability. The county’s current ratio of jobs to
housing is about 1.4—just shy of the optimal 1.5 to 1.6 ratios. Employment and housing
forecasts predict Montgomery County’s ratio will balance above 1.5 by 2030.
Economic diversification
The federal government remains an important source of employment in Montgomery

County, though there has been a shift away from direct government employment to
private employment with federal contractors. Proximity to federal technology buyers and
research labs has led to the emergence of important technology clusters—especially
biotechnology. The most robust private sector growth has occurred in high-wage
professional, scientific and technical services sector jobs, and other white-collar jobs.
New residents reflect the white-collar economic forces attracting them to Montgomery
County: among adult in-movers, 29 percent have bachelor’s degrees and another 46
percent have an advanced degree.
Growth forecasts envision that a growing proportion of new jobs through 2030 will be
based in offices. Rapid job and economic growth has boosted demand in health,
business, residential, retail and hospitality service sectors.
An increasingly complex demographic base
Montgomery County’s demographic profile has changed dramatically since the 1980s,
becoming more diverse at a variety of levels. Part of this change can be attributed to
wide-scale demographic trends, such as the aging of the existing population and a
surge in foreign immigration. Other trends reflect the unique mix of economic, housing,
quality of life and other factors that draw people to the County and the Washington, D.C.
Greater Racial and Ethnic Diversity
Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black / African-American

Hispanic Non-Hispanic Asian
Non-Hispanic Other
1987 79% 9% 5% 6%
1997 61% 14% 11% 12%
2005 56% 16% 14% 13%
Source: M-NCPPC, 2005 Census Update Survey
26
metropolitan region. New residents provide some of the most striking clues about the
key forces and directions of demographic change in Montgomery County.
In general, the County attracts highly educated new residents. Of new adult in-movers,
29 percent have bachelor’s degrees and another 46 percent have obtained an
advanced degree. Because education and income levels tend to be strongly correlated,
this trend could reinforce and even accelerate Montgomery County’s comparative
affluence. At the same time, the rapid in-flux of residents—especially foreign-born—
introduces an array of new and different challenges to Montgomery County.
While it is difficult to predict how these demographic forces will shape the County over
the long term, it is possible to identify a range of potential near-term impacts.
Ethnic and cultural diversification
Between 2000 and 2005, Montgomery County added 53,000 new residents. Over this
same period, the minority population grew by 60,000 people—a reflection of higher birth
and in-migration rates in this group compared to the existing population. Foreign-born
immigrants accounted for most of the county’s robust minority population growth. Forty-
six percent of new residents live in a household with a foreign-born head or spouse
compared to 35 percent for the County overall.
Many positive attributes are associated with immigration, including an enriched cultural
environment and an infusion of labor and talent. Offsetting these assets are the
challenges of integrating so
many new residents from so
many different cultural, Foreign-born Share of Population
linguistic, ethnic, educational
and other backgrounds. Montgomery County Washington, DC MSA Maryland United States
Forty-four percent of new 30% 29%

residents are more likely to
speak a language other than 25%
English. The Montgomery 21%
County Public Schools 20%
systems reports that more
15%
than 140 languages are 12%
spoken among students in its 12%
10%
schools. Teaching and 8%
reaching out to the parents of 6%
5%
such an extraordinarily 5%
complex student body is likely 0%
to be a continuing challenge 1980 1990 2000 2005
for public schools. Adults with Source: U.S. Census
limited English proficiency

face significant barriers to
economic and cultural
27
integration, and create demand for language interpretation and English language
training services.
While many foreign-born residents come from elite educational and economic
backgrounds, others lack a high school education and struggle with limited
opportunities. Undocumented immigrants face an especially daunting environment;
often relegated to low wage and unstable employment, many also avoid interacting with
government out of fear of being deported—a factor that can greatly complicate
community health, education, housing, law enforcement and other public functions.
An aging population
Over the next 25 years, all age

groups will add population, but Age of County Residents
the fastest growth will occur Percent of County Residents by Age Cohort
among residents ages 65 and
over. Currently accounting for 30%
about 112,000 people—11 2005 2030
percent of all County residents— 25%
this cohort will increase to 16.5
percent by 2030 with the 20%
maturing of the baby boomers.
15%
A corollary trend is that a growing 10%

share of this population plans to
age in place; a recent senior 5%
housing preference survey found
that about 57 percent of residents 0%
ages 55 and older plan to retire in 0 to 4 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 64 65+
Montgomery County, with nearly Source: Washington COG Round 7.0 Forecast
60 percent of these people
planning to continue living in their
current residence.
Offsetting this trend is the fact that people moving to Montgomery County are younger
than the population as a whole. Partly, this reflects the fact that the propensity to move
declines with age, and young, married couples with children are among the most likely
to be attracted to the county’s large job base, high quality of life and renowned public
schools. In addition to these factors, foreign-born and minority residents tend to have
higher birth rates than the population as a whole.
Greater income diversity
As noted above, a large proportion of Montgomery County’s households are among the
most affluent in the nation. Dual income households fuel lofty household incomes with
high paying jobs in a variety of professional and managerial occupations that reward the
well-educated resident work force.
28
But not every household is participating in the County’s wealthy reputation. In 2005, one
out of six households reported incomes less than $40,000. The median income of
households with foreign-born head or spouse is 84 percent of the median of native-born
households ($75,235 and $89,319 respectively). At about $72,0000, the median income
of in-mover households is $12,000 below the County’s median. The difference may be
attributed to the relative youthfulness of the in-movers who have not entered the prime
wage earning years of ages 45 and older.
Twenty-nine percent of households (approximately 100,000 households in 2005) fall

below the household income cap for Montgomery County’s Moderately Priced Dwelling
Units Program (65 percent of the County’s median income).
An acute shortage of affordable housing
With large numbers of affluent residents, along with a heated housing market in recent
years, Montgomery County has the highest median owner-occupied house value and
the highest monthly homeowner costs ($466,100 and $2,041, respectively) in Maryland.
Although the market has cooled slightly, sustained population and job growth will keep
housing demand—and prices—high. Regardless of its type or location, Montgomery
County’s housing stock will remain expensive.
A mainstay of stable and prosperuous communities, homeownership increasingly is out

of reach of a significant proportion of Montgomery County residents. In 2004, only one
out of every ten homes sold in the County was affordable to households earning the
median income of $80,000. Households with median incomes of $125,000 and up
Affordability of Homes Sold in Montgomery County

by Household Income Group (2004)
26.0%
less than $50,000
1.0%
12.0%
$50,000 - $64,999
3.7%
9.8% Percent of households w ithin income range
$65,000 - $79,999
8.1%
Housing units sold in 2004 that w ere affordable to
5.7% households w ithin that income range
$80,000 - $89,999
11.3%
6.2%
$90,000 - $99,999
12.8%
13.0%
$100,000 - $124,999
12.3%
27.3%
$125,000 and abov e
50.9%
Sour c e s : M-NCPPC 2005 Census Update Sur vey and Mar yl and State Depar tment of Assessments &Taxati on, 2004 sal es.
29
accounted for half of all home sales. Fewer than 5 percent of homes were purchased by
households earning less than $65,000
The burden of high housing costs falls most heavily on younger, less affluent and newer
residents—populations that are crucial to Montgomery County’s economic future.
Demand for top technology and professional talent—as well as construction, retail,
support and other workers—is expected to stay robust over the next few years, buoyed
by economic expansion as well as pending Baby Boomer retirements. To offset the high
cost of living, local employers are paying wage and salary premiums to attract and
retain workers at all skill and experience levels. Even so, recent graduates, employees
with young families and workers in lower wage occupations are finding it increasingly
difficult to afford to live in or near jobs in the County.
Increased density and urbanization
While maintaining significant amounts

of land in agriculture and open space,
Commute Patterns
Montgomery County has
Montgomery County
accommodated the growth attracted 2005
by its status as a desirable suburb of
the nation’s capital. It has achieved 3% 4% Drive alone
this balance by following the general Carpool
16%
plan, On Wedges and Corridors, that Public Transit
Other
channels most new growth along
Worked at Hom
transportation corridors separated by 5%
less dense wedges.
Several factors—including sustained 72%

job and population expansion,
declining supplies of greenfield space,
Source: M-NCPPC, 2005 Census Update Survey
and land use policies favoring in-fill
and transit-oriented development—
have reinforced this pattern of
concentrated development in recent years.
Growth, density and mixed-used development are transforming former commuter

suburbs into increasingly more urban-like environments. Urbanization can reinforce
economic development by attracting more jobs, workers and investment to the area; a
mix of urban and natural amenities and a diverse range of housing and lifestyle
opportunities are strong competitive assets as well. Rising fuel prices and growing
awareness of climate change also are contributing to a renewed interest in more transit-
friendly and environmentally sustainable compact development.
Housing prices and traffic congestion could increase with urbanization because of
demands on housing stock, public services and infrastructure. Almost eighty percent of
Montgomery County’s employed residents currently commute by car, with 72 percent
driving alone. Hectic schedules, dual-earner couples, convenience, shorter auto
30
commute times and high incomes have worked against greater use of carpooling and
transit.
Diversifying, more densely-built housing stock
In the past, most housing in Montgomery County consisted of detached, single-family

units built on vacant land. In keeping with the land use trends described above, new
housing construction will feature more densely clustered single-family attached and
multi-family units in existing developed areas. Continued growth and demographic
changes are likely to spur additional variety in available housing types in new and
existing developments. These may include larger units in intense multi-family
developments located near transit; clusters of cottages; large single-family detached
homes on smaller lots; zero lot line developments and accessibly-designed housing for
seniors.
31
History of Montgomery County’s Growth Policy
Along Clopper Road in Germantown, 1979 (left) and 2004 (right)
INTRODUCTION
Although commonly referred to as a separate ordinance, the APFO is

actually part of Montgomery County’s subdivision regulations: Section 50-35 (k)
of the County Code. The APFO was adopted by the County Council in 1973 with
the goal of synchronizing development with the availability of public facilities
needed to support that development. The introductory sentence states, "A
preliminary plan of subdivision must not be approved unless the Planning Board
determines that public facilities will be adequate to support and service the area
of the proposed subdivision."
For the following 13 years, it was the responsibility of the Planning Board
to define adequate public facilities, and it developed a series of reports and
guidelines to do that. Then, during the building boom of the mid 1980s, the
Council became concerned that too much development was being approved.
After several proposals for moratoria or caps on building permits were rejected,
the Council, as a compromise, enacted legislation under which the Council each
year adopted an Annual Growth Policy (AGP) for the County. Since 1986, the
Growth Policy has been used by the Council to direct the Planning Board's
administration of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
This report summarizes some of the milestones in the thirty-four years of

growth management in Montgomery County. 1
GROWTH POLICY MILESTONES 1960s-2007
1960s The County adopts its General Plan, “…On Wedges and Corridors,”
which, among many other accomplishments, identifies three goals that
require special legislation to achieve. The goal of maintaining an
1
Portions of this review draw from, or quote from, work by David Levinson, a former Planning Department
staff member who worked on the Annual Growth Policy in the early 1990s, and who is currently Associate
Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota.
32
agricultural reserve leads to the transfer of development rights
program; the goal of providing housing at all income ranges leads to
the moderately-priced dwelling unit ordinance, and the goal of timing
the delivery of public facilities and private development leads to the
adequate public facilities ordinance.
1972 In Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, the United States
Supreme Court finds adequate public facilities ordinances
constitutional.
1973 The Montgomery County Council adopts the adequate public facilities
ordinance to be administered by the Montgomery County Planning
Board.
1974 The Advisory Committee on County Growth Policy is established by

the Montgomery County Planning Board (Royce Hanson, Chairman;
Richard Tustian, Planning Director) and organized by the League of
Women Voters. This committee comprises 37 individuals, including
many former or future County Council or Planning Board members,
developers and citizen activists. The Committee held 91 meetings,
totaling an estimated 3,000 volunteer person-hours, to produce a
report called Directions in August of 1974. The directions were: 1)
Analyze the impact of forecasts, 2) Manage population growth, 3)
Assure a job/housing balance, 4) Provide low and moderate income
housing, 5) Finance expanded public transit and concentrate
development at stations, and 6) Stage growth on a countywide basis.
In addition to recommending that the Planning Board develop a
Countywide program to stage development, the sixth direction also
recommends that use of the APFO be “extended to areas other than
those required by new development,” that development district
legislation be enacted, and that all master plans have staging
elements.
1974 In October, the Planning Board adopts the first annual Growth Policy
report, called a Framework for Action. This report includes the
development of a theory of growth management for Montgomery
County, analysis of growth-related trends and their implications, and
recommended actions. These recommendations address a number of
the issues raised by the Advisory Committee, and include
recommendations to concentrate development near Metro, improve
connections between the growth policy and the capital improvements
program, and establishing a “quality of life” indicators program.
1975 The Planning Board releases the second annual Growth Policy report,
Fiscal Analysis, which examines the fiscal impact on Montgomery
County of three different rates of growth. It concludes that all three
33
growth rates would require significant increases in tax rates if then-
current levels of public expenditures were to be maintained.
1976 The third annual Growth Policy report is released, called Forecasts:
People, Jobs, and Housing, and is apparently in response to concerns
that previously existing forecasts need to be improved. Like Fiscal
Analysis, this technical report is to be followed by a “sequel” report
looking at the implications of the findings.
1977 The fourth annual Growth Policy report, called Carrying Capacity and
Growth Management, establishes much of the theory tying provision of
public facilities to the timing of development approval. The ecological
notion of “carrying capacity” is applied to the urban system as the
intellectual rationale for a comprehensive growth management system.
This rationale enables the move from “accommodation” of growth to
“management” of growth. This report also raises the issue of the
“lumpiness” of public facilities compared to private development; that
is, at some points in time there will be a surplus of public facilities, at
other time a shortage, and for a few brief instances they will be in
perfect balance. The rest of this report discusses the development of
standards for public facilities and other steps to translate the concept
of carrying capacity into guidelines for administering the adequate
public facilities ordinance. In doing so, a number of sophisticated
models are introduced, setting the stage (no pun intended) for future
growth policies’ reliance on models.
1979 The fifth annual Growth Policy report, Planning, Staging and
Regulating, is issued in June 1979. This report reviews several
different systems related to growth: the transportation system, the
sewerage system, the school system, the fiscal system, and the
stream valley system – but focuses on sewerage and transportation as
the immediate basis for managing growth. This report introduces the
concept of “policy areas” as the geography by which to measure
transportation adequacy and introduces the concept of regulating the
pace of development by establishing “thresholds” – later called
“staging ceilings” – that represent the maximum amount of
development that can be supported by the transportation system while
maintaining a desired level of service. It also introduces the idea that
roadway congestion standards should vary depending on the
availability and usage of transit.
1980 The Planning Board reviews a Comprehensive Staging Plan, subtitled

“An Amendment to the General Plan for Montgomery County.” This
report suggests how to implement the ideas of the fifth annual Growth
Policy report by establishing roadway level of service standards and
development thresholds by policy area. Thresholds are established for
34
housing units and jobs separately, mirroring what would later be called
Policy Area Transportation Review. It envisions a process that would
include adoption by the County Council. The County Council does not
adopt this concept, leaving administration of the APFO to the Planning
Board.
1980 The sixth annual Growth Policy report is called Land Supply and
Demand and consists of two technical reports, one on land supply, and
the other on land demand.
1981-85 The concepts and structure of the Comprehensive Staging Plan are
included and further refined in five annual Comprehensive Planning
Policies reports, adopted by the Planning Board, which include
“guidelines for the administration of the adequate public facilities
ordinance.” These are very similar in structure to the Annual Growth
Policy documents that follow. As in earlier reports, each policy area’s
profile includes growth forecasts, zoning capacity, and threshold
(maximum amount of development that maintains adequacy of public
facilities). There are eleven policy areas, of which three are over
capacity for housing, and one is over capacity for jobs. During this
period, the definition of a “countable” transportation project became
progressively tighter: in 1982-84, the APFO counts a transportation
project if it is at least 50 percent funded in the first six years of the CIP.
By 1986, a project had to be fully funded in the first four years of the
CIP to be counted for APFO purposes.
1985 Concerned about the rapid pace of growth and lagging public facilities,
the County Council appoints a “Consensus Committee on Growth
Management” that provides recommendations for alleviating facility
overload, expanding infrastructure financing, tightening development
controls, and other policy, organizational, and procedural changes.
Infrastructure financing recommendations include increasing the
property tax and the gasoline tax, a surcharge on vehicle registration
fees, creation of district-level taxes, and impact fees. The Committee
also addresses how and when to count public facilities, including a
proposal to establish a semi-annual Approved Road Program to list
roads that are countable for APF review (which was implemented).
1986 By 1986 it is clear that the process of setting thresholds or staging

ceilings was of great interest and importance to residents, the
development community, and public officials. During this period, the
County is experiencing its greatest development pressure and the
largest amount of new development completed. First through an
interim growth policy report, and then through an Annual Growth Policy
resolution, a greater role in administering the APFO is assumed by the
County Executive and County Council – roles that have largely
35
continued to the present day. The Planning Board proposes a new
growth policy, which is reviewed by the County Executive and other
agencies, and adopted as a resolution by the County Council. In the
early years of the AGP, the County Executive extensively rewrites the
Planning Board’s proposal; in later years the County Executive
provides comments.
FY1988 The Annual Growth Policy moves to the fiscal year schedule. The
Planning Board releases the Final Draft FY 1989 Annual Growth Policy
on December 1, 1986. Although not called Policy Area Transportation
Review yet, there is a system for setting staging ceilings by policy area
based on average congestion levels. There are 13 policy areas, of
which five are over capacity for housing and six are over capacity for
jobs. The new policy areas: Gaithersburg is divided into east and west,
and the Damascus Policy Area is created. A “Special Ceiling Allocation
for Affordable Housing” is recommended.
FY1989 During this period, and continuing for over a decade, the Annual
Growth Policy includes detailed reviews of policy issues relating the
administration of the APFO, as well as a report on the results of
staging ceiling analysis. In FY89, these include analysis of how and
when to test for adequacy of transportation facilities (testing at building
permit is considered and rejected), how to allocate transportation
capacity between jobs and housing, proposals to retest older
subdivisions, and adopting a school adequacy test. Additional policy
areas are created, including Silver Spring CBD, Bethesda CBD, and
Rockville. The Germantown East and West Policy Areas come out of
moratorium.
1989 The Planning Board releases its four-volume Comprehensive Growth

Policy Study (CGPS), consisting of: A Policy Vision: Centers and
Trails, Alternative Scenarios: Analysis and Evaluation; Global Factors:
Assessments and Implications; and Appendices of Background
Information. The four questions addressed by the CGPS are: Can we
grow without excessive congestion? Can we afford the cost of growth?
How should be approach these problems? A present management
tools adequate?
A number of alternative growth scenarios were analyzed for their

impact on traffic congestion and tax rates. Conclusions were presented
that traffic congestion would deteriorate to unacceptable levels by 2020
if current trends continued. Only a major shift away from single
occupancy vehicles towards all forms of transit, plus an accompanying
shift in the jobs-housing balance in land use, which would be costly,
would make a significant difference. Recommendations for further
research in how to deal with this problem were presented.
36
FY1990 The FY1990 Annual Growth Policy tackles several policy issues,
including jobs/housing balance, understanding the effect of growth on
public revenues and expenditures, the structure of policy areas (Aspen
Hill was separated from the Kensington/Wheaton Policy Area), and
how to better manage the “queue” of pending development. Seven
policy areas are in moratorium for housing, and four are in moratorium
for jobs. Of concern that year: some transportation improvements in
the CIP have been pushed back.
1990 At the request of the County Executive and County Council, the
Montgomery County Economic Advisory Council establishes a Growth
Assessment Task Force. The task force calls for the County to adopt a
vision for growth – determining how much and what type of growth the
County seeks, and the infrastructure the County is prepared to supply
to support that growth. The task force also calls for more in-depth cost-
benefits analyses of growth, and recommends that the County identify
ways to pay for the facilities to support growth without significantly
increasing the tax burden on individual residents.
FY1991 Policy issues addressed in the FY1991 Annual Growth Policy include:
a comprehensive review of the structure of policy areas
(recommendations: carve out Metro station policy areas following
completion of sector plans, municipalities should be separate policy
areas); limiting Potomac intersections that are subject to Local Area
Transportation review to a list of six; addressing conflicts between
master plan staging elements and the AGP with respect to the special
ceiling allocation for affordable housing; prioritizing unbuilt
transportation projects; and finding ways to allocate more development
capacity to affordable housing projects. Five policy areas are in
moratorium for housing, and eight are in moratorium for jobs.
1991 The Planning Board appoints a Growth Management Advisory Work

Group to help identify growth-related issues that should be addressed
in future work programs. The work group provides numerous
recommendations in six categories, among them a suggestion that the
County determine and pursue a financially sustainable rate of growth
and a recommendation to evaluate the effects of long-term moratoria.
1991 James Duncan and Associates completes a study for the Planning
Board comparing Montgomery County’s Growth Policy to other growth
management systems around the country. Recommendations include:
codifying much of the growth policy resolution and moving to a system
that performs technical updates annually and looks at policy issues
less frequently (every 3-5 years).
37
FY1992 The FY1992 Annual Growth Policy completes much of the policy area
restructuring that had been previously recommended (the number of
policy areas increased from 17 to 22). Ten policy areas are in
moratorium for housing and thirteen for jobs.
FY1993 The FY1993 Annual Growth Policy takes a break from policy issues
and focuses on updating results for the tests as then-structured. All of
the policy areas in moratorium in FY1992 remain in moratorium for
FY1993, although no new policy areas are put into moratorium. As in
previous years, schools are found to be adequate for all clusters.
FY1994 At adoption, the FY1994 AGP has six policy areas in moratorium for
housing and nine in moratorium for jobs. Policy issues addressed in
the FY1994 Annual Growth Policy include proposals to deal with a very
large and inactive pipeline of approved development, the creation of
North Bethesda Metro Station Policy Areas and a Germantown Town
Center policy area, and an overhaul of the process for conducting
Policy Area Transportation Review (PATR). Changes to PATR, which
include a move to measuring transit service by accessibility, using an
equation-based method for determining auto congestion standards
(“TTLOS”) and treatment of freeways separately from local roads, are
adopted in a special amendment late in FY1994.
FY1995 Policy area restructuring and a new Policy Area Transportation Review
test, as well as four new transportation projects, change staging
ceilings for all policy areas. The FY1995 Annual Growth Policy has
seven areas in moratorium for housing and six for jobs. Anticipating the
adoption of the Clarksburg Master Plan, the Planning Board proposes
creating a Clarksburg Policy Area. This would have subjected
Clarksburg to Policy Area Transportation Review for the first time; the
Planning Board recommends that the new policy area have approval
capacity of zero housing units and zero jobs. The Council defers the
issue until the next growth policy, which allows the Clarksburg Town
Center project to be approved under Local Area Transportation Review
only. The Growth Policy process is revised, in part based upon the
1991 consultant report, into two parts: a “ceiling element” to be
adopted annually, and a “policy element” to be conducted every two
years.
1995 The 1995-1997 Annual Growth Policy Policy Element again

recommends the creation of a Clarksburg Policy Area, as well as a
Shady Grove Policy Area and a Glenmont Policy Area. The Clarksburg
area is adopted, and immediately put in deficit by an amount equal to
the size of the Clarksburg Town Center project. Shady Grove is
adopted, but Glenmont is deferred until the completion of the sector
plan. An interagency staff panel comprehensively reviews the school
38
adequacy test; no changes are adopted. A comprehensive review of
Local Area Transportation Review by a workgroup that includes
industry professionals and interested citizens results in some changes
but also a validation of basic LATR methodology.
FY1996 The FY1996 AGP Ceiling Element is able to count two new
transportation improvements, which increase ceilings in Germantown
East, Germantown West and Gaithersburg City by a total of 2,750
housing units and 750 jobs. There are now 26 policy areas, of which
nine are in moratorium for housing and seven in moratorium for jobs.
FY1997 The FY1997 AGP Ceiling Element is able to count one new
transportation improvement – Norbeck Road Extended – that increase
ceilings in Cloverly and Olney by a total of 2,000 housing units and 250
jobs. There are now 28 policy areas, of which seven are in moratorium
for housing and seven in moratorium for jobs.
1997 The 1997-1999 Annual Growth Policy Policy Element addresses 13

issues. Among them: a comprehensive review of the school adequacy
test (considered but not adopted: reducing the adequacy threshold
from 110 percent to 100 percent, and allowing developers to build
schools to relieve school moratoria), creating the Glenmont Policy Area
and the Friendship Heights Policy Area, a detailed review of LATR
standards (previous standards retained), evaluation of a pipeline
discount (not adopted), and analysis of a proposal for a “pay-and-go”
alternative to meeting transportation adequacy tests, and some policy
area boundary changes in Rockville and Takoma Park.
FY1998 The FY1998 AGP Ceiling Element counts one new transportation
improvement: a partial interchange on the I-270 West Spur. The
adopted AGP has eight policy areas in moratorium for housing and
seven for jobs.
FY1999 The FY1999 AGP Ceiling Element counts one new transportation
improvement: a partial interchange on the I-270 East Spur. The
adopted AGP had eight policy areas in moratorium for housing and six
for jobs.
1999 In the 1999-2001 Annual Growth Policy Policy Element the Planning
Board recommends that the County implement a countywide impact
tax and reflect costs of transit and school facilities in calculating the tax
rates; count transportation infrastructure fully funded in first five (rather
than four) years of the CIP; decrease the time limit of a finding of
adequate public facilities from 12 years to 6; require existing employers
to participate in transportation management organizations;
substantially change and limit the “Alternative Review Procedure for
39
Expedited Non-Residential Development Approval’ (a form of pay-and-
go). The APF time limit is decreased: the default is 5 years but the
Board may approve APF time limits up to 12 years. A number of the
other major recommendations were recommended a second time in
the 2001-2003 AGP Policy Element and adopted, although some
require separate legislation and can not be implemented immediately.
FY2000 The FY2000 AGP Ceiling Element is able to count transportation

projects fully funded in the first five years of the CIP, instead of four.
This year’s AGP has eight policy areas in moratorium for housing and
eight for jobs. The Fairland/White Oak Policy Area has been in
moratorium for new housing since 1983 and new jobs since 1986. This
was the eighth year that Damascus, Montgomery Village/Airpark, and
North Potomac are in moratorium for new housing.
FY2001 The FY2001 AGP Ceiling Element brings Damascus and North
Potomac out of moratorium for housing due to the programming of new
roads. Transportation improvements increase Derwood’s job ceiling
from -2,297 to +1, but North Bethesda goes into moratorium for jobs.
2001 The Planning Board’s recommended 2001-2003 Annual Growth Policy

Policy Element addresses 13 issues. The major issues: the Council
does not endorse the recommended changes to Policy Area
Transportation Review, but does tighten the school adequacy test, and
does implement a countywide transportation impact tax. The Policy
Area Transportation Review issue is especially difficult: Planning staff
had “revalidated” the computer model used to set staging ceilings with
up-to-date traffic counts and other adjustments. These changes result
in substantially different staging ceilings in many areas and also
highlight a technical problem with the method used to calculate
congestion standards. The Council does not accept the revised
ceilings but directs the Planning Board to conduct a “top-to-bottom
review” of the growth policy during the next two years. The Council
also substantially revises the school adequacy test, changing the
standard of adequacy from 110 percent of capacity to 100 percent and
clarifying the definition of “capacity.” The effect of the Council’s action
is to put the Damascus cluster into moratorium; this moratorium is lifted
in the next Growth Policy with the programming of Clarksburg High
School. The countywide transportation impact tax departs from
previous versions in several ways, one of which is that it is not tied to a
list of specific transportation improvements. Other issues: LATR
standards are reviewed in detail and retained, several new
transportation test exemptions are created, and the issue of APF tests
at zoning is raised (it would be revisited periodically until the Council
adopts language clarifying that the primary APF test is at subdivision).
40
FY2002 Several policy areas are put into moratorium with the adoption of the
FY2002 AGP Ceiling Element: Germantown West, North Bethesda and
Olney for housing; Damascus and Twinbrook for jobs. However,
Montgomery Village/Airpark comes out of moratorium for jobs for the
first time since 1991.
2002 Park and Planning staff release a report entitled “Assessing the
Effectiveness of Montgomery County’s Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.” The report summarizes the history of the APFO, issues
that have been the subject of debate over time, and how these issues
can be addressed during a “top-to-bottom” review of the AGP.
FY2003 A grade-separated interchange on Route 29 at Briggs Chaney Road

brings Fairland/White Oak out of moratorium for jobs in the FY2003
AGP Ceiling Element. Clarksburg High School is counted in the school
test for the first time.
FY2004 Transportation improvements counted in the FY2004 AGP Ceiling

Element include Montrose Parkway West, Nebel Street Extended, and
Stringtown Road. These projects bring North Bethesda and Twinbrook
out of moratorium and reduce the Clarksburg deficit. Eight policy areas
are in moratorium for housing and six for jobs.
2003 The 2003-2005 AGP Policy Element consists of the “top-to-bottom”

review requested by the County Council in 2001. This review is
described in detail at the end of this timeline.
FY2005 The new Growth Policy goes into effect on July 1, 2004. Without Policy
Area Transportation Review, the main issue is adoption of the School
Adequacy Test results, which the Council had delegated to the
Planning Board. All clusters are found to be adequate for the next
fiscal year.
2005 The 2005-2007 Growth Policy studies the time limits of a finding of
adequate public facilities and how APF tests are conducted for record
lots. The Planning Board recommends retaining the 5-to-12 year time
limits as well as substantial changes to extension provisions and tests
for recorded lots. These recommendations are adopted by the County
Council in 2006. The report also contains the 2005 Highway Mobility
Report, an assessment of congestion conditions around the County,
studies of the boundaries of two Metro station policy areas, and a
review of development activity since the elimination of Policy Area
Transportation Review. The Council does not adopt a new Growth
Policy in 2005, so the 2003-2005 Growth Policy remains in effect.
41
2006 The Council adopts changes to Chapter 8 and Chapter 50 of the
County Code relating to the time limits of a finding of adequate public
facilities and how APF tests are conducted for record lots. In June, the
Planning Board updates the school test results and finds that all
clusters are “adequate” by growth policy standards. In December, the
County Council directs the Planning Board to study the major aspects
of the growth policy and return with recommendations by May 21,
2007.
IN DETAIL: THE 2003 REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY
The 2003-2005 AGP Policy Element consists of the “top-to-bottom” review

requested by the County Council in 2001. The following summarizes this review
and the changes to the growth policy adopted by the Council.
The Top-to-Bottom Review Begins
In the period leading up to the start of the 2003 growth policy review, Park
and Planning staff conduct research and analysis on growth policy issues. The
resulting reports are presented to the Planning Board and County Council in
February 2003. These reports consist of:
• An update/revision of the summer 2002 paper, consisting of an in-depth
review of growth policy-related issues and a list of alternative approaches
that staff would explore in the Staff Draft 2003-2005 AGP;
• A review of how adequate public facilities ordinances are administered in
other jurisdictions around the country,
• A review of the “effectiveness” of Policy Area Transportation Review in
slowing development;
• A report of two growth policy “focus groups” designed to elicit concerns
about the current approach;
• Impact of the AGP on traffic congestion; and
• Factors affecting school enrollment changes.
Park and Planning staff release the Staff Draft 2003-2005 AGP on May 1,
2003. Among the recommendations in the Staff Draft:
• Transportation: Staff explore three options for reforming Policy Area
Transportation Review: (1) keeping the current system but fixing the main
problem: how to calculate transit service; (2) change to a new and much
simpler system for setting staging ceilings; and (3) eliminate Policy Area
Transportation Review and strengthen Local Area Transportation Review.
Of these, staff recommends option 2.
42
• Schools: Staff recommends the changes that were ultimately adopted by
the County Council.
• Impact taxes: A bill to expand and increase impact taxes had previously
been introduced and staff endorses the basic properties of that bill.
2003: Planning Board Recommendations
On May 15, the Planning Board holds a public forum on the growth
policy and begins a series of public worksessions that last through July. The
Planning Board begins by asking basic questions about growth and its
implications for the County. The Board reviews the County’s plans and
policies related to growth and develops a policy framework to support those
policies and plans.
The administration of the adequate public facilities ordinance had been

based on detailed measurements and standards of infrastructure availability
and usage. These measurements and standards were adjusted from time to
time to account for County policies. The result was a very complicated system
with many individual calculations being conducted, which – critics charged –
did not always adding up to a coherent growth policy for the County.
The Planning Board breaks with this tradition by suggesting that an

APFO, once justified by sufficient objective analysis, could then be
administered without a complicated system of measurements and standards
that only a few people fully understand. The Board recommends that the
County use all of its traffic counts, transit service measurements, analysis of
past and future growth, the likely pace of construction of new infrastructure,
and other calculations to identify an overall pace of growth that the County
can absorb without further strain on public facilities. Once that overall pace of
growth is identified, the Board suggests, a relatively simple process can be
used to determine where new development could take place, as long as the
process is consistent with the County’s General Plan and land use policies.
The Board’s approach prioritizes development approvals based on transit
service – more approvals would be permitted in metro areas, fewer in other
areas.
The Planning Board also endorses increased/expanded transportation

impact taxes and a new school impact tax.
The Planning Board releases these recommendations to the public and

transmits them to the County Council and County Executive on August 6,
2003.
2003: County Council Consideration
43
The County Council’s review of the Annual Growth Policy begins with a
public “teach-in” on Saturday, September 13, 2003 in the Council Office
Building cafeteria. The County Council then holds public hearings on
September 16 and 24. The PHED Committee holds worksessions on
September 22, 29, October 7 and 14. The MFP Committee holds a
worksession on proposed impact taxes of October 16. The full Council holds
AGP and impact tax worksessions on October 21 and 23.
During the Council’s review, Council staff expresses the viewpoint that
“staging ceilings are no longer warranted.” Among the reasons cited in their
October 21, 2003 memo to the Council:
• Staging ceilings measure the capacity of roadway links, but “today the
biggest source of travel delay is at intersections, which is measured by
Local Area Transportation Review” and
• “Most important, with the possible exception of Clarksburg, no policy
areas are left with extensive amounts of master planned development
that doesn’t already exist or is in the pipeline. Therefore, there is not
much more upstream/downstream effect about which to be concerned.
Even Clarksburg is not a central issue: its employment will draw traffic
mainly from either outside the County or in a reverse commute from
downcounty, and most of its housing will be built as part of
development districts.”
The County Council takes action on the growth policy on October 28,
2003. The changes to the impact tax go into effect on March 1, 2004 and the
new growth policy goes into effect on July 1, 2004.
• The Policy Area Transportation Review test is eliminated. The
Planning Board must prepare an annual report on congestion,
including a list of priority transportation improvements. (First called the
Approved Development and Congestion report, it is now called the
Highway Mobility report.)
• Local Area Transportation Review is tightened.
o Intersection congestion standards are tightened by 50 Critical Lane
Volume (CLV) in all areas except Metro Station Policy Areas.
o Transportation projects that are fully funded in the first 4 years of
the State or County capital improvements programs may be
counted for capacity (instead of the first 5 years, as was the
previous practice).
o Limited LATR applies to subdivisions generating 30-49 peak-hour
vehicle trips. The Planning Board must either require the
development to meet LATR requirements or, at the Board’s
discretion, allow the developer to pay a fee equal to 50% of the
applicable impact tax.
44
o The Planning Board is given explicit authorization to require that
larger subdivisions test more distant intersections.
o The Planning Board is given more latitude to reject proposed LATR
improvements if the Board finds that the proposed improvements
(such as additional turning lanes) are not desirable, will have a
negative impact on pedestrians, etc. The Planning Board has
explicit authorization to require trip mitigation instead of a physical
improvement, even if the developer prefers to make a physical
improvement.
o At the Planning Board’s discretion, trip mitigation programs must be
at least 12 years but no more than 15 years in duration.
o Three more intersections are added to the list of intersections in the
Potomac Policy Area that are subject to LATR.
• The Alternative Review Procedures are modified.
o The Metro Station Areas procedure only applies to LATR now. The
fee has changed (now based on impact tax). The Planning Board is
no longer required to perform Comprehensive LATR in policy areas
where the procedure is used.
o The Special Ceiling Allocation for Affordable Housing is eliminated.
o The Corporate Headquarters procedure was eliminated, except that
Lockheed Martin remains eligible to use it for expansion of their
headquarters, if needed.
o The Strategic Economic Development Projects procedure is
retained, but the fee is changed (now based on impact tax).
• The Development Districts process is unchanged, except that PATR will
no longer be a basis for requiring transportation improvements.
• The School Test is tightened.
o The adequacy test (enrollment compared to capacity) is 100% at
the high school level and 105% at the middle and elementary
school levels. The test continues to look 5 years into the future.
o There is no longer any “borrowing” at the elementary or middle
school levels. At the high school level, capacity may be borrowed
from one adjacent cluster if needed to meet the 100% standard.
o If enrollment exceeds the standard, but is below 110%, the
developer must make a “school facilities payment” to the County.
The payment is $12,500 per student, using the most recent student
generation rates. Student generation varies by housing type.
o If enrollment exceeds 110% of capacity at the elementary or middle
school level, there is a moratorium on all new residential approvals
45
except senior housing. The same is true at the high school level,
except that the capacity borrowing provisions (see “b”) apply.
o There is no definitive way to predict which areas might go into
moratorium because of schools. However, in FY 2005 no areas
would go into moratorium, or be subject to the school facilities
payment, if the projects that add school capacity in the
Superintendent’s Recommended FY 2005-10 CIP are fully funded.
• Development Impact Taxes are changed.
o The impact taxes go into effect for building permits applied for
starting March 1, 2004.
o The transportation impact tax structure is changed and its rates
generally are raised.
There are three transportation impact tax areas: Metro
Station Policy Areas, Clarksburg, and everywhere else (the
‘General District’).
New rates are set. Rates in Metro Station Policy Areas are
half those in the General District. Rates in Clarksburg are
50% higher for residential development and 20% higher for
commercial development than in the General District.
Affordable housing units are exempt from the tax. Formerly,
all units in a development with a significant percentage of
affordable units were exempt.
The rate for a productivity housing unit is half the otherwise
applicable rate.
The tax does not apply in State-designated Enterprise
Zones, of which there are currently two in Montgomery
County: the Silver Spring and Wheaton Central Business
Districts.
The new transportation impact tax is anticipated to raise
about $20 million annually. The revenue will be variable
depending upon the residential and commercial construction
activity, as well as the amount of impact tax credits drawn
down in a given year.
The revenue collected in Clarksburg, Gaithersburg, and
Rockville must be spent in the same area from which it is
collected. Elsewhere, the revenue collected from a
development should be spent on projects that serve the
traffic generated by the development, if feasible.
There is a limited grandfather clause that is expected to
allow four projects to pay the old rates: Fairfield development
project in Germantown Town Center (residential portion), the
46
Hecht’s site in Friendship Heights, White Flint Place (non-
residential portion), and the Air Rights Building project in
Bethesda CBD.
The credit provisions were tightened prospectively.
• A developer can receive a dollar-for-dollar credit
against his impact tax for transportation capacity
improvements. Until now, if a developer has spent
more for a transportation improvement than the
calculated impact tax, not only would there be no
impact taxes paid, but the developer could apply the
‘excess’ credit against the impact tax on a future
development for which the developer owns at least a
30% interest. New ‘excess’ credits will no longer be
applicable, although existing excess credit may still be
applied.
• A developer can receive a credit against the
applicable impact tax for capacity improvements to
County roads, but not to State roads (unless, in
Rockville or Gaithersburg, a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City and County allows
for a State road credit).
• Credits issued after March 1, 2004 expire after 6
years from the date of their issuance.
o A new school impact tax on residential development is enacted.
The base rates for single-family housing are $8,000 for a
detached unit and $6,000 for an attached unit. For single-
family units there is a surcharge of $1 per square foot for
each square foot of gross floor area above 4,500 square feet
to a maximum of 8,500 square feet (gross floor area
calculation includes basement). Therefore, the top rate for a
single-family-detached unit is $12,000 and the top rate for a
single-family attached unit if $10,000.
The rates for multi-family units are $4,000 for a garden
apartment (except 1-bedroom garden apartments) and
$1,600 for high-rise and 1-bedroom garden apartments.
The rate for senior housing units is zero.
Affordable housing units are exempt from the tax.
The rate for a productivity housing unit is half the otherwise
applicable rate.
The school impact tax does not apply in State-designated
Enterprise Zones, of which there are currently two in
47
Montgomery County: the Silver Spring and Wheaton Central
Business Districts.
The school impact tax is anticipated to raise about $25
million annually. The revenue will be variable depending
upon residential construction activity.
There is a limited grandfather clause. This clause is
expected to allow three projects to be exempt: Fairfield
development project in Germantown Town Center
(residential portion), the Hecht’s site in Friendship Heights,
and the Air Rights Building project in the Bethesda Central
Business District.
Revenue from the school impact tax must be used only for
public school projects that add capacity: new schools,
additional permanent classrooms, and the portion of
modernizations that add permanent classrooms.
48
APFO Reform Part 1: Identifying and Prioritizing Infrastructure,
the School Adequacy Test, Testing Other Public Facilities, and
the Pipeline of Approved Development
Richard Montgomery High School
INTRODUCTION
This report contains the Planning Department’s analysis and recommendations

for strengthening the Growth Policy as a tool for assessing the County’s progress in
delivering infrastructure and for setting priorities for programming public facilities; for
amending the Growth Policy’s school adequacy test; for considering other public
facilities in the Growth Policy; and the Planning staff’s analysis of the size, age, and
other characteristics of the pipeline of approved development.
In reviewing the potential for adding other public facilities to those included the
Growth Policy, Planning staff identified a few land use issues connected to those
facilities. Although we raise them here, we are not recommending that these issues be
addressed through the Growth Policy itself.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Identifying and Prioritizing Infrastructure
Planning Department staff recommends that the biennial component of the

Growth Policy review be substantially expanded to provide improved
information and guidance for the Capital Improvements Program and other public
decisions. The Growth Policy was designed to provide input to the Capital
Improvements Program by identifying areas where public facilities are
inadequate. Over the years, the Growth Policy has had varying success in
meeting this responsibility. More recently, the Highway Mobility Report is
succeeding in providing detailed analysis and recommendations for prioritizing
roadway improvements.
49
• An analysis of current and future pace and pattern of growth in the County
and the factors affecting demand for public facilities in established
communities.
• An update on the County’s success in meeting a set of indicators (if the
County agrees to institute an indicators program, such as a Sustainability
Indicators program based on General Plan principles and more that
Planning staff recommends). Sample indicators: percentage of
development that is mixed-use and location within one-half mile of a
transit station; percentage of non-SOV commuting trips; acres of
impervious surface. These indicators may also include desired levels of
service for public facilities that are not regulated by the APFO: parks,
libraries, community centers, etc.
• An implementation status report for each master plan and sector plan, that
will include a review of how planned development is proceeding, and
whether the public actions/facilities in the plan are occurring in a timely
way. If the plan contains a staging element, this would be an opportunity
to review the current status determine if the Growth Policy is reinforcing or
working against the staging envisioned when the plan was adopted.
• A comprehensive list of priority facilities that are recommended for
addition to the Capital Improvements Program. The report may also
recommend other public actions needed to achieve master plan
objectives, or to improve the County’s performance on its adopted set of
indicators (if the County chooses to pursue an indicators program).
• The current biennial Growth Policy schedule requires a staff draft report in
May and a Planning Board final draft in June in odd-numbered years. This
schedule would result in Planning Board facility recommendations as the
County Executive is beginning the biennial Capital Improvements Program
cycle.
When the County Executive’s Recommended CIP is released, Planning staff

would use the Growth Policy recommendations and analysis as the basis for
preparing comments on the CIP for Planning Board review and transmittal to the
County Council.
Schools
Revise the test so that the definition of adequacy more closely conforms to
the MCPS definition of capacity by lowering the threshold that triggers the
School Facilities Payment. That threshold should be based on “MCPS program
capacity,” not “Growth Policy capacity” but should be inflated to avoid the
problems that have kept the County from using program capacity in the past. In
addition, for the purposes of determining if a School Facilities Payment is
required, the practice of “borrowing” high school capacity should not be used.
50
Staff recommends that the threshold be when enrollment reaches 110 percent of
program capacity, which would cause development in the following clusters to
pay the school facilities payment: Blake, Clarksburg, Einstein, Kennedy,
Northwest, Wheaton, and Wootton. If policymakers prefer to continue to use
“Growth Policy capacity,” staff would recommend that the threshold for the
School Facilities Payment be set at the point when enrollment reaches 95
percent of capacity. This would cause residential development to pay the School
Facilities Payment in Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Blake, Clarksburg, Kennedy,
Northwest, Quince Orchard, and Springbrook.
Increase the School Facilities Payment from $12,500 per student to $32,524
for each full-time equivalent elementary school student, $42,351 for each
middle school student, and $47,501 for each high school student. This
figure is derived from per-student costs for new schools. An alternative would be
to have three school facilities payments (one each for elementary, middle, and
high schools) and a development project would make a payment for each level
that exceeded the threshold. So if enrollment exceeded the capacity threshold in
a cluster at the elementary school level, it would pay the elementary school
facilities payment only.
Retain the upper limit so that when enrollment greatly exceeds capacity,
development approvals in that cluster stop. This upper limit has very rarely
been exceeded, but when it was, new school facilities were promptly
programmed. This suggests that this upper limit is serving an “alarm” function
when enrollment and capacity are severely out of balance. Staff does not see a
downside to retaining the upper limit; the current level seems to be about right,
but is based of “Growth Policy capacity.”
Consider capturing development that occurs outside the subdivision

process. As smaller housing units are replaced with larger ones, or are
expanded with additions, some additional student generation can be expected.
There is sufficient academic study of this issue to legitimately link student
generation to size of home. Although the total number of additional students is
small, the County could consider applying the School Facilities Payment or the
School Impact Tax to these properties. Staff is not yet ready to make a
recommendation on this issue because we have not reviewed the number, type
and location of these replacements/expansions. Possibly this issue could be
studied along with the “mansionization” issue or in future Growth Policy studies.
Make some technical corrections. The current Growth Policy Resolution

implies that the Planning Board must continue to conduct the School test
annually even if the Council fails to pass a new Growth Policy resolution, but
explicit language is needed. The language in the Growth Policy concerning
school clusters in municipalities did not anticipate that municipalities would pass
APFOs that are more stringent than Montgomery County’s. As a result, the
provision can be read two completely different ways.
51
Monitor the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) review of indicators for
Montgomery County Public Schools to see if they serve as a basis for further
modification of the School Test.
Planning Department staff recommends no changes to the adequacy test

for water and sewerage systems. For purposes of the APFO, our primary
concern is the potential for new development to be approved even when water
and sewerage systems are not adequate to support that development. Staff
believes the current test, backed up by planning and implementation of system
improvements, is working as intended.
Police

for police service. Planning staff reviewed public safety facilities and services in
detail in 2005 and recommended no changes at that time. For police services in
particular, staff noted that the number and location of police “facilities”—that is,
police stations – is not closely related to levels of service. Staff suggests that
there are benefits to having the Police Department participate in the
Development Review Committee for Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED) review of new development.
Fire and Rescue Services

for fire and rescue services. Planning staff reviewed public safety facilities and
services in detail in 2005 and recommended no changes at that time. For fire and
rescue services in particular, staff noted that the number and location of fire
stations is correlated to adequacy (as measured in response times) because,
unlike police, fire and rescue personnel are located at a station until a call comes
in. Staff’s 2005 research indicated that the major challenge for adding stations
was finding suitable locations and that the master plan process is the best
mechanism for designating those locations. Montgomery County Fire and
Rescue Services representatives participate in the master plan process, and
MCFRS has an up-to-date master plan.
During the course of our study this year, staff noted several aspects of fire and
rescue services that may be useful for making land use recommendations during
the master plan process. These include the fact that the great majority of calls
are for emergency medical services, which suggests that Planning staff discuss
with MCFRS the possibility of identifying locations for emergency medical units in
master plans.
52
The observation that only 12 percent of calls are for fires, and that most of these
are for brush and vehicle fires, suggests to Planning staff that there are
opportunities to increase the use of smaller fire trucks in the fleet, which allows
use of smaller fire stations and road turning radii. Planning staff raises this issue
only from a land use perspective: larger parcels of land are becoming rare, and
the future of neighborhood design depends in part on narrower streets with
smaller turning radii.
Other Public Facilities
Planning Department staff does not recommend adding to the list of public
facilities tested in the APFO. However, Planning staff’s review of these facilities
has prompted us to offer some suggestions about how the adequacy of these
facilities can be strengthened. The chief suggestion has to do with the Growth
Policy itself.
Planning staff recommends that the Recreation Guidelines applied in the

regulatory process be revised. This project is included in the Planning
Department’s requested FY08 work program. Among the issues to consider:
whether to eliminate provisions that allow developers to count existing public
facilities as part of satisfying the recreational requirements for new development.
Planning staff’s research indicates that additional study of parking policies

and procedures is warranted. In this study, Planning staff reviewed Parking Lot
Districts (PLDs) as a “public facility” for APFO purposes. Although we don’t
suggest that they be incorporated in the APFO, we note that broader application
of PLDs can support trip reduction initiatives and serve revitalization objectives
outside of Central Business Districts. County parking policies could bear re-
examination, including the minimum parking requirements in the zoning
ordinance.
53
DISCUSSION
The Growth Policy as a Tool for Identifying and Prioritizing Infrastructure
The County Council charged the Planning Board with developing “A recommended set
of tools for managing growth and funding infrastructure to maintain and enhance
Montgomery County’s quality of life, including:
• recommendations for directing future growth and managing the pace of that
growth in accordance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan;
• identifying and prioritizing infrastructure needed to support existing and future
residents, businesses, and visitors;
• and recommendations for strengthening the relationship between the pace of
growth and the provision of public facilities, services, and infrastructure.”
The report of the Sustainable Growth team, A Vision of Sustainable Development for
Montgomery County, addresses the first bullet from a sustainability perspective. This
section addresses the second two bullets.
The 12 points outlined in the background portion of the Council’s resolution drew the
link between the General Plan and the subsequent legislation (such as the APFO) and
tools (such as the Growth Policy) designed to manage and stage growth.
The Council’s charge can be organized into a three-part problem statement:

1. How to link the facility planning process to our master plan goals,
2. How to accomplish this linkage holistically, so that both new and existing
communities enjoy the quality of life envisioned in our master plans, and
3. How to determine if the process for planning and implementing facilities actually
achieves the intent of the master plans.
Staff developed two concepts to help frame these problems. The first concept is that our
objective is to maintain the quality of life for all residents in accordance with the visions
in our master plans. Concerns about quality of life are triggered when facilities fail to
keep up with development in the County. Two aspects of this concept:
• Maintaining our existing communities: This should be the primary goal since
it is the residents (and voters) in the existing communities—not people who don’t
live here yet—that are concerned about overcrowded roads and schools.
Maintaining existing neighborhoods is the thrust of several of our down-County
master plans.
• Fitting new communities into the old communities: Assuming that some
degree of growth is desirable and/or inevitable, our goal should be to build the
new communities envisioned in our master plans. Part of achieving this goal is
looking at the provision of facilities in changing neighborhoods.
54
The second concept is to propose that we can establish a system that addresses all
three problems. Numerous jurisdictions have attempted to create such a system. The
literature on modern growth management practices describes a similarity of program
structure, regardless of the type of jurisdiction, state, county, city. A sample structure or
system is as follows:
• Policy statement pertaining to philosophy and towards growth.
• List of public facilities or categories of environmental goal – transportation,
schools, water quality, air quality, etc.
• Standards for each listing.
• Test or performance standards- levels of service, ratios or qualitative
measurements.
• Evaluation of effectiveness.
• Oversight mechanism.
• Periodic review.
• Feedback to planning and budgetary processes.
In Montgomery County, current growth management efforts focus on the first four
components with much less emphasis on the second four. In other words, we have do
not have the full system. The challenge is to better integrate the missing or weak
components to strengthen the Growth Policy process. A stronger and more coherent
system provides the basis for addressing the issue of whether or not facilities and
services are adequate and, critically, how to pay to for such services and facilities.
The Current Growth Policy and the Capital Improvements Program
The Growth Policy provides guidance for synchronizing new development and the
provision of public facilities. The Growth Policy is responsible for identifying areas where
public facilities are inadequate (indicating where the County should add new facilities to
the CIP), possibly pausing development until those facilities are made adequate through
the CIP, and/or determining the responsibility of private development to provide the
public facilities needed to meet the increased demand that is the result of growth. Over
the years, the Growth Policy has had varying success in meeting this responsibility.
More recently, the Highway Mobility Report is succeeding in providing detailed analysis
and recommendations for prioritizing roadway improvements.
That classic relationship between the Growth Policy and the CIP only indirectly takes
into account the public facilities needed to support existing communities within
Montgomery County. The Growth Policy’s role is incomplete because the CIP responds
to both the growing and to the mature areas in the county. Facilities that are
programmed in the mature portion of the County include new facilities as well as
expansions, modifications and renovations. Comparing the facilities being supplied to
both new and old development with demand from new development alone obscures the
issue of supply and demand. There is real benefit in considering the facility demands
55
from both existing and new development somewhere in the Growth Policy process,
particularly since the CIP does.
FIGURE 1
New Private
Growth Provision
Existing Public provision

Development CIP
DEMAND SUPPLY
Figure 1 graphically represents the fact that existing development and infrastructure are
much greater in importance than new development and new facilities. Most residents
and businesses are housed in “existing” development and they depend on “existing”
facilities to perform daily activities and for a high quality of life. The Growth Policy places
greatest emphasis on the top of the pyramid with the expectation that other
mechanisms are taking care of the rest of the pyramid.
Figure 1 also suggests a notion that existing residents be principally interested in the
supply of public facilities serving existing development, and that new development take
responsibility for providing the facilities needed to support growth.
Implementing the Growth Policy Through Development Review
The Growth Policy is implemented on a case-by-case basis through the regulatory

process.
There are two means of ensuring “adequate facilities” through the development review
process. For certain types of facilities, such as roads and schools, the Growth Policy
tests individual development proposals through a complex process that seeks to ensure
overall supply and demand for road and school capacity are kept in balance. For other
types of facilities, the County does not apply a “test;” instead, we apply standards
through the regulatory process to require new development pay for incremental impacts,
thereby preserving whatever equilibrium already existed. This method responds to
growth rather than attempts to manage it.
Examples of the latter approach include parking and recreation facilities. The
development standards in the Zoning Ordinance require that certain facilities (e.g.,
56
parking, recreation facilities) be provided by the private sector to support proposed
development. For example, developers must provide on-site parking to address the
expected demand (or pay parking district taxes in the CBDs so that the County can
provide the necessary parking). Similarly, we apply the recreational guidelines to new
residential projects to ensure that the new communities will have facilities that would
otherwise be provided publicly as neighborhood parks. In this example, the County
transfers the costs of constructing and maintaining recreational facilities to the private
sector. As with parking standards, the application of formulas during the development
approval process is used to secure the facilities needed to satisfy the anticipated
increase in demand.
These methods concentrate on the “top of the pyramid” in Figure 1. They address the
needs resulting from growth but do not consider the needs that continually evolve in
existing communities. In addition, it is not always easy to find the clear link between the
public facility requirements in the development review process and the planning goals
expressed in our master plans. In this way, the feedback loop is incomplete without a
means to measure our progress in achieving our master plan.
Recommendations for Strengthening the Growth Policy a Tool for Identifying and
Prioritizing Infrastructure
In order to address the challenges identified above, Planning Department staff

recommends that the biennial component of the Growth Policy review be substantially
expanded to provide improved information and guidance for the Capital Improvements
Program and other public decisions.
This recommendation does not involve changes to the guidelines for administering the
APFO during the development review process. Instead, it would strengthen the Growth
Policy’s role as an input into the budget process, particularly the Capital Improvements
Program. It would add regularly-updated reports on the status of the implementation of
master plans to the material that is used to recommend priority public facilities. If the
County elects to pursue a Sustainability Indicators program (or similar program), the
updated status of those indicators could also be included in this review. Sustainability
indicators could also be among criteria used to select the public facilities recommended
for higher priority.
The Growth Policy schedule allows for a review of policy issues on a biennial basis; not
coincidentally, the “on” years from the Growth Policy alternate with the “off” years for the
CIP. This means that Growth Policy recommendations are well-timed for consideration
in the biennial capital budget process.
• The biennial Growth Policy would include analysis of current and future pace and
pattern of growth in the County. This analysis would also include demographic
and other changes affecting existing communities, especially factors influencing
existing communities’ need for public services.
57
• The report would also include an implementation status report for each master
plan and sector plan. Components would be: a review of how planned
development is proceeding, and whether the public actions/facilities in the plan
are occurring in a timely way. If the plan contains a staging element, this would
be an opportunity to review the current status determine if the Growth Policy is
reinforcing or working against the staging envisioned when the plan was
adopted.
• If the County agrees to institute an indicators program, such as a Sustainability
Indicators program based on General Plan principles and more that Planning
staff recommends), the report could include updated indicator statistics. Sample
indicators: percentage of new development that is mixed-use and location within
one-half mile of a transit station; percentage of non-SOV commuting trips; and
acres of impervious surface. These indicators could include measures of new
and existing development. They may also include desired levels of service for
public facilities that are not regulated by the APFO: parks, libraries, community
centers, etc.
• These materials would be used by the Planning Board to develop a
comprehensive list of priority facilities that the Board would recommend for
addition to the Capital Improvements Program. The report may also recommend
other public actions needed to achieve master plan objectives, or to improve the
County’s performance on its adopted set of indicators (if the County chooses to
pursue an indicators program).
• The current biennial Growth Policy schedule requires a staff draft report in May
and a Planning Board final draft in June in odd-numbered years. This schedule
would result in Planning Board facility recommendations as the County Executive
is beginning the biennial Capital Improvements Program cycle.
• When the County Executive’s Recommended CIP is released, Planning staff
would use the Growth Policy recommendations as the basis for preparing
comments for Planning Board review and transmittal to the County Council.
This recommended process incorporates Planning Department responsibilities

that have been conducted separately (Highway Mobility Report, CIP Review) or
irregularly (master plan status reports). The potential for an indicators program is the
main new element.
58
Montgomery County Public Schools
Since 1986, when the Annual Growth Policy (Growth Policy) was first applied,
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) enrollment has grown from 94,460 to
137,798 students. This is an increase of almost 50 percent. Although, there was a
decline in enrollments in the 1970s and early 1980s, the public school student
population grew steadily through the 1990s. By 2006 school enrollment reached a
plateau and declined slightly, according to data contained in the FY 2008
Recommended Capital Budget and Amendments to the FY 2007-2012 Capital
Improvements Program. This is the first school year with an enrollment decline since
1983. Enrollment is projected to rise again in a few years because the increase in the
number of births was higher since 2000. Annual births have exceeded 13,000 since
2000.
In 2003, when staff last analyzed the school test, enrollment was 138,891 students and
MCPS was in the process of modernizing and building additions to many of the existing
schools, as well as opening new schools. MCPS has made a concerted effort over the
last few years to reduce the number of relocatable classrooms. The approved FY 2007-
2012 MCPS Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is still addressing the number of
relocatable classrooms through additions and modernizations. This CIP report notes
that by the end of the current CIP the number of relocatable classrooms projected to be
in use will be 337. This is a reduction from the 719 previously in use in 2005-06. MCPS
proposes to further reduce the relocatable classrooms to 229 by the 2012-13 school
year if additional funding is provided. MCPS facility planning is increasingly directed at
school additions and modernizations rather than new schools. There are 179
elementary schools, 38 middle schools, 25 high school, 6 special schools, and one
career and technology center in the system.
School Test Methodology
The County Council approves the school test methodology in the Growth Policy
resolution. Once the Council approves the CIP, MCPS recalculates the projected school
capacity (based on final determination of funded capacity) and provides all data for the
school test as required by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO).
The current Growth Policy school test uses a definition of capacity based on a standard
multiplier. For example, kindergarten capacity is set at 22 students per classroom;
grades 1-5 at 25 students per classroom and grades 6-12 are set at a capacity of 22.5
students per classroom. The test compares capacity available in the 6th year of the
funded CIP to enrollment projections for the same year. (This is equivalent to the 5th
year of the Growth Policy test.) Forecasts of enrollment and capacity are prepared by
MCPS staff and reviewed by the Montgomery County Planning Board staff before the
Council reviews the school test.
59
The School Test language in the Growth Policy is:
Public School Facilities
S1 Geographic Areas
For the purposes of public school analysis and local area review of school facilities at time
of subdivision, the County has been divided into 24 areas called high school clusters, as
shown in Map 32. These areas coincide with the cluster boundaries used by the
Montgomery County Public School system.
The groupings used are only to administer the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and
do not in any way require action by the Board of Education in exercising its power to
designate school service boundaries.
S2 School Capacity Measures
The Planning Board must evaluate available capacity in each high school cluster and
compare enrollment projected by Montgomery County Public Schools for each fiscal year
with projected school capacity in 5 years. If sufficient high school capacity will not be
available in any cluster, the Planning Board must determine whether an adjacent cluster
will have sufficient high school capacity to cover the projected deficit.
The Planning Board must use 100% of Council-funded capacity at the high school level
and 105% of Council-funded capacity at the middle and elementary school level as its
measures of adequate school capacity. This capacity measure does not count relocatable
classrooms in computing a school's permanent capacity.
Council-funded regular program classroom capacity is based on calculations that assign

25 students for grades 1-6, 44 students for half day kindergarten where it is currently
provided, 22 students for all day kindergarten where it is currently provided, and an
effective class size of 22.5 students for secondary grades.
S3 Grade Levels
Each cluster must be assessed separately at each of the three grade levels -- elementary,
intermediate/middle, and high school.
S4 Determination of Adequacy
After the Council has approved the FY 2005-2010 CIP, the Planning Board must
recalculate the projected school capacity at all grade levels in each high school cluster. If
the Board finds that public school capacity will be inadequate at any grade level in any
cluster, but the projected enrolment at that level will not exceed 110% of capacity, the
Board may approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during FY 2005 if the applicant
commits to pay a School Facilities Payment as provided in County law before receiving a
building permit for any building in that subdivision. If projected enrollment at any grade
level in that cluster will exceed 110% of capacity, the Board must not approve any
residential subdivision in that cluster during FY 2005.
60
After the Council in 2005 has approved the amended FY 2005-2010 CIP, the Planning
Board again must recalculate school capacity. If capacity at any level is projected to be
inadequate, the Board must take the actions specified in the preceding paragraph in FY
2006.
S5 Senior Housing
If public school capacity in inadequate in any cluster, the Planning Board may
nevertheless approve a subdivision in that cluster if the subdivision consists solely of
multifamily housing and related facilities for elderly or handicapped persons or multifamily
housing units located in the age-restricted section of a planned retirement community.
S6 Clusters in municipalities
If public school capacity will be inadequate in any cluster that is wholly or partly located in
Rockville, Gaithersburg, or Poolesville, the Planning Board may nevertheless approve
residential subdivisions in that cluster unless the respective municipality restricts the
approval of similar subdivisions in its part of the cluster because of inadequate school
capacity.
The final clause, S6, was written before Gaithersburg and Rockville adopted school
tests that are more stringent than Montgomery County’s. As a result, the provision can
be read two completely different ways. It was intended to allow the Planning Board to
continue to approve subdivisions in policy areas that the Growth Policy test showed as
inadequate if the municipality did not honor the County-imposed moratorium. It can now
be read to suggest that the Montgomery County Planning Board may not approve
subdivisions in a cluster that overlaps a municipality if that municipality declares that
schools are inadequate.
Gaithersburg and Rockville
The MCPS serves the entire county including the municipalities. School demographers
incorporate new residential development from the municipalities with development
approval authority into enrollment forecasts. Rockville and Gaithersburg have recently
adopted adequate public facilities ordinances that include a schools adequacy test.
The City of Gaithersburg Ordinance No.01-107, approved in 2007, amends Chapter 24

of the City Code, and states “…. residential development shall not be approved if the
subject property is within the attendance area … forecasted to have a student
population that exceeds 110 percent of the Montgomery Public Schools Program
Capacity two years in the future.” Sharing of capacity between schools is not permitted.
The City of Rockville adopted an APFO with standards on November 1, 2005 that limits
residential development where enrollment surpasses school program capacity. The
determination of adequacy is based on program capacity as reported to the Board of
Education with an increase of 105 percent for elementary and middle schools and 100
percent for high schools within a 2 year time frame, no borrowing permitted. Adequacy
is determined by school, not cluster.
61
Both Rockville and Gaithersburg define adequacy as a percentage over school program
capacity with no borrowing – in contrast to the County’s school test, which uses “Growth
Policy Capacity” and allows borrowing at the high school level. While Rockville and
Gaithersburg’s schools tests are stricter than the County’s test, Rockville’s is the stricter
of the two and under current forecasts; a number of elementary schools serving the city
are over capacity.1
Factors Considered by MCPS
Adequate school capacity is a calculation that compares projected enrollment numbers

and existing and planned facility capacity based on program needs.
Enrollment
MCPS staff develops the enrollment numbers by using actual birth rates to establish a
base kindergarten cohort for the year and then projects enrollment through 12th grade
using a “cohort survivorship model.” The forecast is adjusted for in/out migration;
factors that apply to specific schools and growth from newly approved but not yet built
development. Students from new development are added to the forecast when it
appears that the development will be online during the six-year forecast period. The
number of students generated from new development is calculated by housing unit type.
Enrollment forecasts are developed every year in September and revised in March.
MCPS Program Capacity
The Superintendent’s Recommended FY 2008 CIP contains modifications to the

previous CIP school capacity calculations. The completion of phasing in full-day
kindergarten eliminated the need to calculate half-day kindergarten. Middle school
capacity had been calculated at a factor of 0.9, which apparently overstated capacity,
and was adjusted to a capacity factor of 0.85.
Growth Policy Capacity
The Growth Policy school test uses its own capacity calculation based on a standard
multiplier, which is then compared to the forecasts for enrollment for the 6th year of the
CIP (5th year of the Growth Policy test). This Growth Policy capacity is multiplied by 105
percent to set elementary and middle school test capacities. High school capacity is 100
percent with borrowing allowed between clusters in the test. The Growth Policy capacity
is greater than MCPS program capacity. The greatest amount of difference occurs
when Growth Policy capacity is used for elementary schools with class-size reduction.
1
September 12, 2005 Table, Enrollment Trends…Within the City of Rockville, page 17, APFO Ordinance.
62
Evidence of Change
The success of the school system is dependent on the quality of the facilities and
services provided to students and the continuous improvements and adaptations to the
learning environment. The School Board acknowledges this in their policy statement
regarding facilities planning:
“Enrollment in MCPS is constantly changing. The fundamental goal of facilities

planning is to provide a sound educational environment for changing enrollment.
The number of students, their geographic distribution, and the demographic
characteristics of this population all impact facilities planning. Net enrollment
changes are driven by factors including birthrates, movement within the school
system and into the school system from other parts of the United States and the
world.”
Enrollment forecasts change for a number of reasons, both demographic and economic,
and actual enrollment may differ from projected enrollment. One example of the
possible influence of the local economic effects is the cost of housing. Median sales of
single-family units (attached and detached) as well as rental housing rose dramatically
between 2000 and 2005. School demographers think that this is contributing to a
decline in enrollment in previously affordable areas of the county.
Changes to school capacity also reflect policy changes. For example, all day
kindergarten requires more classroom space. The on-going initiative to reduce the
inventory of relocatable classrooms translates into more school additions. Other policies
have translated into smaller classroom size for elementary grades and gymnasiums in
all elementary schools. Middle school policies are under current scrutiny.
MCPS staff briefed the Council regarding demographic trends earlier this year.
2
Findings in the report include:
• Total enrollment declined this year; net migration is variable; net immigration
(foreign born students) is significant but declining.
• Percentage enrollment in public schools (rather than private schools) has been
stable at 81 to 82 percent of county school population for the last 15 years.
• Enrollment in non-focus schools is up but down at focus schools (class-size
reduction schools) since 2003, however focus school enrollment for ethnic
groups other than white is increasing.
• FARMS (Free and Reduced Price Meals) enrollment is rising.
• The demographic composition of the student body is very different from that in
1970. This shift began in 1980s; since then, white enrollment has been steadily
decreasing, while enrollment in all other race/ethnic categories has increased.
2
January 29, 2007 Education Committee Briefing on MCPS Demographic Trends.
63
During the 2003 review of the schools test, MCPS staff prepared a report, Factors
Affecting Montgomery County Public Schools, Enrollment Change (February 11, 2003).
MCPS staff updated that report for this study and it was included in the second growth
policy study interim report. A comparison between the 2003 and 2007 reports
underscores the conclusion that the composition of enrollment is experiencing change:
FARMS participation in 2003 was 22 percent compared to 23.5 percent in 2007 and
ESOL enrollment in 2003 was 8.5 percent as compared to 10.7 percent in 2007. The
projected births as compared to actual births for the same years were accurate, within 1
or 2 percent.
TABLE 1: Comparison of Projected and Actual Births

Years 2003 Births 2007 Births Actual
Projected
2002 13,200 13,154

2003 13,250 13,529
2004 13,300 13,546
2005 13,350 13,507
Source: MCPS Staff Report, March 23, 2007
MCPS continually reviews the enrollment factors and finds that changes in enrollment
stem from both new construction and turnover of existing housing. Examples of this
observation are noted in the March 23, 2007 update. College Gardens and Rosemont
Elementary Schools serve the King Farm in Rockville. Although more than 3,000 units
were built in the King Farm development, enrollment remained at the same level as
before development began, because enrollment was declining in other parts of the
school’s service area. When the existing housing in these neighborhoods turns over,
however, there may be impacts on enrollment. In the case of Spark Matsunaga
Elementary School, there was no older community and housing completions came on
line faster than anticipated. Enrollment there is higher than anticipated even with the
opening of a second elementary school.
Analysis
Is the current school test effective?
MNCPPC staff in 2003 conducted an extensive review of the school test and made five
recommendations to the school test, which the County Council enacted.
• Continue to use the current definition of school capacity;
• Consider schools to be adequate at 105%of Growth Policy capacity for
elementary and middle schools and 100 % of Growth Policy capacity for high
schools;
• Discontinue the practice of borrowing for elementary and middle schools;
64
• Require developers to make a payment when projected enrollment exceed the
standard (proposed 105% and 100%) but does not exceed 110%;
• Impose an absolute moratorium when enrollment exceeds 110%.
The analysis explained and reviewed the definition and calculation of capacity, including
program capacity, adjusted Growth Policy capacity, state rated capacity and core
capacity and concluded that standard multipliers were the best approach. The review
included the standard of adequacy, the geography (cluster) the adjacent capacity
(borrowing), point of application and exemptions/de minimis.
The FY 2007 Growth Policy schools test shows that all the clusters are adequate
(Appendix 1); the same finding made in FY 2006. In fact, the test has resulted in only
one finding of inadequacy since 1986. Perhaps the test is extremely effective –
stimulating the construction of school facilities to a degree that keeps pace with growing
demand – or perhaps the test is a paper exercise, designed to report a finding of
adequacy no matter what the “real life” conditions.
There is some truth to both sides. The County has come close to failing the school test
on several occasions and the public response was to program more school facilities, not
relax the adequacy standard. On the other hand, there is a gap between the growth
policy adequacy standard and the capacity standard used by the school system. That
difference is the reason that the school test has (almost) always found every cluster to
be adequate. If the MCPS program capacity were used, several clusters would be over
capacity and would fail the Growth Policy test.
The school test calculation has been modified over the years and has gotten
progressively tighter. In previous years, the Growth Policy test used a standard of 110
percent of capacity to accommodate over enrollment and allowed borrowing between
school clusters at the elementary and middle school levels. In 2003, the school test
was adjusted so that the capacity is set at 105 percent (except for high schools) and no
borrowing is permitted at the elementary and middle school levels. That step would
have brought several clusters into moratorium, if not for a huge increase in school
capacity added to the County’s CIP.
If there is a desire to have a school test that is more sensitive to the effects of new
development and other changes in school enrollment, a logical option would be to
tighten the schools test in some way, such as setting the adequacy standard at 100
percent of Growth Policy capacity (or switching to MCPS program capacity) and
eliminating the provision for borrowing.
The enrollment figures indicate that the school test is not sensitive only to the effects of
new development. Test results reflect change all over the County, including older,
already-developed areas. In the Bethesda-Chevy Chase (BCC) cluster, for example,
there is a projected elementary enrollment of 3,036 in 2011 and the cluster is deemed
adequate under the school test. However, there is a need for CIP projects in the cluster
to address overcapacity at the high school, middle and elementary school levels. In the
65
case of the B-CC cluster, the capacity issue can’t be linked to growth from new
development, because the cluster is in an established area where there has been little
new development. The growth is related to a turnover in the neighborhoods or the
tearing down and rebuilding of existing housing stock.
Are there aspects of the methodology that should be changed?
Capacity
One issue with the methodology is how classroom capacity is calculated, including what
constitutes a “classroom” and whether to use Growth Policy capacity (standard
multiplier) or MCPS program capacity (determined by each classroom’s use). MCPS
recently changed the calculation of the program capacity number for middle schools.
According to the FY 2008 CIP, the multiplier for middle school program capacity was
changed because it was found that the existing method overstated capacity. The
multiplier was reduced from .9 to .85 (page3-1, 2008 CIP).
Current program capacity reflects the small classroom initiative for designated “Focus”
schools. This initiative requires smaller classroom sizes for kindergarten and grades 1
and 2: kindergarten classes have 15 students per classroom and the first and second
grades have 17 per classroom. This staffing level requires more classrooms per Focus
school and many of those schools are currently overcapacity.
The gap between program capacity and Growth Policy capacity becomes clearer when
the Growth Policy capacity is set at 100 percent or 105 percent (current test). Table 2
(Options 1A and 1B) prepared by MCPS, illustrates those different options. At 105
percent Growth Policy capacity, Clarksburg elementary school capacity is adequate. If
capacity is calculated at 100 % Growth Policy capacity, Clarksburg fails. When MCPS
program capacity is used (Table 2, Option 2A, 2B and 2C) for the Growth Policy test,
many clusters fail. At 100% of MCPS program capacity, 15 clusters fail at the
elementary level, two at the middle school level, two at the high school level (when no
borrowing is allowed). As the percentage increases to 110% of MCPS program
capacity, the failure rate decreases, but Clarksburg Middle School continues to fail and
elementary schools in the Blake, Einstein and Kennedy clusters continue to fail. Of
these clusters, only in Clarksburg can overcapacity be fully related to new housing
growth. In other clusters, changing demographics in the built-up part of the County
results in findings of inadequacy under the program capacity options. Table 2, Options
3A, 3B and 3 C show a Growth Policy test only for the Clarksburg cluster, illustrating an
idea to apply the school test only in areas of the County where new development clearly
plays the greatest rolls in students enrollment changes.
There has been discussion regarding using core capacity as the standard. Core
capacity is the part of the school needed to support the school curriculum, such the
lunchroom, and gymnasium and media center. For example, new elementary schools
and ones undergoing modernization are designed with a core that can support
66
approximately 640 or 740 students. However, great variability of core size among older
schools makes it impossible to use core capacity as a useful concept.
Accuracy of Forecasts
All forecasts are less accurate as the forecast horizon is extended. Inflection points
(where a trend changes direction) are especially difficult to forecast. The forecast in
2003 for 2006 enrollment was 143,800 and actual 2006 enrollment was under 140,000.
Student Generation from New Developments
The Census Update Survey shows that fewer students are generated from higher
density units, such as townhouses, apartments and condominiums. School
demographers have evidence that neo-traditional/transit oriented development
generates even fewer students. These student generation rate assumptions and the
statistics underlying them are constantly reviewed, along with review of the changing
nature of planned housing.
More detailed analysis of student generation from different housing types, and a
comparison between student generations rates from new units and enrollments in older
neighborhoods helps adjust these multipliers for local conditions. The MCPS staff
conducts this type of sampling to refine enrollment forecasts.
MCPS staff and MNCPPC Research staff have discussed whether a special survey of
neo-traditional/transit-oriented development is warranted to document the observed low
student generation rates. At this time, we do not believe a survey would be helpful
because of the small sample size and the somewhat loose definition of this type of
development. However, staff is considering adding a question about house size or
number of bedrooms to the next Census Update Survey, the answers to which would
have uses beyond student generation rates.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Revise the test so that the definition of adequacy more closely conforms to the
MCPS definition of capacity by lowering the threshold that triggers the School
Facilities Payment. That threshold should be based on “MCPS program capacity,” not
“Growth Policy capacity” but should be inflated to avoid the problems that have kept the
County from using program capacity in the past.
In addition, for the purposes of determining if a School Facilities Payment is required,

the practice of “borrowing” high school capacity should not be used. Staff recommends
that the threshold be when enrollment reaches 110 percent of program capacity, which
would cause development in the following clusters to pay the school facilities payment:
Blake, Clarksburg, Einstein, Kennedy, Northwest, Wheaton, and Wootton. If
policymakers prefer to continue to use “Growth Policy capacity,” staff would recommend
that the threshold for the School Facilities Payment be set at the point when enrollment
67
reaches 95 percent of capacity. This would cause residential development to pay the
School Facilities Payment in Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Blake, Clarksburg, Kennedy,
Northwest, Quince Orchard, and Springbrook.
Staff understands that some may believe that a threshold be set at 110 percent of
program capacity is too high and argue that any threshold over 100 percent of capacity
is out of step with the best possible measurement of capacity. Staff considered this
point of view because the school test already partially addresses the concern about
using program capacity because it basically averages enrollment and capacity for all
schools in the cluster. Staff remains with the 110 percent recommendation in large part
to account for the relative effect of new and existing development on school capacity.
The purpose of this recommendation is two-fold: to have the adequacy test contribute
toward understanding which schools require additional investments, and to trigger
contributions from new development at a point closer to when schools are over-
capacity. The current school test provides little in the way of information to guide capital
investments, nor has it ever resulted in the School Facilities Payment being paid,
despite the fact that subdivisions are being approved in clusters that are over capacity.
Increase the School Facilities Payment from $12,500 per student to $32,524 for
each full-time equivalent elementary school student, $42,351 for each middle
school student, and $47,501 for each high school student. This figure is derived
from per-student costs for new schools, a calculation that is explained in some detail in
the Infrastructure Financing section.
This is approximately the full cost-per-student of new school facilities. With this
recommendation, staff is supporting a point of view that when facilities are inadequate,
new development should not make the problem worse.
This recommendation would assess the school facilities payments separately for each
level: elementary, middle, and high schools. If a development project were located in a
cluster where only the elementary schools are inadequate, it would make the payment
for each elementary school student generated. Each single-family detached home
generates, on average, 0.32 elementary students, so the School Facilities Payment in
this case would be $10,407.
Retain the upper limit so that when enrollment greatly exceeds capacity,
development approvals in that cluster stop. This upper limit, which is the threshold
for imposing a strict moratorium on new development that generates students, has very
rarely been exceeded, but when it was, new school facilities were promptly
programmed. This suggests to staff that there is some utility to retaining a standard that
serves an “alarm” function when enrollment and capacity are severely out of balance.
Currently, the strict moratorium threshold is based on “Growth Policy capacity.” If the
threshold for a School Facilities Payment is changed to be expressed as program
capacity, staff would suggest that a threshold for the strict moratorium, equivalent to the
current threshold but expressed as program capacity, be found.
68
Consider capturing development that occurs outside the subdivision process. As
smaller housing units are replaced with larger ones, or are expanded with additions,
some additional student generation can be expected. There is sufficient academic study
of this issue to legitimately link student generation to size of home. Although the total
number of additional students is small, the County could consider applying the School
Facilities Payment or the School Impact Tax to these properties. Staff is not yet ready to
make a recommendation on this issue because we have not reviewed the number, type
and location of these replacements/expansions. Possibly this issue could be studied
along with the “mansionization” issue or in future Growth Policy studies.
It is clear from the MCPS data that change is occurring in older areas where no new or
sizable development is occurring. GIS could be used to determine if changes in older
neighborhoods are creating school capacity issues by tracking building permit and other
data. Development such as teardowns, large additions including bedrooms, and minor
subdivision approvals, may not add lots, but may generate new students
Make some technical corrections. The current Growth Policy Resolution implies that
the Planning Board must continue to conduct the School test annually even if the
Council fails to pass a new Growth Policy resolution, but explicit language is needed.
The language in the Growth Policy concerning school clusters in municipalities did not
anticipate that municipalities would pass APFOs that are more stringent than
Montgomery County’s. As a result, the provision can be read two completely different
ways.
Monitor the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) review of indicators for

Montgomery County Public Schools to see if they serve as a basis for further
modification of the School Test.
The Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO), Key Fiscal Indicators for Montgomery County
Public Schools, indicates that although enrollment has reached a plateau, the FY 07
MCPS operating budget was 31% larger than four years ago. The study focused on the
operating budget and found that the increase in the number of teachers, costs of special
education and costs associated with the salaries and benefits contributed to increased
operating costs. The study included discussion of expanding the indicators to include
measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of “successful’ students in addition to the
costs of educating each student. The OLO report recommended that the County
Council consider assigning OLO a FY 08 Work Program project to develop a parallel
package of key fiscal indicators for MCPS Capital Budget and Capital Improvements
Program. Adaptations of the indicators study, as suggested by OLO, to measure the
timing of the delivery of facilities included in the CIP, either by cluster or at the individual
school level, would provide a more detailed picture of local and countywide conditions.
69
Overview
The provision of water and sewer service in Montgomery County is comprehensively

planned and provided. Policy guidance and comprehensive planning information is
given by Park and Planning staff to the County Executive for preparation by the
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of triennial ten year
water and sewer plans. Geographic service area maps identify overall priority for
service expansions. These maps are reviewed six times per calendar year through a
category change process reviewed by the Planning Board. Service area priorities are
also reviewed by Planning staff and the Planning Board during preparation of area
master plans. County Council approval of the water and sewer plan guides the WSSC
in scheduling and construction of the systems. Major water and sewer facilities are
detailed in annual Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) programs reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by
the County Council. All funding is obtained and administered by the WSSC through a
mix of federal, state, developer, applicant and customer charges for the construction,
operation and maintenance of both networks.
At the time of development review, the WSSC evaluates development project

submissions as a member of the Development Review Committee and approves the
service extensions or not.
Current Adequacy Test
Based first on the Health Article and later the Environment Article in Maryland law, all of
Montgomery County has been placed within one of six category areas for both water
and sewerage service. The test for adequacy is identified in the subdivision regulations
Chapter 50, Sec. 35, Montgomery County Code, as properties existing in either
category 1, 2 or 3. No new subdivision dependent on community water and/or
sewerage systems may be approved unless it is, at the time of Planning Board action, in
one of these three categories. This, in effect, means that the water and/or sewerage
system exists, either abutting the new property to be subdivided, or, generally, service
will be provided within 2 years. If a more restrictive test were desired, approvals could
be limited to areas in category 1, or to 1 and 2.
To apply a more restrictive policy to the entire county and capture properties not going
through the subdivision process would require redrafting the current service area maps
as part of the comprehensive water and sewer plan triennial update this year.
At the current time, the draft 2006-2015 Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage
Systems Plan is in preparation by DEP. There should still be time to recommend
inclusion of Growth Policy directives that would serve to implement County Council
Resolution No. 16-17 in the final plan. The draft plan will be submitted for staff review
and Planning Board action later in 2007.
70
State Involvement
State law (Environmental Article Title 9-Subtitle 5) and regulation (COMAR 26.03)
require the preparation and processing of Water and Sewerage Plans by local and state
government. Water and Sewerage (W&S) Plans are required to ensure the provision of
safe and adequate water and wastewater systems to meet existing and future demands.
The law and regulations specify information to be included and processes to be
followed.
W&S Plans must be consistent with county and municipal comprehensive plans. In
cases where the county and municipal comprehensive plans conflict, the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) will work with the affected local governments
and Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) to resolve such conflicts with respect to
the W&S Plan approval process.
The county planning agency must certify that the W&S Plan, revision or amendment is
consistent with the county comprehensive plan. In accordance with the law, MDE seeks
the advice of MDP on the consistency of the proposal with the local comprehensive plan
and other appropriate matters. Where MDP and the local government disagree on the
consistency of a plan, revision, or amendment, MDE requests that the state and local
agencies meet to resolve the matter.
The law requires local governments to review the county plan annually and once every
three years provide a report of this review to MDE. The county must adopt and submit
to MDE a revision or amendment if the governing body deems a revision or amendment
necessary or if MDE requires a revision or amendment. If a county is in the process of
updating the plan but will not be able to complete the update in three years, a report to
MDE indicating progress will suffice to meet the law.
Draft W&S Plan updates, revisions and amendments must be submitted to appropriate
multi-county or regional comprehensive planning agencies, MDE, MDP and the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to the local public hearing
required by state law before local plan adoption. The submittal of plans in draft form to
MDE and MDP helps avoid disagreements on a plan after the local governing body has
formally adopted the plan, revision or amendment.
The water and sewerage regulations require the inclusion of information in the W&S
Plans about existing and future projected populations, existing and planned water and
wastewater facilities, compliance with state effluent limitations and protection of water
uses, the water and wastewater system processes, levels and types of treatment,
operation and maintenance costs, and means of financing improvements.
Many local governments have sophisticated capital improvement programs (CIP) that
annually publish the budget and five year projections for all capital expenditures in the
jurisdiction. MDE may accept the excerpted portion of the local CIP that meets the
71
requirements of the regulation, or incorporation by reference, of the entire adopted local
CIP. Any documents incorporated by reference should be readily available to the public
in the same location as the Water and Sewerage Plan.
System Constraints
Concern has been expressed to be sure that the current water and sewer systems are
working as intended and that there is capacity for development that is approved.
System capacities are determined by a combination of physical characteristics and
policy directives. Extensive monitoring is required to provide the necessary information
to make approval judgments before system failures. In the case of water and sewer
systems, the WSSC is the operating, maintenance and monitoring agency responsible.
Some portions of the water and sewerage networks are currently constrained due to the
physical attributes of the system. An example would be the sewage flow allowed to
pass into the District of Columbia at Rock Creek. Another historical example would be
the moratorium placed on the county due to inadequate sewage treatment capacity.
For water systems, it might be inadequate pressure necessary for fire suppression
requirements. System constraints are revealed through the WSSC. System constraints
usually affect areas already developed, that are being redeveloped or modified in such
a way as to increase demand for service.
The WSSC performs studies to determine what system improvements or modifications

are needed to provide service or correct deficiencies. With Planning Department
assistance in identifying the timing, location and demand for water and sewerage
service, the WSSC can program and perform quantitative analyses and specify
improvements and schedule necessary to implement County Council Growth Policy
objectives.
The WSSC provides a reliable supply of safe drinking water, and has always met or
exceeded United States Environmental Protection Agency health standards. As WSSC
approaches 90 years of service, it is facing problems of decaying old pipes and valves.
Aging and breaking pipes affect more than the skilled WSSC crews who respond 24
hours a day to fix broken water mains and sewer pipes. A major water main break
results in a shut-down of water delivery to homes and businesses. It has the potential
to flood roadways and affect electrical service. Streams and rivers are directly impacted
when chlorinated water enters a waterway or when sewage discharges break through.
Plans are already underway to speed up the replacement cycle for pipes, especially in
established areas where the pipes are quickly reaching the end of their reliability.
WSSC System Extension (Formerly Authorization) Process
Applicants desiring water and/or sewer service provide necessary information to the
WSSC. If approved by the Commission, the applicant is advised of the conditions of
approval that must be met prior to construction. An authorization is valid as long as a
preliminary plan is valid or indefinitely if the plat has been recorded. A description of the
72
funding of system improvements and extensions is quite detailed and beyond this very
simplified abstract. Greater details can be obtained by referring to a current WSSC
Capital Improvements Program which are prepared every year. If there is to be more
consideration of the authorization and funding processes for water and sewer systems,
there must be convened a group that included the WSSC and county DEP.
Examination of these processes could include the program size facilities that appear in
a capital improvement program, and/or the non-program size facilities that serve smaller
areas.
WSSC CIP Process
The principal objective of the WSSC Capital Improvements Program is the programming
of planning, design, land acquisition, and construction activities on a yearly basis for
major water and sewerage facilities. These facilities may be necessary for system
improvements and/or service to existing customers; to comply with federal and/or state
environmental mandates; and to support new development in accordance with county
approved plans and policies for orderly growth and development.
Expenditures for the six-year program are divided into three main categories; projects
needed for growth, projects needed to implement environmental regulations, and
projects needed for systems maintenance and reinforcement. The categories are
defined as follows:
• Growth - Any water or sewerage project, or part of a project, that increases the
demand for treatment and delivery of potable water and/or increases system
requirements to collect and treat more sewage in response to new, first time,
service hookups to WSSC’s existing customer base.
• Environmental Regulations - Any improvement to an existing facility which is
required to meet changes in federal regulations, such as the Clean Water Act, or
in response to more stringent state operating permit requirements, but does not
increase system capacity. Any part of this type of a project that provides for
additional capacity is for growth.
• System Improvements - Any project which improves or replaces components of
existing water and sewerage systems or provides for mainline relocations
required in response to county or state transportation department road projects
where the intended purpose is not to increase the capacity of any system
components. This category also includes program-sized water main extensions
for which the primary function is to provide water supply redundancy to pressure
zones or smaller areas in the Sanitary District. Any part of this type of a project
not dictated by maintenance or rehabilitation needs and that provides for
additional capacity is for growth.
Funding Growth
The portion of the current WSSC CIP needed to accommodate growth is approximately
$275 million, which equals 32% of all expenditures in the six-year program. The major
73
funding sources for this part of the program are the System Development Charge
revenues, payments by applicants under system extension permits, and developer
contributions. In the event that growth costs are greater than the income generated by
growth funding sources, rate-supported water/sewer bonds may be used to close any
gap.
The System Development Charge (SDC) was first approved by the Maryland General
Assembly in 1993. This WSSC imposed charge is on new development to pay for that
part of WSSC’s CIP, which is needed to accommodate growth in their customer base.
Subsequent modifications have established a process for approving partial and full
exemptions for elderly housing and biotechnology properties, as well as exemptions for
properties in designated economic revitalization areas. For FY 2007, the Montgomery
County Council has maintained the current rate of $203 per fixture unit. Policies and
information associated with the SDC can be found in WSSC CIP documents.
WSSC Service Extensions
Montgomery County plans for the extension of non-program size water and sewer lines
as part of the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan service area
designations. This plan is used, in part, to designate properties that are eligible to apply
to the WSSC for new main extensions. Properties that are in categories 4, 5 or 6 must
be moved up in priority through a category change to area 3 to qualify for service.
Neither the county nor the WSSC are responsible for initiating or financing these water
or sewer extensions.
Recommendations
Planning Department staff recommends no changes to the adequacy test for

water and sewerage systems. For purposes of the APFO, our primary concern is the
potential for new development to be approved even when water and sewerage systems
are not adequate to support that development. Staff believes the current test, backed up
by planning and implementation of system improvements, is working as intended.
Police Services
Current Conditions
The majority of police services in the County are provided by the Montgomery County
Department of Police, with critical services provided by other agencies including
MNCPPC Park Police.
The Montgomery County Department of Police prepared a Police Facilities Master Plan
in 1997. There is no statutory requirement for the police to prepare a master plan or to
seek Council adoption of this plan. The 1997 plan envisions that Police Headquarters
will be improved and relocated to a campus-like setting and proposes that a sixth district
74
be added to serve the County’s needs through the year 2016. The current districts
include: 1st District Rockville, 2nd District Bethesda, 3rd District Silver Spring, 4th District
Wheaton, 5th District Germantown, and 6th District Gaithersburg.
Although not a requirement, the Department produces an annual Strategic Plan, the
most recent of which is for 2007-2009. This plan outlines the goals and the objectives of
the Department. The goals are as follows:
• Reduce crime and the fear of crime
• Improve traffic and pedestrian safety
• Strengthen departmental relationships
• Develop a more diverse, dedicated, and highly skilled workforce
• Provide the best available resources for the department’s employees
• Emergency preparedness
Quarterly reports are planned through December 31, 2009, with an end of the year
report due every December. A three-year summary of the Strategic Plan is scheduled to
be completed by February 1, 2010.
Montgomery County Department of Police (MCPD) has an operating budget of $206

million. The majority of the budget supports the staffing needs of the Department.
Currently there are about 1.2 patrol officers per 1,000 people, one of the lowest
police/population ratios in the region. There are currently about 1,200 officers within the
Department. The bulk of the work of a patrol officer involves responding to “calls-for-
service.” In 2006, the police responded to 246,263 calls-for-service. The largest call
concentrations come from the 3rd District (Silver Spring), 4th District (Wheaton), and 6th
District (Gaithersburg/Montgomery Village). The formula used to allocate patrol
resources is based on community needs and calls-for-service. Due to changing
community conditions, there is a constant need to rebalance patrol resources. This re-
balancing can result in changes within the department as officers are re-assigned or
shifted to another district.
Unlike fire and rescue, public schools, and public libraries that are facilities-driven, the
Police Department relies on its operating budget to hire more patrol officers to
supplement patrol strength and improve County police services. It should be noted,
however, that MCPD occupies 30 different “fixed” facilities throughout the County that
have operating needs as well. There are five general facility types: Headquarters,
District Stations, Satellite Facilities, Leased Facilities, and other specialized facilities,
such as the Public Services Training Academy, the 911 Center, and others. The FY07-
12 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the Police Department contains eight
ongoing projects which will total expenditures of $59.1 million over the next six years.
Three new projects are proposed: the renovation/relocation of the 1st District (Rockville)
and 2nd District (Bethesda) Police Stations and the Outdoor Firearms and Training
Center.
75
Sources of Change in Demand
• Demographic, economic and social changes in the County.
• Number of calls-for-service/officer initiated calls within the districts.
• Development in rural areas.
• National security emergency status
Current Test
The current Growth Policy resolution addresses police, fire and health facilities in the
same way. The following paragraph is from the current Growth Policy and constitutes
the entire “test” for adequacy of these facilities:
Guidelines for Police, Fire and Health Services
The Planning Board and staff must consider the programmed services to be adequate
for facilities such as police stations, firehouses, and health clinics unless there is
evidence that a local area problem will be generated. Such a problem is one which
cannot be overcome within the context of the approved Capital Improvements Program
and operating budgets of the relevant agencies. Where such evidence exists, either
through agency response to the Subdivision Review committee clearinghouse, or
through public commentary or Planning staff consideration, a Local Area Review must
be undertaken. The Board must seek a written opinion from the relevant agency, and
require, if necessary, additional data from the applicant, to facilitate the completion of the
Planning staff recommendation within the statutory time frame for Planning Board action.
In performing this Local Area Review, the facility capacity at the end of the sixth year of
the approved CIP must be compared to the demand generated by the "most probable"
forecast for the same year prepared by the Planning Department.
Recommendations
Planning Department staff recommends no changes to the adequacy test for

police service. Planning staff reviewed public safety facilities and services in detail in
2005 and recommended no changes at that time. For police services in particular, staff
noted that the number and location of police “facilities”—that is, police stations – is not
closely related to levels of service. Staff suggests that there are benefits to having the
Police Department participate in the Development Review Committee for Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) review of new development.
Unlike the Fire and Rescue Service, the Police Department is not required to submit
comments to the Planning Department on all preliminary plans reviewed by the
Department. The police could contribute to the regulatory process by reviewing
proposed developments for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
as a part of the Development Review Committee. MCPD could provide public safety
expertise and design comments when new plans are reviewed which in turn may lead to
the reduction of the fear of crime and incidence of crime. CPTED strategies such as
natural surveillance, defining private and public spaces, designing public routes, and
76
reviewing safe building access can be very helpful to planners. Design concepts from
police could keep intruders easily observable and promote visibility of people in parking
areas and building entrances. Lighting and landscaping comments would also prove
useful from the Department.
Fire and Rescue
Current Conditions
County Code Section 21-12 requires the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service
(MCFRS) to maintain, review, and amend a Master, Fire, Rescue, and Emergency
Medical Services Plan. The original Master Plan was approved in 1994. The stated
purposes are:
• To describe how the Fire and Rescue Service fulfills its responsibilities
• To explain how changes in the County are likely to affect service delivery, and
• To provide direction for the future through recommendations that address the
steps necessary to provide a desired level and of quality of service.
The original master plan addressed demographic and service demand trends, factors
affecting service demand, and an overview of the service delivery system, life safety
programs, and fire investigation program. The 1994 Master Plan also described the
need for new facilities, apparatus, equipment, and communication/data systems.
Considerable attention was given to describing the seven “Fire and Rescue Planning
Areas” in terms of demographics, characteristics, service demand and service delivery
trends, and resources (existing and future needs). The seven areas included: Down
County Area, Route 29 Area, Potomac Area, I-270 Corridor, Poolesville Area,
Damascus Area, and Georgia Avenue Area.
MCFRS facilities have not kept up with the pace of growth during the ten-year period
following the approval of the master plan in 1994. During that 1994-2004 period, no
additional stations were built. The last station to be built was Germantown Station 29,
which was completed in 1980. The original master plan called for the construction of
new stations in the Clarksburg and Travilah areas. Both stations have been
programmed in the CIP as well as two others (W, Germantown and E. Germantown are
included in the FY05-10 CIP).
Master Plan Update
Montgomery County Code requires that the master plan be updated every ten years. In
addition to this mandate, there were other rationales for establishing a new plan:
population growth (up by 17% since 1994) and an increase in diversity (minorities and
elderly). Some parts of the County had experienced considerable growth, including
Germantown, Gaithersburg, Rockville, North Potomac, Burtonsville, White Oak, Silver
Spring, Bethesda, Aspen Hill, and the Layhill area. The 2004 plan was written to
77
address the demographic and growth related trends the County was facing. In addition
to changes in growth and demographics, incident call load had increased to a much
higher rate and the rate of certain call loads, mainly EMS, had risen sharply.
The Fire, Rescue, Emergency Medical Service, and Community Risk Reduction Master
Plan serves as a guideline for the Executive, Council, and Fire Chief in making
decisions regarding the delivery of fire and rescue services. The plan does not have the
force of law nor does it impose legal obligation on any party. The County Council
approved the current plan on October 11, 2005. It is currently being updated as the
plan was developed between two organizational restructurings (a chief was hired on Jan
1, 2005).
The purpose of the plan is to set “forward thinking, rational, and attainable course for
the continued delivery of effective and efficient fire, rescue, emergency medical
services, and the community risk reduction services.” The plan guides the MCFRS in
how best the services “can meet the needs and expectations of its customers and
address the overall level of fire-rescue related risk facing the County.” The plan
accomplishes this task by:
• addressing what emergency and non-emergency programs are needed,
• what apparatus and equipment are needed and where,
• what facilities are needed and where, and
• how to best train and deploy MCFRS personnel.
The MCFRS serves residents, business owners, visitors to the County, County
departments and agencies, municipalities located in Montgomery County, private sector
emergency service organizations serving the County, state departments/agencies, and
federal departments/agencies.
Laws and Standards
Several laws and standards impact the MCFRS in terms of organizational structure,
administration, authorities and responsibilities, legal matters, and service delivery.
Laws that govern the MCFRS include Chapters 2, 21, and 22 of the County Code.
Standards that impact the MCFRS include response time goals and deployment criteria
are voluntary national standards to which Montgomery County plans to comply.
In addition to the master plan and any amendments, planning assumptions include:
• The MCFRS will remain a combination system of career and volunteer
personnel.
• The MCFRS will receive adequate appropriations and support from the County
that will allow the continued operation of existing programs/services, new
programs deemed necessary by the Chief, and continued delivery of quality
service to the public.
78
• The call load in the County will continue to increase in relation to population
growth, pace of development and other socioeconomic factors.
• The ongoing trend of EMS incidents will continue to be the vast majority of
incident responses.
• The Countywide risk for terrorism will remain. The MCFRS will continue to
increase its level of preparedness to a level commensurate with the perceived
threat and risk.
• Planning for large-scale emergencies will be addressed at a more regional scale
than in the past to ensure the most effective means of protecting the public.
• The growth of people over 65 will outpace all other age groups by a sizable
margin. Due to this increase in elderly population, the EMS call load will sharply
rise.
• The trend of increasingly large numbers of ethnically diverse populations residing
in the County will continue.
• Residential and business development throughout the County will continue to
grow at a steady rate between 2005 and 2015, particularly along the I-270
corridor. Transportation infrastructure (highway and rail) will continue to expand
within the County as well.
Demand projections are based on the following:

• Population projections (including age, income) using M-NCPPC Research &
Technology Center and Census data
• Building density
• Location of healthcare facilities
MCFRS anticipates demand by charting (using GIS) incident reports, projected needs. It
projects need based on land use (elderly facilities, nursing homes, etc.) and population
statistics.
Supply is projected based on:

• Adding staff and flex units to areas of need.
• Assistance from the private sector.
• Automatic mutual aid or assistance from federal sites that provide their own fire
and rescue services.
• Demographic, economic and social changes in the county.

• Changes in intensity and types of uses in existing nonresidential buildings can
alter service demands on both police and fire/rescue departments.
79
• Development trends (i.e., more high-rise development, reuse)
• Development in the agricultural areas.
• Changes in national standards that affect response times, etc.
• National security emergency status
MCFRS indicates that they have a good relationship with the federal facilities inside and
outside the County and report that Federal partners assist the County whenever they
can. After September 11, 2001, the relationship strengthened with added Homeland
Security policies. MCFRS has specialty teams who are trained to respond to local and
national disasters and they include: Hazmat, urban search and rescue team, dive team,
evacuation and tactics teams, and bomb squad.
Current Test
The current Growth Policy resolution addresses police, fire and health facilities in the
same way. The following paragraph is from the current Growth Policy and constitutes
the entire “test” for adequacy of these facilities:
Guidelines for Police, Fire and Health Services
The Planning Board and staff must consider the programmed services to be adequate
for facilities such as police stations, firehouses, and health clinics unless there is
evidence that a local area problem will be generated. Such a problem is one which
cannot be overcome within the context of the approved Capital Improvements Program
and operating budgets of the relevant agencies. Where such evidence exists, either
through agency response to the Subdivision Review committee clearinghouse, or
through public commentary or Planning staff consideration, a Local Area Review must
be undertaken. The Board must seek a written opinion from the relevant agency, and
require, if necessary, additional data from the applicant, to facilitate the completion of the
Planning staff recommendation within the statutory time frame for Planning Board action.
In performing this Local Area Review, the facility capacity at the end of the sixth year of
the approved CIP must be compared to the demand generated by the "most probable"
forecast for the same year prepared by the Planning Department.
Evaluation
The MCFRS is evaluated in the “Montgomery Measures Up!” initiative. This initiative
focuses on reporting the performance of selected County programs and program ele-
ments using a “family” of measures – input, output, outcome, service quality, and effici-
ency measures. Montgomery Measures Up! is designed to provide departments with a
powerful tool to help the County achieve its vision of “efficient, effective and responsive
government that delivers quality services.” Indeed, the regular measurement, reporting,
and use of performance measures by County departments and programs are expected
to play key roles in managing the County during the coming years. With a budget of
over $180 million, the MCFRS will likely continue to need trained staff and facilities to
provide the best emergency fire and rescue services that County residents expect.
80
Recommendations
Planning Department staff recommends no changes to the adequacy test for fire
and rescue services. Planning staff reviewed public safety facilities and services in
detail in 2005 and recommended no changes at that time. For fire and rescue services
in particular, staff noted that the number and location of fire stations is correlated to
adequacy (as measured in response times) because, unlike police, fire and rescue
personnel are located at a station until a call comes in. Staff’s 2005 research indicated
that the major challenge for adding stations was finding suitable locations and that the
master plan process is the best mechanism for designating those locations.
Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services representatives participate in the master
plan process, and MCFRS has an up-to-date master plan.
During the course of our study this year, staff noted several aspects of fire and rescue
services that may be useful for making land use recommendations during the master
plan process. These include the fact that the great majority of calls are for emergency
medical services, which suggests that Planning staff discuss with MCFRS the possibility
of identifying locations for emergency medical units in master plans.
The observation that only 12 percent of calls are for fires, and that most of these are for
brush and vehicle fires, suggests to Planning staff that there are opportunities to
increase the use of smaller fire trucks in the fleet, which allows use of smaller fire
stations and road turning radii. Planning staff raises this issue only from a land use
perspective: larger parcels of land are becoming rare, and the future of neighborhood
design depends in part on narrower streets with smaller turning radii.
Parks and Recreation
Current Procedures
The demand and supply for many park and recreational facilities is calculated as
follows:
Demand
Every six years the M-NCPPC staff prepares the Land Preservation, Parks, and
Recreation Plan (LPPRP) for Planning Board approval, as required by the State, in
order to obtain Program Open Space funds. The calculation for each type of facility
utilizes one of three different geographic units (countywide, community-based planning
area, and master plan area); the geographic unit depends upon the type of facility being
evaluated. There is currently no methodology for determining demand for smaller
geographies.
81
Needs for a total of 19 facilities are estimated by the 2005 Plan to the year 2020. The
methodology for most facilities is determined by using user estimates from surveys or
permit data and population forecasts developed by the Research and Technology
Center. This yields data reflecting the total demand for these public park and recreation
facilities. Existing and programmed facilities are deducted in order to determine the
remaining need. The formula does not apply per capita needs, as is done in some
jurisdictions, except for dog exercise areas for which Parks staff has insufficient user
data to develop a participation rate. Ball-field facilities are categorized by geometric
shape and size (e.g., small diamonds, large rectangles) in order to build in flexibility for
use by more than one sport.
Supply
Public facilities at parks and schools help meet needs for recreation facilities. School
facilities are counted to the degree that they are available to the general public (aside
from school use). As use of existing private facilities does not count in the participation
rates, privately provided facilities that are obtained through the application of the
recreation guidelines to new projects are not counted to meet public facility needs
unless they will be on parkland and available to the general public. It is assumed that
the private facilities provide neighborhood type facilities for the residents of the new
development in combination with more regional facilities provided by the public sector3.
Public parks shown on approved master plans are required from developers, and in
large subdivisions, developers may also be required to develop the park. There are
frequent park dedications required for protection of natural resources and trail
connections.
The use of the recreation guidelines already provides most of the potential benefits of
including park and recreation services in the Growth Policy. The guidelines allow the
Planning Board to require park and recreation facilities at subdivision, and they, along
with the LPPRP, provide standards and analysis as to where park and recreation
facilities are needed. Inclusion within the Growth Policy would allow the Planning Board
to deny subdivisions on the basis of inadequate park and recreation facilities.
3
In 1989, the Montgomery County Planning Board requested that staff prepare recreation guidelines for use when
the Board reviews site plans for proposed subdivisions. These private recreational facilities offer an important
supplement to the public park system. The Guidelines were approved in 1992 with an advisory work group to assure
the adequacy of recreation in terms of quantity, quality, location, linkages, and layout. They include a quantitative
method as well as a site design and facilities criteria. The quantitative system is based on Montgomery County
demographics and is intended to ensure a consistent and adequate level of recreation for the population of any
project. The system provides a standard of measure for estimating the recreation demand of the future population of
a proposed project and evaluating the supply of recreational opportunities within the proposed facilities. The provision
of recreation facilities is considered adequate when the supply meets the demand.
The estimate of demand for recreation is based on the demographics of Montgomery County. The demographic data
are weighed against other factors, such as density. The demand is estimated for each population category: tots,
children, teens, adults, and seniors. The demand is estimated for each housing type: single-family detached,
townhouse, garden apartments, and high-rise apartments.
82
• Changing participation rates

• Changing demographics (aging of population, increased diversity)
• Emerging park uses (e.g., BMX biking, dog parks, skate parks)
• Neighborhood life cycles
• Changing philosophy regarding the role of the public sector as a provider
• Policy changes
o Environmental policies
o Fiscal concerns leading to deferred maintenance
o Policy regarding the portion of regional parks that can be developed (one-
third)
Issues Related to Developing an Adequacy Test at Subdivision
A number of issues would likely be raised if parks and recreation facilities were to be
considered for an adequacy test to be administered at subdivision through the Growth
Policy. These are not necessarily problems, per se, but highlight subject areas where
decisions or adjustments would need to be made. These include:
• Whether to use the survey results that are the basis for the LPPRP or per-capita
park and recreation standards.
• The current formulas make no distinctions based on criteria that may be
important when evaluating individual subdivisions:
o Larger areas vs. smaller areas
o Urban facility demands vs. suburban vs. rural
o More vs. less diverse areas
• The scope of the LPPRP covers a wide range of issues that may not be directly
related to the adequacy of local parks for daily use (e.g., agricultural land
preservation, natural resources preservation, and cultural resources
preservation).
• Would inclusion of parks and recreation facilities in the APFO further a shift from
meeting demand through the provision of neighborhood walk-to parks that must
be publicly maintained in favor of facilities that are provided and maintained
privately?
• The Recreation Guidelines would have to be revised before they could be used
as the basis for an adequacy test. Revised Recreation Guidelines may provide all
of the important benefits of a APFO test for parks.
o The application of Recreation Guidelines is essentially a local area test,
conducted on a subdivision-by-subdivision basis, but we plan parks and
recreation facilities using larger geographies and on the basis of
participation data. Participation data is not available for privately provided
facilities.
83
o The Recreation Guidelines apply only to new development; they do not
address changing needs in existing communities.
o The guidelines have specific flaws. Developers can count existing
facilities as available to satisfy the need from their development even
though the facilities may be heavily utilized and physically removed from
the new project. They have not been updated to account for emerging
needs (e.g., for urban recreation facilities).
• The current measures of park and recreation facility capacity are insufficient for
an adequacy test for new development.
Planning staff recommends that the Recreation Guidelines applied in the

regulatory process be revised. This project is included in the Planning Department’s
requested FY08 work program. Among the issues to consider: whether to eliminate
provisions that allow developers to count existing public facilities as part of satisfying the
recreational requirements for new development.
Community Center Facilities
The Recreation Department began constructing larger recreation centers in the 1980s.
The current prototype for these facilities meets resident’s needs much more effectively.
The Department currently has 17 Community and Neighborhood Recreation Centers
located throughout the County which host programs for the Department as well as other
County agencies and community organizations. These centers provide leisure activity,
social interaction, family participation, neighborhood civic involvement, and promote
community cohesion and identity. Programs for all ages are available in centers. These
facilities are designed to support sports, fitness, dance, social activities, and arts
programs. Activities include instructional programs, organized competitions,
performances and exhibitions, recreational clubs and hobby groups, access initiatives
for special populations, and summer camps/playgrounds. In addition, they offer
important community meeting space. Center spaces are available for rentals,
receptions, special events, and meetings. User fees are charged for rentals and other
programs and services offered at each facility.
Future Needs for Community Centers
In the FY07-12 Capital Improvements Program, there are 9 new centers proposed,
including one in Friendship Heights that will be built by a developer. Additionally,
renovations are proposed for the older centers. In 2003, the Recreation Department
proposed a larger prototype building to maximize efficiency in programming and
operation. The new prototype will be 33,000 net square feet and will include more
integrated space for senior citizen services. The LPPRP concentrates primarily on these
larger centers operated by the Recreation Department. Additionally, it was suggested
that the 33,000 square foot model serves an optimum population of approximately
30,000 or about 1,100 square feet of recreation space for every 1,000 individuals. A
84
coordinated effort has been conducted with the Recreation Department participation
data to determine appropriate geographic service areas and capacities. Research has
determined that most people attending recreation classes do not travel more than three
to five miles to their activity. Beyond the three to five mile distance from a center, the
participation rate of residents drops dramatically. When the service area of recreation is
related to population density, gaps in existing service coverage are apparent.
Parking Facilities
Current Procedures
The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that each new development must provide sufficient
parking to satisfy its own demand. Parking ratios are provided in the ordinance for each
type of use (e.g., parking spaces per thousand square feet of commercial development).
Generally speaking, the parking provided privately pursuant to the requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance appears to be adequate in most cases to satisfy the demand from
new development. As a result, the rest of this section will focus on the provision of
parking in the urban areas of Montgomery County where the supply of parking is
provided in part by the public sector using funds generated by new development plus
fees from the users of public parking facilities.
Chapter 60 of the County Code permits development projects in the County’s four
Parking Lot Districts (PLDs) to pay a PLD tax in lieu of providing parking on-site. Each
PLD uses the tax revenues, fees from the use of public parking facilities, and the
revenues from fines to fund the provision, maintenance and operation of public parking
facilities. The monies in each PLD fund can also be transferred within prescribed limits
to other County uses, e.g., mass transit.
The Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT)

manages the four PLDs and attempts to ensure that the supply of public parking in each
district is sufficient to satisfy the demand. Each PLD is essentially a system to itself,
although the County Council sets the parking rates and PLD tax rates.
Every five years, a supply and demand analysis is undertaken for each PLD. For
analysis purposes, the PLDs are divided into quadrants. The analysis involves an
inventory of privately provided parking within the district, an inventory of County-owned
parking on- and off-street, and field observation of the turnover and utilization rates for
public parking spaces. DPWT projects the total future demand for parking based on
existing and approved development, additional development plans that have been
submitted for approval by the Planning Board, other potential projects being considered
by developers, and various economic indicators (e.g., job growth) that reflect regional
economic health. DPWT then compares the projected parking demand to supply and
determines whether and where additional facilities are needed.
This process is intended to ensure the provision of sufficient parking to support

development in the PLDs, some of which are designated revitalization areas. However,
85
the ability of each PLD to provide the parking needed to satisfy demand is limited,
particularly within each quadrant of a PLD. Obstacles include the following:
• Sites for new public parking facilities in the CBDs are scarce and expensive.
• The cost of constructing new facilities is high and increasing. The most recent
parking facility in Bethesda cost $60,000 for each underground parking space,
exclusive of the land cost. (The shallow bedrock in Silver Spring makes
underground parking facilities particularly expensive.)
• Each PLD is also under some pressure to divert funds for other purposes. A
significant portion of the PLD funds are diverted to fund mass transit and to
support the County’s Urban Districts.
• The construction of above-grade public parking limits the amount of private
development that can be constructed on top of the parking because the height
limits in the zone are generally not increased when buildings are constructed
above parking.
Supporting the mass transit fund is consistent with the two seemingly contradictory
objectives of the PLDs: In addition to providing parking for drivers, the PLDs are
intended to encourage people not to drive. They accomplish the second objective by
helping to fund mass transit; by providing parking for transit riders; and by restricting the
supply of certain types of parking.
The County’s provision of public parking at relatively low rates tends to discourage both
the provision of private parking garages and the provision of parking in new projects in
excess of Code requirements. This may work to constrain the total supply of parking.
The reliance on shared-use public parking to support the mixed use urban environment
is considered more efficient than requiring every developer to undergo an adequacy test
and provide on-site parking for every project.
Sources of Change in Demand for Publicly-Provided Parking
• The various factors that are considered in the County’s parking and supply and
demand analyses, including the pace of new development.
• The changing mix of uses in new development due to market conditions.
• The ability of seemingly complimentary uses to share parking.
• The degree to which the parking ratios in the Zoning Ordinance reflect actual
behavior.
• The County’s success in encouraging transit use (i.e., encouraging people not to
drive) affects parking utilization rates.
• New technology (e.g., electronic parking payment).
• Changing environmental standards (e.g., for storm water management or the
application of chemicals).
86
• The disposition of PLD property for other uses (e.g., United Therapeutics and the
Cameron Hills townhouses).
Issues for Further Investigation
The Planning Department is not recommending that parking be regarded as a “public

facility” in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, although parking policies have a
clear relationship to the County’s ability to manage traffic congestion and support vitality
in the County’s centers. Among the parking issues that may be suitable for further
study:
• Should the parking requirements in the zoning ordinance be changed?
• Does the provision of “excessive” public or private parking encourage driving and
road congestion, discourage production of private parking, or both? What is
“excessive”?
• Should older, deteriorating facilities be demolished and replaced with new
parking facilities in the quadrants of each PLD where underserved demand
currently exists? Or are there other issues that need to be explored?
• How are specific PLD operating decisions, such as parking rates, PLD tax rates
and the transfer of PLD funds to other purposes, supporting the County’s
transportation and other policy goals?
• Is there utility in a broader funding mechanism for public parking, such as a
countywide parking tax?
• How can sites be obtained for the construction of new public parking facilities?
Should there be incentives or requirements for private development to provide a
public parking component ii instead of, or in addition to, private parking?
• How can street activating uses on the ground floor of public parking facilities be
encouraged?
• Are new PLDs needed in places like Long Branch?
Libraries
Current Procedures
The Montgomery County Public Libraries Strategic Facilities Plan 2004-2009 was
prepared in March 2004. It makes no reference to an approval procedure either with
the Executive Branch or the County Council. Further, there is no statutory requirement
for the County’s library system to prepare a master plan. The purpose of the current
Strategic Plan is to serve as a guide to the County for renovating existing library
facilities and assessing the need for new public library facilities. The plan profiles the
current library system facilities and establishes a timetable for future renovations. It
87
also identifies areas where new facilities may be needed due to population growth or
other programmatic factors.
Population projection information is supplied by the MNCPPC Research & Technology

Center and is used to determine where to build new libraries or to expand existing
libraries. According to the current Strategic Plan, the library system acknowledges the
County’s General Plan and expects the growth to be focused in the I-270 Corridor, at
Metro stations, and infill in existing urban areas.
There are 22 library facilities in the County. Each library in the Montgomery County
Department of Public Libraries system serves its immediate community. The population
of the area and the distance from other library facilities determines the size of the
library. The primary service radius for each facility is generally two miles. The following
criteria are used when establishing a new facility: a minimum population of 5,000 people
for a small storefront facility and 16,000 people for a full-size facility. Residents in the
urban areas of the County should have a library no more than three miles from home.
Residents in rural areas of the County should have no more than a 20-minute drive to a
library.
The Montgomery County Department of Public Libraries has an approved operating

budget for FY07 of $38 million. Personnel costs comprise 79.4 percent of the budget
for 375 full-time positions and 252 part-time positions. Operating expenses account for
the remaining 20.6 percent of the FY07 budget. Library services continue to be
primarily facilities-based.
Sources of Change in Demand for Library Services

• Demographic, ethnic, economic and social changes in the county.
• Population growth occurring in areas of the County that do not presently have
nearby libraries.
• Population growth in densely populated areas of the County that continue to
grow with nearby libraries.
• Program/service changes due to changes in the information technologies
o Demand for increased electronic areas in libraries,
o Demand for new and emerging formats of information and materials, and
o Routine activities, such as checkout, will continue to move toward self-
service.
Recommendations
The Planning Department does not recommend applying an adequate public facilities
test to new development for library facilities.
88
Time Limits of a Finding of Adequate Public Facilities
Background
In Montgomery County, proposed development is tested for the adequacy of public

facilities serving that development. Typically, the testing of public facilities occurs at the
time of the Planning Board’s review of a preliminary plan of subdivision. Chapter 50 of
the Montgomery County Code addresses the testing of subdivisions for public facilities
adequacy, as does the Growth Policy resolution adopted by the County Council every
two years.
Two years ago, staff was asked to address the issue of time limits of a finding of
adequate public facilities as well as the issue of APF findings for recorded lots. Based
on Planning staff’s analysis (in Chapter 1 of the Final Draft 2005-2007 Growth Policy),
the Montgomery County Planning Board recommended changes to the Montgomery
County Code. These were enacted by the County Council as SRA 05-03 (which clarified
the conditions and limits for extending a finding of adequate public facilities) and Bill 28-
05, which revised the standards and process for conducting APF reviews of recorded
lots to be analogous to those used at subdivision.
Testing Public Facilities Adequacy at Subdivision
Year Residential Commercial

Subdivisions Subdivisions
Prior to 7/25/1989 No time limits on APF 12 years*
finding
7/25/1989 to 10/19/1999 12 years 12 years
Since 10/19/1999 No less than 5 and no No less than 5 and no
more than 12 years, as more than 12 years, as
determined by the determined by the
Planning Board at the Planning Board at the
time of subdivision. time of subdivision.
When the Planning Board finds that public facilities are adequate to support a
subdivision, that finding has a limited validity period. Regulations governing the length of
this validity period have changed three times in the past 30 years, with the last change
being in 1999.
Section 20 of Chapter 50 contains language setting the time limits of a finding of

adequate public facilities by the Planning Board and the language that determines the
conditions under which the Planning Board may grant an extension of the validity period
for a finding of adequate public facilities. Time limits for an extension of a finding of
adequacy public facilities are generally limited to one-half of the period of the original
finding. A project with an original APF time limit of 5 years could receive an extension
up to 2 ½ years long.
89
Development projects are eligible for an extension if they are partially complete
and show recent development activity. In 2005, the Council added a provision that
permits but does not require the Planning Board to extend an APF time limit for certain
projects that have not yet begun construction. One project in Germantown has
requested an extension under this provision and this request is pending before the
Board.
In December 2006, the County Council passed a resolution requesting that the
Planning Board include in its 2007 Growth Policy study an update of the 2005 review.
This report contains that review.
Review of Pipeline of Approved Development
Planning Department staff reviewed the current pipeline of approved

development to show how the current set of time limits has shaped the characteristics of
approved development in Montgomery County.
Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show the year of expiration for housing units and non-
residential square footage in the pipeline as of January 1, 2007. The majority of plans
will expire by 2011, which is expected since most plans are now given a five-year
expiration period. Eighty-seven percent of the residential pipeline and ninety-two
percent of the commercial pipeline will expire within five years.
Table 1.1 Residential Pipeline by Year of APF Expiration
6,000
5,000
Units Remaining
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
16
n
tio
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
ra
pi
Ex
o
N
Year of APF Expiration
90
Table 1.2 : Non-Residential Pipeline by Year of APF Expiration
6,000
5,000
Square Feet (*1000)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018
Year of APF Expiration
Table 1.3 shows the residential projects in the pipeline that were approved prior to July
25, 1989 do not have an expiration date the majority of these plans fall within the
Fairland/White Oak, Potomac, and Rural Policy Areas, respectively.
Table 1.3: Residential Plans in the Pipeline with no Expiration Date

Policy Area Plans Approved Units
Aspen Hill 1 5
Cloverly 1 2
Damascus 1 1
Fairland/White Oak 3 146
Kensington/Wheaton 2 5
Montgomery Village/Airpark 1 2
North Potomac 1 2
Potomac 9 120
Rural Areas 11 99
Silver Spring/Takoma Park 1 1
APF Extensions
There are only a handful of plans each year that are granted extensions. All of
the extensions granted thus far have been subdivisions that qualified under the rules
91
requiring a demonstration of “activity:” (40-60 percent complete, 5-10 percent completed
within previous four years.)
Tables 1.4 shows that seventy-six percent of the total residential units in the
pipeline have a five-year APFO limit. Twelve percent have APF periods of twelve years
and thirty-one plans representing eight percent, are plans approved prior to July 25th
1989 and do not have an expiration date. The average size of these thirty-one plans is
twelve units. In the commercial pipeline (Table 1.5) thirty-nine percent of the approved
square footage expires in five years, thirty-two percent has a twelve-year expiration.
Four plans constituting six percent of the square footage expires after twelve years. The
average size of these four plans is 262, 793 sq ft.
Table 1.4: APF Limit for Residential Plans

Average Number of
Length of APF Period Plans Approved Units Approved
Units
5 272 12,778 47
6 7 915 131
7 1 14 14
8 2 386 193
9 1 2,654 2,654
12 43 8,792 204
No expiration 31 383 12
Total 357 25,922 73
Table 1.5: APF Limit for Non-Residential Plans

Length of APF Period Plans Approved Sq Ft Approved Average Sq Ft
5 62 6,314,842 101,852
6 25 2,814,912 112,596
7 4 800,670 200,168
12 17 5,280,669 310,628
18 4 1,051,172 262,793
Total 112 16,262,265 --
Years to Completion
A look at plans completed in the three years between 2004 and 2006 shows that the
average time to completion for non-residential plans was 8.5 years and the average
time to completion for residential plans was 8.6 years. The weighted average –
calculated by taking the square footage or units, multiplying by number of years to
completion, and then dividing by the total square footage or units – tells a different story.
The 19 non-residential plans completed during this time had a weighted average time to
completion of 9.3 years, which means that larger projects are taking longer to complete
than the smaller projects. The reverse is true for residential development. The
92
weighted average of the 127 plans completed between 2004 and 2006 is 4.6 years,
meaning that the bigger projects were completed faster than the small ones.
Tables 1.6 and 1.7 show the length of time between the approval and completion date
for the pipeline. Eighty-one percent of the residential completions and fifty-eight percent
of the commercial completions occurring between 2004 and 2006 occurred in less then
4 years. Between the fourth and fifth year after a plans initial approval there was only an
increase in completions of six percent for residential units and five percent for
commercial square footage. For completions between 2004 and 2006 the average
length of time for residential completions was 8.5 years and 8.6 years for commercial
completions. These average time frames are skewed due to 14% of the residential
plans and 6% of the commercial plans completed had taken between 13 to 22 years to
complete. These plans represented approvals that occurred prior to July 25th, 1989.
Table 1.6: Length of Time Between Non-Residential Plan Approval and

Completion
(2004-2006 completions)
Percent of Plans Completed

Years Number of projects
within this time frame
2 8 42.11%
3 3 15.79%
5 1 5.26%
6 1 5.26%
7 2 10.53%
8 1 5.26%
14 1 5.26%
15 1 5.26%
17 1 5.26%
Total 19 100%
93
Table 1.7: Length of Time Between Residential Plan Approval and
Completion
(2004-2006 completions)
Number of Years to
Number of Projects % Plans Completed
Complete
0 2 1.57%
1 15 11.81%
2 41 32.28%
3 27 21.26%
4 18 14.17%
5 7 5.51%
6 1 0.79%
7 3 2.36%
8 3 2.36%
12 1 0.79%
13 1 0.79%
14 1 0.79%
16 4 3.15%
17 2 1.57%
22 1 0.79%
Total 127 100%
Completion Status
Tables 1.8 and 1.9 show the completion status through October 31, 2006 of residential
subdivisions approved between November 1, 1999 and October 31, 2006. The tables
show that there were 27,966 housing units approved between November 1, 1999 and
October 31, 2006. Plans approved before October 31, 2003 have more than sixty-four
percent of the units completed. Plans approved after November 1, 2006 have less then
seven percent of the units completed. The 5-year APF time limit went into effect in
October 1999. Plans approved five years ago between November 1, 2001 and October
31, 2002 have over half of the units completed. Fifty-seven of the 92 subdivisions
approved during that period are completely built, while 25 subdivisions were less than
50 percent built by January 1, 2007.
94
Table 1.8: Completion Status of Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to
10/31/2006
Units Approved Units Remaining Percent

When Approved
SF TH MF Total SFD TH MF Total Complete
11/1/1999-10/31/2000 752 912 1,265 2,929 16 0 0 16 99.45%
11/1/2000-10/31/2001 1,833 1,411 1,976 5,220 237 19 685 941 81.97%
11/1/2001-10/31/2002 1,303 1,150 2,298 4,751 418 420 872 1,710 64.01%
11/1/2002-10/31/2003 717 484 2,493 3,694 197 249 450 896 75.74%
11/1/2003-13/31/2004 1,912 339 3,729 5,980 1,861 304 3,434 5,599 6.37%
11/1/2004-10/31/2005 1,111 626 1,154 2,891 1,091 617 1,154 2,862 1.00%
11/1/2005-10/31/2006 640 462 1,399 2,501 639 462 1,399 2,500 0.04%
Total 8,268 5,384 14,314 27,966 4,459 2,071 7,994 14,524 --
Table 1.9: Completion Status of Non-Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to

10/31/2006
Percent Complete
Plans
When Approved Approved 100% 75-100% 50-75% 0-50%
11/1/1999-10/31/2000 42 40 0 0 2
11/1/2000-10/31/2001 49 33 3 3 10
11/1/2001-10/31/2002 92 57 7 3 25
11/1/2002-10/31/2003 113 77 4 6 26
11/1/2003-13/31/2004 75 11 1 4 59
11/1/2004-10/31/2005 80 4 0 1 75
11/1/2005-10/31/2006 49 1 0 0 48
Tables 1.10 and 1.11 show the completion status through October 31, 2006 of non-
residential subdivisions approved between November 1, 1999 and October 31, 2006.
The tables show that 21,090,725 square feet of non-residential space was approved
between November 1, 1999 (the first year that the 5-year rule was in effect) and
October 31, 2006. Plans approved before October 31, 2003 have more then fifty-three
percent of the square footage completed. Plans approved after November 1, 2003 have
less then eight percent of the square footage completed. Plans approved five years ago
between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2002 have over fifty-six percent of the
square footage completed. Thirty of the 31 commercial approvals during that period are
completely built, while one of the commercial approvals is between 50-75% built as of
January 1, 2007. Of the 34 plans approved four years ago between November 1, 2002
and October 31, 2003 thirty-two are complete, 1 is between 50-75% complete and the
other is under 50% complete as of January 1, 2007.
95
Table 1.10: Completion Status of Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to
10/31/2006
Square Feet Square Feet
When Approved Percent Complete
Approved Remaining
11/1/1999-10/31/2000 847,659 59,690 92.96%
11/1/2000-10/31/2001 3,417,168 530,400 84.48%
11/1/2001-10/31/2002 2,580,290 1,120,446 56.58%
11/1/2002-10/31/2003 3,226,411 1,503,547 53.40%
11/1/2003-13/31/2004 6,798,025 6,277,149 7.66%
11/1/2004-10/31/2005 2,900,884 2,897,604 0.11%
11/1/2005-10/31/2006 1,320,288 1,304,796 1.17%
Total 21,090,725 13,693,632 --
Table 1.11: Completion Status of Non-Residential Subdivisions Approved 11/1/1999 to

10/31/2006
When Approved Percent Complete

Plans
Total
Approved 100% 75-100% 50-75% 0-50%
11/1/1999-10/31/2000 14 13 0 0 1 14
11/1/2000-10/31/2001 22 20 1 0 1 22
11/1/2001-10/31/2002 31 30 0 1 0 31
11/1/2002-10/31/2003 34 32 0 1 1 34
11/1/2003-13/31/2004 23 2 1 1 19 23
11/1/2004-10/31/2005 18 0 0 1 17 18
11/1/2005-10/31/2006 28 2 0 0 26 28
96
Annual Growth Policy: Draft School Test Options
March 29, 2007
Test Elements
School Geography FY 2008 Possible
Option # Description Capacity Applied in Test Borrowing Levels Tested Tested Results Variations
Option 1A Current AGP Test 105% GP Cap. ES and MS Only test clusters at elementary
100% GP Cap. HS At HS Level ES, MS, HS All Clusters No Cluster Fails level where most impact of new
development occurs.
Option 1B Current AGP Test @ 100% 100% GP Cap. ES, MS, and HS At HS Level ES, MS, HS All Clusters Clarksburg Fails at ES Level Only test clusters at elementary
level where most impact of new
development occurs.
Option 1C Current AGP Test @ 95% 95% GP Cap. ES, MS, and HS At HS Level ES, MS, HS All Clusters B-CC, Blake, Clarksburg, Kennedy, Only test clusters at elementary
Northwest, Quince Orchard, and level where most impact of new
Springbrook fail at elementary level. development occurs.
Clarksburg fails at middle school level.
Option 2A MCPS Pgm Capacity @ 100% 100% MCPS Cap. ES, MS, and HS None ES, MS, HS All Clusters B-CC, Blake, Clarksburg, Einstein, Only fail an area if ES, MS and HS levels
Walter Johnson, Kennedy, Magruder, all fail test.
Richard Montgomery, Northwest,
Northwood, Quince Orchard, Rockville, Only test clusters at elementary
Sherwood, Wheaton and Whitman all level where most impact of new
fail at elementary level. development occurs.
Churchill and Clarksburg fail at middle

school level.
97
Blake and Wootton fail at high school
Option 2B MCPS Pgm Capacity @ 110% 110% MCPS Cap. ES, MS, and HS None ES, MS, HS All Clusters Blake, Clarksburg, Einstein, Kennedy, Only fail an area if ES, MS and HS levels
Northwest, and Wheaton fail at the all fail test.
elementary level.
Only test clusters at elementary
Clarksburg fails at middle school level. level where most impact of new
development occurs.
Wootton fails at high school level.
Option 2C MCPS Pgm Capacity @ 115% 115% MCPS Cap. ES, MS, and HS None ES, MS, HS All Clusters Blake, Einstein, Kennedy fail at Only test clusters at elementary
elementary level. level where most impact of new
development occurs.
Clarksburg fails at middle school level.
No failures at high school level.
Option 3A Current AGP Test 105% GP Cap. ES and MS ES, MS, HS Clarksburg No failures at any level. Only test clusters at elementary
100% GP Cap. HS At HS Level only level where most impact of new
development occurs.
Option 3B Current AGP Test @ 100% All 100% GP Cap. ES, MS, and HS ES, MS, HS Clarksburg Clarksburg fails at elementary level.
At HS Level only Only test clusters at elementary
level where most impact of new
development occurs.
Optoin 3C MCPS Pgm Capacity @ 110% 110% MCPS Cap. ES, MS, and HS None ES, MS, HS Clarksburg Clarksburg fails at elementary and Only test clusters at elementary
only middle school levels. level where most impact of new
development occurs.
Option 1A: Current AGP Test
Reflects Amended FY 2007-2012 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and MCPS Enrollment Forecast
Elementary School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
100% MCPS* 105% GP** Growth Policy Test: Growth Policy Test
Projected Capacity With Capacity Capacity With Students Result -
Sept. 2012 Council Amended Remaining @ 100% Council Amdended Above or Below Capacity is:
Cluster Area Enrollment FY07-12 CIP MCPS capacity FY07-12 CIP 105 % GP Cap.
B- CC 3,023 2,753 -270 3,258 235 Adequate

Blair 3,734 3,940 206 5,268 1,534 Adequate
Blake 2,375 1,973 -402 2,539 164 Adequate
Churchill 2,536 2,644 108 3,123 587 Adequate
Clarksburg 3,586 3,153 -433 3,677 91 Adequate
Damascus 2,513 2,429 -84 2,886 373 Adequate
Einstein 2,235 1,758 -477 2,838 603 Adequate
Gaithersburg 3,691 3,934 243 4,998 1,307 Adequate
Walter Johnson 3,165 3,094 -71 3,507 342 Adequate
Kennedy 2,355 1,798 -557 2,477 122 Adequate
Magruder 2,545 2,523 -22 3,416 871 Adequate
R. Montgomery 2,258 2,108 -150 2,562 304 Adequate
Northwest 3,865 3,458 -407 4,249 384 Adequate
Northwood 2,705 2,674 -31 3,068 363 Adequate
Paint Branch 2,306 2,316 10 2,778 472 Adequate
Poolesville 593 755 162 851 258 Adequate
Quince Orchard 2,866 2,632 -234 3,159 293 Adequate
Rockville 2,345 2,171 -174 3,169 824 Adequate
Seneca Valley 2,098 2,187 89 2,752 654 Adequate
Sherwood 2,506 2,464 -42 2,936 430 Adequate
Springbrook 2,733 2,825 92 3,757 1,024 Adequate
Watkins Mill 2,464 2,545 81 3,334 870 Adequate
Wheaton 2,469 2,149 -320 2,956 487 Adequate
Whitman 2,120 2,051 -69 2,365 245 Adequate
Wootton 2,977 3,082 105 3,425 448 Adequate
Middle School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
Sept. 2012 Council Amended Remaining @ 100% Council Amended Above or Below Capacity is:
B- CC 999 1,037 38 1,181 182 Adequate

Blair 1,916 2,260 344 2,622 706 Adequate
Blake 1,130 1,304 174 1,536 406 Adequate
Churchill 1,347 1,336 -11 1,630 283 Adequate
Damascus 919 937 18 1,134 215 Adequate
Einstein 851 1,408 557 1,796 945 Adequate
Gaithersburg 1,373 1,784 411 2,292 919 Adequate
Walter Johnson 1,492 1,778 286 2,244 752 Adequate
Kennedy 1,149 1,295 146 1,607 458 Adequate
Magruder 1,135 1,611 476 1,890 755 Adequate
R. Montgomery 965 973 8 1,229 264 Adequate
Northwest 1,875 1,964 89 2,339 464 Adequate
Northwood 1,013 1,308 295 1,725 712 Adequate
Quince Orchard 1,291 1,647 356 1,914 623 Adequate
Rockville 828 972 144 1,205 377 Adequate
Sherwood 1,244 1,475 231 1,701 457 Adequate
Springbrook 1,046 1,165 119 1,488 442 Adequate
Wheaton 1,399 1,570 171 2,032 633 Adequate
Whitman 1,170 1,266 96 1,465 295 Adequate
In cases where elementary or middle schools articulate to more than one high school, enrollments and capacities are allocated proportionately to clusters.
High School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
100% MCPS* 100% GP** Growth Policy Test: Growth Policy
Projected Capacity With Capacity Capacity With Students Test Result -
Sept. 2012 Council Amended Remaining @ 100% Council Amended Above or Below Borrowing Necessary? Capacity is:
B- CC 1,622 1,656 34 1,710 88 no Adequate

Blair 2,410 2,840 430 2,993 583 no Adequate
Blake 1,800 1,733 -67 1,778 -22 Paint Branch 396 Adequate
Churchill 1,885 1,985 100 2,115 230 no Adequate
Clarksburg 1,479 1,629 150 1,643 164 no Adequate
Damascus 1,437 1,625 188 1,688 251 no Adequate
Einstein 1,556 1,602 46 1,800 244 no Adequate
Gaithersburg 2,035 2,126 91 2,340 305 no Adequate
Walter Johnson 2,068 2,131 63 2,363 295 no Adequate
Kennedy 1,422 1,705 283 1,935 513 no Adequate
Magruder 1,757 1,999 242 2,115 358 no Adequate
R. Montgomery 1,895 1,966 71 2,093 198 no Adequate
Northwest 2,146 2,214 68 2,295 149 no Adequate
Northwood 1,361 1,526 165 1,710 349 no Adequate
Paint Branch 1,697 2,148 451 2,093 396 no Adequate
Poolesville 1,065 1,094 29 1,058 -7 Northwest 149 Adequate
Quince Orchard 1,743 1,809 66 1,980 237 no Adequate
Rockville 1,125 1,598 473 1,778 653 no Adequate
Seneca Valley 1,391 1,497 106 1,665 274 no Adequate
Sherwood 2,054 2,054 0 2,183 129 no Adequate
Springbrook 1,947 2,148 201 2,273 326 no Adequate
Watkins Mill 1,634 1,836 202 2,025 391 no Adequate
Wheaton 1,404 1,472 68 1,643 239 no Adequate
Whitman 1,815 1,909 94 2,025 210 no Adequate
Wootton 2,308 2,018 -290 2,183 -125 R. Montgomery 198 Adequate
98
Option 1B: Current AGP Test @ 100% GP Capacity All Levels
Elementary School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with 100% Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
B- CC 3,023 2,753 -270 3,103 80 Adequate

Blair 3,734 3,940 206 4,417 683 Adequate
Blake 2,375 1,973 -402 2,418 43 Adequate
Clarksburg 3,586 3,153 -433 3,502 -84 Inadequate
Gaithersburg 3,691 3,934 243 4,760 1,069 Adequate
Kennedy 2,355 1,798 -557 2,359 4 Adequate
Northwest 3,865 3,458 -407 4,047 182 Adequate
Quince Orchard 2,866 2,632 -234 3,009 143 Adequate
Springbrook 2,733 2,825 92 2,646 -87 Adequate
Middle School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with 100% Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
B- CC 999 1,037 38 1,125 126 Adequate

Blair 1,916 2,260 344 2,498 582 Adequate
Blake 1,130 1,304 174 1,463 333 Adequate
B- CC 1,622 1,656 34 1,710 88 no Adequate

Poolesville 1,065 1,094 29 1,058 -7 Northwest 149 Adequate
Wootton 2,308 2,018 -290 2,183 -125 R. Montgomery 198 Adequate
99
Option 1C: Current AGP Test @ 95% GP Capacity All Levels
B- CC 3,023 2,753 -270 2,948 -75 Inadequate

Blair 3,734 3,940 206 4,196 462 Adequate
Blake 2,375 1,973 -402 2,297 -78 Inadequate
Kennedy 2,355 1,798 -557 2,241 -114 Inadequate
Northwest 3,865 3,458 -407 3,845 -20 Inadequate
Quince Orchard 2,866 2,632 -234 2,859 -7 Inadequate
Springbrook 2,733 2,825 92 2,514 -219 Inadequate
B- CC 999 1,037 38 1,069 70 Adequate

Blair 1,916 2,260 344 2,373 457 Adequate
Blake 1,130 1,304 174 1,390 260 Adequate
High School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with 95% Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
B- CC 1,622 1,656 34 1,625 3 no Adequate

Poolesville 1,065 1,094 29 1,005 -60 Clarksburg 82 Adequate
Wootton 2,308 2,018 -290 2,074 -234 Churchill 124 and Q.O. 138 Adequate
100
Option 2A: MCPS Program Capacity @ 100%
Elementary School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity @ 100%

100% MCPS*
Projected Capacity With Capacity Growth Policy Test
Sept. 2012 Council Amended Remaining @ 100% Result
Cluster Area Enrollment FY07-12 CIP MCPS capacity Capacity is:
B- CC 3,023 2,753 -270 Inadequate

Blair 3,734 3,940 206 Adequate
Blake 2,375 1,973 -402 Inadequate
Churchill 2,536 2,644 108 Adequate
Clarksburg 3,586 3,153 -433 Inadequate
Damascus 2,513 2,429 -84 Inadequate
Einstein 2,235 1,758 -477 Inadequate
Gaithersburg 3,691 3,934 243 Adequate
Walter Johnson 3,165 3,094 -71 Inadequate
Kennedy 2,355 1,798 -557 Inadequate
Magruder 2,545 2,523 -22 Inadequate
R. Montgomery 2,258 2,108 -150 Inadequate
Northwest 3,865 3,458 -407 Inadequate
Northwood 2,705 2,674 -31 Inadequate
Paint Branch 2,306 2,316 10 Adequate
Poolesville 593 755 162 Adequate
Quince Orchard 2,866 2,632 -234 Inadequate
Rockville 2,345 2,171 -174 Inadequate
Seneca Valley 2,098 2,187 89 Adequate
Sherwood 2,506 2,464 -42 Inadequate
Springbrook 2,733 2,825 92 Adequate
Watkins Mill 2,464 2,545 81 Adequate
Wheaton 2,469 2,149 -320 Inadequate
Whitman 2,120 2,051 -69 Inadequate
Wootton 2,977 3,082 105 Adequate
Middle School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity @ 100%

100% MCPS*
B- CC 999 1,037 38 Adequate

Blake 1,130 1,304 174 Adequate
Churchill 1,347 1,336 -11 Inadequate
Clarksburg 1,340 1,146 -194 Inadequate
Damascus 919 937 18 Adequate
Einstein 851 1,408 557 Adequate
Walter Johnson 1,492 1,778 286 Adequate
Kennedy 1,149 1,295 146 Adequate
Magruder 1,135 1,611 476 Adequate
R. Montgomery 965 973 8 Adequate
Northwest 1,875 1,964 89 Adequate
Northwood 1,013 1,308 295 Adequate
Poolesville 350 472 122 Adequate
Quince Orchard 1,291 1,647 356 Adequate
Rockville 828 972 144 Adequate
Sherwood 1,244 1,475 231 Adequate
Wheaton 1,399 1,570 171 Adequate
Whitman 1,170 1,266 96 Adequate
Wootton 1,443 1,493 50 Adequate
High School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity @ 100%

100% MCPS*
B- CC 1,622 1,656 34 Adequate

Blake 1,800 1,733 -67 Inadequate
Churchill 1,885 1,985 100 Adequate
Clarksburg 1,479 1,629 150 Adequate
Damascus 1,437 1,625 188 Adequate
Einstein 1,556 1,602 46 Adequate
Walter Johnson 2,068 2,131 63 Adequate
Kennedy 1,422 1,705 283 Adequate
Magruder 1,757 1,999 242 Adequate
R. Montgomery 1,895 1,966 71 Adequate
Northwest 2,146 2,214 68 Adequate
Northwood 1,361 1,526 165 Adequate
Poolesville 1,065 1,094 29 Adequate
Quince Orchard 1,743 1,809 66 Adequate
Rockville 1,125 1,598 473 Adequate
Sherwood 2,054 2,054 0 Adequate
Wheaton 1,404 1,472 68 Adequate
Whitman 1,815 1,909 94 Adequate
Wootton 2,308 2,018 -290 Inadequate
101
Option 2B: MCPS Program Capacity @ 110%

100% MCPS* 110% MCPS*
Projected Capacity With Capacity With Capacity Growth Policy Test
Sept. 2012 Council Amended Council Amended Remaining @ 110% Result
Cluster Area Enrollment FY07-12 CIP FY07-12 CIP MCPS capacity Capacity is:
B- CC 3,023 2,753 3,028 5 Adequate

Blair 3,734 3,940 4,334 600 Adequate
Blake 2,375 1,973 2,170 -205 Inadequate
Churchill 2,536 2,644 2,908 372 Adequate
Clarksburg 3,586 3,153 3,468 -118 Inadequate
Damascus 2,513 2,429 2,672 159 Adequate
Einstein 2,235 1,758 1,934 -301 Inadequate
Gaithersburg 3,691 3,934 4,327 636 Adequate
Walter Johnson 3,165 3,094 3,403 238 Adequate
Kennedy 2,355 1,798 1,978 -377 Inadequate
Magruder 2,545 2,523 2,775 230 Adequate
R. Montgomery 2,258 2,108 2,319 61 Adequate
Northwest 3,865 3,458 3,804 -61 Inadequate
Northwood 2,705 2,674 2,941 236 Adequate
Paint Branch 2,306 2,316 2,548 242 Adequate
Poolesville 593 755 831 238 Adequate
Quince Orchard 2,866 2,632 2,895 29 Adequate
Rockville 2,345 2,171 2,388 43 Adequate
Seneca Valley 2,098 2,187 2,406 308 Adequate
Sherwood 2,506 2,464 2,710 204 Adequate
Springbrook 2,733 2,825 3,108 375 Adequate
Watkins Mill 2,464 2,545 2,800 336 Adequate
Wheaton 2,469 2,149 2,364 -105 Inadequate
Whitman 2,120 2,051 2,256 136 Adequate
Wootton 2,977 3,082 3,390 413 Adequate

100% MCPS* 110% MCPS*
B- CC 999 1,037 1,141 142 Adequate

Blair 1,916 2,260 2,486 570 Adequate
Blake 1,130 1,304 1,434 304 Adequate
Damascus 919 937 1,031 112 Adequate
Einstein 851 1,408 1,549 698 Adequate
Kennedy 1,149 1,295 1,425 276 Adequate
R. Montgomery 965 973 1,070 105 Adequate
Northwest 1,875 1,964 2,160 285 Adequate
Rockville 828 972 1,069 241 Adequate
Wheaton 1,399 1,570 1,727 328 Adequate

100% MCPS* 110% MCPS*
B- CC 1,622 1,656 1,822 200 Adequate

Blair 2,410 2,840 3,124 714 Adequate
Blake 1,800 1,733 1,906 106 Adequate
Clarksburg 1,479 1,629 1,792 313 Adequate
Einstein 1,556 1,602 1,762 206 Adequate
Poolesville 1,065 1,094 1,203 138 Adequate
Wootton 2,308 2,018 2,220 -88 Inadequate
102
Option 2C: MCPS Program Capacity @ 115%

100% MCPS* 115% MCPS*
B- CC 3,023 2,753 3,166 143 Adequate

Blair 3,734 3,940 4,531 797 Adequate
Blake 2,375 1,973 2,269 -106 Inadequate
Einstein 2,235 1,758 2,022 -213 Inadequate
Kennedy 2,355 1,798 2,068 -287 Inadequate

100% MCPS* 115% MCPS*
B- CC 999 1,037 1,193 194 Adequate

Blair 1,916 2,260 2,599 683 Adequate
Blake 1,130 1,304 1,500 370 Adequate
Damascus 919 937 1,078 159 Adequate
Einstein 851 1,408 1,619 768 Adequate
R. Montgomery 965 973 1,119 154 Adequate
Rockville 828 972 1,118 290 Adequate

100% MCPS* 115% MCPS*
B- CC 1,622 1,656 1,904 282 Adequate

Blair 2,410 2,840 3,266 856 Adequate
Blake 1,800 1,733 1,993 193 Adequate
Einstein 1,556 1,602 1,842 286 Adequate
Poolesville 1,065 1,094 1,258 193 Adequate
103
Option 3A: Current AGP Test
Test Only Clarksburg Cluster Where New Development is Primary Reason for Enrollment Increases
Elementary School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
Middle School Enrollment and MCPS Capacity Growth Policy Test with Growth Policy (GP) Capacity
104
Option 3B: Current AGP Test @ 100% GP Capacity All Levels
105
Option 3C: MCPS Program Capacity @ 110%

100% MCPS* 110% MCPS*

100% MCPS* 110% MCPS*

100% MCPS* 110% MCPS*
106
107
108
109
110
APFO Reform Part 2: Tests for Transportation Adequacy
Wheaton Metro Station Area
INTRODUCTION
This report provides recommendations for the transportation adequacy testing

portions of the Growth Policy Review. This report is organized into four sections:
• Recommendations for the Planning Board to consider.

• The proposed Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR).
• Changes considered to Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), and
• Responses to other questions from the County Council.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
Staff has separated recommendations into those for a Policy Area Review
system and those for the Local Area Transportation Review system:
Policy Area Review
1) A second test, in addition to Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), is

desirable to stage growth in concert with the implementation of adequate
public facilities.
2) Based on the level of concerns regarding the importance, coherence, and

reliability of the Policy Area Transportation Review (PATR), staff
recommends against reinstating the PATR system as previously defined.
3) Staff recommends that the Planning Board support continued

development of a new policy area test, tentatively called Policy Area
Mobility Review (PAMR), that we find builds upon the many positive
characteristics of PATR while improving:
111
• Coherence, as the adequacy standards are based on forecasted
traveler delays rather than the forecasted Average Congestion Index
• Reliability, as the equivalency between transportation system capacity
and vehicle trips for areas that “fail” the PAMR test is defined in a
lookup table, rather than through an iterative process of travel demand
model runs
• Applicability, as the lookup table allows both the public and private
sector opportunities to address areas that fail the PAMR test through a
wider range of actions in the form of non-auto amenities such as transit
and pedestrian facilities in addition to providing roadway capacity.
4) The Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) system should have the
following characteristics:
• Uses the existing Policy Area geographies.
• Considers a horizon year that includes current jobs and households, all
the approved development in the pipeline, and the transportation
system of current plus future projects fully-funded in the six year CIP
and CTP.
• Uses the travel demand forecasting model to determine the relative
mobility for both transit vehicles and autos and compares these
relationships against a standard for groups of policy areas.
• Makes a single finding for each Policy Area; either the policy area is
adequate or not adequate in terms of PAMR.
• For Policy Areas that are found inadequate, development applicants
(other than those with de minimis impacts) can do any one or some
combination of the following:
o Conduct a trip reduction program with an agreement signed with
MNCPPC to reduce or eliminate peak hour trips.
o Provide non-auto amenities such as sidewalks, handicap ramps,
or bike lockers to gain vehicle trip credits as specified in the
LATR guidelines (up to a maximum of 120 trips).
o Construct additional roadway capacity with the amount based
on a table that will be provided in the Growth Policy that will be
related to the type of development, its size, and the type of
roadway to be widened or added to – major highway,
arterial/business district street, or master planned primary. All
improvements must be in the master plan, and be a logical
continuous segment, from one intersection to another. The
Planning Board would have the approval authority over the
segment to be constructed.
112
o Provide transit capital improvements in terms of adding to the
fleet of transit vehicles.
o Apply for a fee-in-lieu of provision of capital improvements, but
only after demonstration to the Planning Board of a good-faith
effort to pursue capital improvement implementation.
• The PAMR process outlined by staff does not yet contain proposals on
some of the more specific procedures that were part of PATR in the past,
although we have given them attention. These include procedures for
special treatment of affordable housing, strategic economic development
projects, and other land uses. Staff can bring these recommendations
forward fairly quickly once there is consensus on major points.
Local Area Transportation Review
5) Retain the LATR congestion standards currently in effect
6) Require an LATR study for the Alternative Review Procedure in Metro

Station Policy Areas.
7) Revise the practice for already approved development sites being

expanded to provide for:
• Allowing an increase of five peak hour trips to avoid a traffic study
altogether based on “de minimis” logic.
• Basing the number of signalized intersections in the study on the
increased number of peak hour trips rather than the total number of
peak hour trips, in cases where use and occupancy permits for at
least 75% of the originally approved development were issued
more than twelve years prior to the LATR study scope request for
the expansion.
8) Allowing payment in lieu of implementation for non-automobile

transportation amenities with the agreement of the DPWT, WMATA, SHA,
or Maryland Transit Administration.
9) Requiring documentation that traffic mitigation or trip reduction measures

were considered in all cases.
10) Requiring studies be submitted by certified professionals (Professional

Engineer, Professional Transportation Planner, or Professional
Transportation Operations Engineer).
11) Continue the Highway Mobility Report on a two year cycle, and
incorporate an expanded data collection program within the Department to
allow for improved reporting of intersection conditions and travel time
113
analysis in the report and verification of developer-submitted traffic
studies.
Additional procedural clarifications to the Planning Board’s LATR Guidelines are

described in the Appendix to this report. These clarifications are for the Board’s
information and will be considered when an update to the LATR Guidelines is
prepared.
POLICY AREA TRANSPORTATION REVIEW
The Council directed the Board to provide recommendations on the renewed use
of a Policy Area Transportation Review (PATR) test. Staff recommends a new
test, called Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR), that would be a second, policy
area level, test to supplement the Local Area Transportation Review test.
The following paragraphs describe:

• A summary of the philosophy and rationale behind each of the staff
recommendations
• A description of potential approaches that were considered, with a table
summarizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the approaches
• Responses to particular questions raised by Council members during the
interim status reports
Rationale for Conclusions and Recommendations
The Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) test considers the transportation
system adequacy of each of the County’s policy areas. The Policy Areas are
shown in Exhibit 2-1. This section of the report describes the details of the
PAMR process and describes responses to several “frequently asked questions”
that we have asked ourselves during the system development.
PAMR Details
The Policy Area Mobility Review consists of the following elements:

• Establishment of Transit LOS and Arterial LOS standards to be applied
within each policy area
• Evaluation of the forecasted conditions for each policy area
• Finding of PAMR “adequacy” or “inadequacy” for each policy area
• Development of alternative approaches to mitigate transportation impacts
of development in areas found inadequate.
In establishing transit and arterial level of service standards, the PAMR assesses
areawide adequacy on two scales:
114
• Transit LOS is established by considering relative transit mobility,
defined as the relative speed by which journey to work trips can be made
by transit, as opposed to by auto
• Arterial LOS is established by considering relative arterial mobility,
defined as the relative speed by which auto trips move during the PM
peak hour as compared to the free flow speed.
The relative transit mobility is based on the Transit/Auto Travel Time LOS
concept in the 1999 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual published by
the Transportation Research Board. This concept suggests that LOS A
conditions exist for transit when a trip can be made more quickly by transit
(including walk-access/drive-access and wait times) than by the single-occupant
auto. This LOS A condition is true in the Washington region for certain rail transit
trips with short walk times at both ends of the trip and some bus trips in HOV
corridors. LOS F conditions exist when a trip takes more than an hour longer to
make via transit than via the single-occupant auto.
This ratio between auto and transit travel times can also be expressed in an
inverse relationship, defined by modal speed. If a trip can be made in less time
via transit than via the auto, the effective transit speed is greater than the
effective auto speed. Based on the typical roadway network speed during the
AM peak period, staff has established the following relationship between auto
and transit trips as described in the following table:
Relative Transit Mobility and Transit LOS
If the effective transit speed is PAMR Transit LOS is

100% or more (e.g., faster) than the highway speed A
At least 75% of the highway speed B
At least 60% of the highway speed C
At least 50% of the highway speed D
At least 42.5% of the highway speed E
Less than 42.5% of the highway speed F
The relative arterial mobility is based on the urban street delay level of service
in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research
Board. This concept suggests that for a trip along an urban street that has a
free-flow speed (generally akin to posted speed) of 40 MPH, LOS A conditions
exist when the actual travel speed is at least 34 MPH, including delays
experienced at traffic signals. At the other end of the spectrum, LOS F
conditions exist when the actual travel speed is below 10 MPH.
The PAMR only evaluates conditions on the arterial roadway network. As was
the case with PATR, there is a philosophical tenet for excluding freeway level of
service from a policy area test. The County has limited influence over either the
design or the operations of the freeway system, and we have historically decided
115
not to link local development directly to the performance of the freeway system.
Additionally, with the PAMR system, the arterial LOS is exclusively an urban
street network measure.
Relative Arterial Mobility and Arterial LOS
If the actual urban street travel speed is PAMR Arterial LOS is

At least 85% of the free-flow speed A
At least 70% of the highway speed B
At least 55% of the highway speed C
At least 40% of the highway speed D
At least 25% of the highway speed E
Less than 25% of the highway speed F
The PAMR Transit LOS and the PAMR Arterial LOS standards are inversely
related, reflecting the County’s long-standing policy that greater levels of
roadway congestion should be tolerated in areas where high-quality transit
options are available. The PAMR uses the following equivalency:
Equivalency Between Transit LOS and Arterial LOS
If the forecasted PAMR The PAMR Arterial

Transit LOS is LOS standard is
A F
B E
C D
D C
E B
F A
Exhibits 2-2 through 2-4 show this information graphically using a graph on which
the relative transit mobility is expressed along the X-axis and the relative
arterial mobility is expressed along the Y-axis. In each case, a higher number
along the axis reflects a better level of service, so that the best conditions would
be found in the upper-right corner of the graph (excellent transit and highway
mobility) and the poorest conditions would be found in the lower left corner of the
graph.
• Exhibit 2-2 shows the application of the Transit LOS standards, shown as
vertical bars,
• Exhibit 2-3 shows the application of the Arterial LOS standards, shown as
horizontal bars, and
• Exhibit 2-4 shows the intersection of the two sets of standards using the
equivalency described above. The colored line across the center of the
chart shows the division between “adequate” areas to the upper right and
“inadequate”” areas to the lower left. On Exhibit 2-4 this line is shown in
116
several different colors to demonstrate how the Transit LOS and the
Arterial LOS boundaries from Exhibits 2-2 and 2-3 are applied.
PAMR Results
The results of the PAMR test for three different land use and transportation
network scenarios are shown in Exhibits 2-5 through 2-8.
• Exhibit 2-5 shows the policy area conditions for the forecasted “year 2013”
conditions, reflecting current PAMR test results.
• Exhibit 2-6 provides the same year 2013 information shown in Exhibit 2-5,
but in tabular form. In Exhibit 2-6, the columns are organized from left to
right in the order in which the PAMR finding is made.
• Exhibit 2-7 shows the policy area conditions for year 2005 conditions, and
• Exhibit 2-8 shows the policy area conditions forecasted for the year 2030
Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP), a long range forecast scenario
similar to one that would be used in the analysis of master plans.
In each of the graphic exhibits the results for each of the 21 Policy Areas are
indicated by a point on the graph. In addition, the average results for all arterial
roadways countywide is shown by a labeled point on the graph.
This PAMR test indicates that two Policy Areas are found to be inadequate for
the year 2013:
• The Germantown East Policy Area

• The Gaithersburg Policy Area
This finding is indicated in Exhibit 2-5 by the fact that these two areas are to the
lower left of the line dividing adequate and inadequate policy areas. This finding
is indicated in Exhibit 2-6 by the fact that the Relative Arterial Mobility is lower
than the Arterial Mobility Standard.
The North Bethesda Policy Area and Fairland/White Oak Policy Areas are also
close to being inadequate, but are on the “adequate” side of the dividing line.
Comparison of the trends from 2005, 2013, and 2030 provides the following
conclusions:
• As the County both matures and anticipates limited transportation
infrastructure financing resources, vehicle congestion experienced by
individual system users will increase. This finding is demonstrated by the
fact that the point measuring countywide average conditions “moves”
toward to the bottom of the graphic in successive horizon years. This
finding is not surprising and matches the findings in other recent long
range planning studies.
117
• Over time, the relative attractiveness of transit for County residents will
increase. This finding is demonstrated by the fact that the point
measuring countywide average conditions “moves” toward the right of the
graphic in successive horizon years. This finding reflects the fact that
significant new transit services such as the Corridor Cities Transitway and
the Georgetown Branch portion of the Purple Line are assumed to be in
place by 2030. However, the finding also reflects the fact that as vehicle
speeds decrease, speeds for transit systems on exclusive alignments,
such as Metrorail and MARC, while not becoming faster in an absolute
sense are yet becoming faster relative to the auto.
• In each horizon year, most policy areas are found to have adequate
transportation system performance while two or three Policy Areas are
found to have inadequate performance. In general, the 2013 conditions
tend to be relatively poor in the I-270 corridor but to improve by 2030, as
significant investments are assumed in the form of the Corridor Cities
Transitway, I-270 widening, and Midcounty Highway.
As indicated by comparing Exhibits 2-5, 2-7, and 2-8, the PAMR is suitable for
considering areawide conditions for multiple horizon years and alternative land
use and transportation scenarios. Staff finds that this test is desirable as
both a regulatory tool as well as for long-range planning needs such as
assessing the long range balance between land use and transportation in
master plans.
Mitigation for Applications in Policy Areas with Inadequate PAMR
For Policy Areas which are found to be adequate, an applicant must still comply
with the Local Area Transportation Review procedures and any other applicable
development requirements, but no additional actions are required under PAMR.
Applications in Policy Areas with a PAMR finding of inadequacy have several
options by which they can mitigate the finding of inadequacy and move forward
to LATR. (Staff proposes to retain the prior definition of a de minimis impact
being an application that generates five or fewer peak hour vehicle trips and
should not be subject to PAMR).
Trip Mitigation. As was the case in PATR, an applicant can choose to enter into
a binding Trip Mitigation Agreement (TMAg) under which up to 100% of the
projected peak hour vehicle trips would be removed from the roadway by
implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques applied to
the applicants trips, or potentially to a combination of properties (so that an
applicant could still generate some trips if the mitigation program removed an
equal number of trips from other sites in the same Policy Area).
Trip Reduction Through Provision of Non-Auto Amenities. The LATR

Guidelines allow applicants to mitigate roadway congestion impacts to some
extent by the provision of non-auto transportation amenities that will enhance
118
pedestrian safety or increase the attractiveness of alternative modes of travel.
The table of allowable amenities and their corresponding vehicle trip credits is
excerpted from the LATR in Exhibit 2-9 (and the CLV standards referenced in
Exhibit 2-9 are presented later in Exhibit 2-13). Such amenities include
sidewalks, bike paths, curb extensions, countdown pedestrian signals, bus
shelters and benches, bike lockers, and static or real time transit information
signs. These amenities can be provided in exchange for vehicle trip “credits”,
with both the credit value and maximum potential trip reduction credit (from 60 to
120 peak hour vehicle trips) dependent upon the LATR congestion standard.
Staff recommends that these provisions be accepted in their entirety as a PAMR
mitigation tool.
Implementation of Roadway Capacity. The applicant can mitigate trips above

the limits included in the LATR Guidelines for non-auto amenities by constructing
link-based roadway network capacity. The conversion rate between vehicle trips
and lane miles of roadway is provided in Exhibit 2-10. The values in Exhibit 2-10
are derived from regional estimates of vehicle trip length by trip purposes and
uniform per-lane capacities for roadway functional classes that should be applied
countywide. Several conditions apply, as noted in Exhibit 2-10:
• The number of lane miles in Exhibit 2-10 reflects total capacity provided
(so if an applicant were to widen a roadway by one lane in each direction,
the total minimum project length would be half the length listed in the
table)
• The roadway construction or widening must have logical termini (for
instance, connecting two intersections)
• The roadway construction must occur in the same Policy Area as the
proposed development
• The roadway construction must be recommended in a master plan
Implementation of Transit Capacity. Staff estimates that on average, the

typical Ride-On bus serves approximately 30 peak hour passenger trips. Staff
recommends that an applicant be allowed to mitigate inadequate PAMR
conditions by purchasing 40-foot long hybrid electric fleet vehicles for the Ride-
On system, including 12 years of operations funding, at the rate of 30 peak hour
vehicle-trips per fleet vehicle.
Provision for payment in-lieu of construction. Staff has found that, due to
changing conditions, good implementation policies may quickly become
outdated. For instance, the LATR Guidelines encourage the provision of “super
shelters”, but as a result of the Clear Channel Communications agreement, this
option is no longer acceptable to DPWT as a mitigation option. Payment of a fee
in lieu of facility implementation is often criticized as ineffective because
implementation by the public sector may not be as prompt or because the funds
may be spent on a program or in a geographic area without a strong nexus to the
development providing the funding. However, payment of a fee in lieu of
119
construction should be accepted for both PAMR and LATR in cases where a
good faith effort to implement the facility can be publicly demonstrated and the
Planning Board finds that a desirable improvement cannot feasibly be
implemented by the private sector but that the same improvement or an
equivalent alternative can be implemented by a public agency at a later time.
PAMR “Frequently Asked Questions”
1. How and when might the PAMR system be modified? One concern with
any new regulatory system is that as the system is applied, the results may be
counterintuitive or actually create irreconcilable conflicts with other policies. Staff
recognizes that many readers might feel that the proposal described in this report
does not yield intuitive results regarding transportation system adequacy. Yet
one advantage of this system is its relative transparency. Staff suggests two
ways that the system could be adjusted by policy makers by working simply with
Exhibit 2-5 and without affecting the underlying methodology:
• The line dividing “adequate” from “inadequate” in Exhibit 2-5 could be

defined differently. One way would be to draw a generally diagonal line
connecting the midpoints of each LOS threshold rather than the minimums
reflected in the stair-step shape. Staff recommends that use of the LOS
minimum standards is generally more defensible in a regulatory process.
• The equivalency between Transit LOS performance and Arterial LOS
standards could be adjusted to be more stringent, so that for a Transit
LOS of B, the Arterial LOS standard would be set at LOS D rather than at
LOS E. Staff recommends the equivalency proposed (where A matches
to F, B to E, and C to D) based on the symmetry inherent in the
application of a six-stage quality of service scale.
The current growth policy review is a deliberative process, appropriate for

considering changes to the County’s regulatory structure. The implementation of
the PATR system in 1986 included several months of public deliberation. To
date, the discussions of PAMR have taken place primarily at the agency staff
level.
The PAMR uses many of the concepts established in the PATR, so the PAMR
may be somewhat more familiar, and acceptable, to stakeholders and require
less discussion than the adoption of the PATR in 1986. The Planning Board’s
outreach efforts proposed during the first two weeks of May will provide a useful
opportunity to collect comment on the PAMR proposal. The feasibility of
transmitting a fully-developed second-tier test from the Planning Board to the
County Council by May 21 should be assessed after considering public
comment.
Should the County Council adopt the PAMR system, or one like it, staff proposes
to reassess policy area adequacy on an annual basis and consider changes to
120
the measure tools and processes on a biannual basis. The annual changes
would include extending the horizon year to maintain a six-year forecast horizon,
updating pipeline development, regional demographic assumptions, and
CIP/CTP assumptions accordingly, and reassessing the relative transit mobility
and relative highway mobility for each policy area. The biannual review would
allow the Council to consider procedural changes. The MWCOG model structure
is a state-of-the-art forecasting tool, which by definition means it is in a nearly
continual state of evolution. Staff expects that every two to three years we will
update our travel demand model to keep pace with the MWCOG process.
Any of these annual changes (procedural or assumptions regarding land use and
transportation systems) might cause policy areas to shift between adequate and
inadequate over time. Certainly one intent of the system would be to pursue land
use and transportation decisions through both the development review and
capital programming processes that would enable policy areas with poor
transportation system performance to be improved to reach adequacy. As was
the case with PATR, the key to minimizing uncertainty associated with annual
changes is to establish clear timeframes for both policy area changes and their
effective dates as applied to development applications.
2. Why retain the current Policy Area geographies? In the 2003 and 2005
reviews of growth policy procedures, the Planning Board staff assessed some
transportation measures according to the five subareas used in the
Transportation Policy Report (TPR). The Appendix to this report includes an
update on the “Proportional Staging” alternative test using those five subareas.
Some County Council members expressed interest in 2005 in pursuing a new
geographic definition that would result in a geographic unit that would fall
somewhere between the five TPR subareas and the 21 Policy Areas (not
including MSPAs and TCPAs).
Staff uses a concept called a “superdistrict” for providing trip distribution

guidance to preparers of LATR studies. There are 11 superdistricts defined in the
LATR Guidelines, as indicated in Exhibit 2-11. For some geographic areas, the
superdistricts might make sense in a regulatory arena. For instance, the
superdistricts essentially mirror the two Policy Areas inside the Beltway. The
superdistricts also combine three other sets of Policy Areas. Combining Cloverly
with Fairland/White Oak and Aspen Hill with Olney may make sense in the
regulatory arena.
However, in and around the I-270 corridor the superdistricts don’t make sense
from a regulatory perspective for several reasons:
• The independent municipalities of Gaithersburg and Rockville are logical
independent Policy Areas; the superdistricts don’t make that distinction.
121
• The Policy Areas adjacent to the municipalities, including Derwood,
Montgomery Village/Airpark, and the R&D Village, have no independent
identity in the superdistrict model.
• Potomac, North Potomac, and Darnestown/Travilah are logically
combined into one superdistrict but have very different land use and
transportation policies
• Damascus is not differentiated from the rest of the rural area; another
solution that is pragmatic for trip distribution but not for implementing
transportation policy.
As far as the TRAVEL/3 travel demand forecasting model is concerned, these

alternative reporting geographies such as planning areas, policy areas, or
superdistricts are merely reporting tools. They are not used for modeling travel
behavior; they are used to report results and to regulate development activity.
There has been some interest in modifying policy area geographies to match
transportation corridors, for example, in the belief that it will better capture actual
travel behavior. However, the TRAVEL/3 model forecasts travel demand
throughout the entire MWCOG region, regardless of the geographic unit for
which the results are reported. So while the consideration of the reporting
purpose is important in considering the selection of the reporting tool, the
selection of the reporting tool does not change the underlying travel demand
model results.
There is a benefit to having policy area boundaries as small as possible while

allowing results to be reported with validity. Smaller policy areas mean less
averaging of congestion conditions. There is also some benefit to having policy
area boundaries that are generally consistent with master plan and sector plan
boundaries (with some exceptions) so that ongoing travel monitoring can be tied
back to master plan objectives.
3. Why not have staging ceilings in PAMR? One significant difference in the
philosophy behind PAMR as opposed to PATR is that once a finding is made
regarding Policy Area adequacy, no further analysis is required to track jobs and
housing totals. Staff recommends this binary approach for three reasons:
• Approaching mitigation from a vehicle-trip basis as opposed to a
jobs/housing basis is a more straightforward calculation of impacts
• The tracking of pipeline development against staging ceilings need not be
concerned with the tracking of public sector development (such as the
number of jobs at NIH)
• The concept of adequacy can be thought of as similar to a positive or
negative remaining staging ceiling. A policy area determined to be
inadequate can be though of as having a negative staging ceiling for both
jobs and housing.
122
Finally, staff notes that the staging ceiling concept, while familiar to proponents of
PATR, was unique to the transportation arena. By removing staging ceilings in
favor of a pass-fail system, the policy area test for transportation would be made
consistent with the policy area test for schools.
4. Why aren’t more Policy Areas given a failing grade? The PAMR results
for 2005, 2013, and 2030 each show that most areas have acceptable levels of
mobility as currently defined. The primary reason for this finding is the use of the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual urban street level of service criteria, which
reflects a an acceptance of rolling delays on urban streets that may be less
stringent than some would expect but that staff finds appropriate for link-level
analysis.
Rockville Pike in North Bethesda is often cited as both a key segment of

Montgomery County’s “main street” and an emblem of undesirable roadway
congestion. Staff conducted a series of travel time runs for the MD 355/I-270
study last fall, measuring travel time in either direction between Strathmore Hall
in North Bethesda and the Woodmont Country Club in Rockville. This 2.7 mile
segment of MD 355 has a posted speed limit of 40 MPH, so that the travel time
at free-flow speeds would be about four minutes. The typical observed travel
time was eight or nine minutes. A nine-minute trip includes five minutes of delay,
which would be unacceptable if it were accrued at a single intersection, but
averaged over a 2.7 mile trip, results in an average speed of 18 MPH, or 45% of
the free flow speed. Per the Highway Capacity Manual, the urban street LOS for
this segment is LOS D; perhaps not great, but certainly consistent with staff
expectations for highway mobility in an urbanizing area with high quality transit
options.
5. If we have new PAMR standards for arterial congestion, should we also

change the LATR standards? Staff recommends that the LATR congestion
standards (expressed in terms of Critical Lane Volume, or CLV) should be
retained as they currently exist, ranging from an 1800 CLV in MSPAs and a 1400
CLV in rural policy areas. Two arguments could be logically made for changing
the LATR standards in response to implementing PAMR.
First, some might argue that the LATR standards should be adjusted to reflect
the PAMR Arterial LOS standards. This adjustment would result in LOS C or D
congestion standards for nearly all Policy Areas in the County, far more stringent
than today’s standards. However, the LOS industry standards for roadway links
(per the PAMR) and roadway intersections (per the LATR) are not directly linked;
they are apples and oranges.
Second, some might argue that if the Council reinstates a second-tier test, then
the LATR standards regarding CLV and the 30-trip threshold requiring a traffic
study should be “reset” to their values prior to the FY 03 Growth Policy. Staff
recommends that both the tighter LATR congestion standards (except in MSPAs)
123
and the more stringent requirement to conduct LATR studies for applications with
more than 30 vehicle trips remain appropriate. Both the current congestion
standards and vehicle trip thresholds provide greater opportunity to implement
improvements (which may be non-auto amenities in addition to intersection
widening) concurrent with new development.
6. Should Metro Station Policy Areas be exempted from the PAMR test?
From an accounting perspective, the inputs and outputs for Metro Station Policy
Areas (MSPAs) and Town Center Policy Areas (TCPAs) have been incorporated
into the reports for their “parent” policy areas. For example, the values listed in
this report for the North Bethesda Policy Area include the Twinbrook, White Flint,
and Grosvenor MSPAs as well as the remainder of the North Bethesda Policy
Area outside the MSPAs.
Staff recommends that the PAMR also incorporate the MSPAs within their
“parent” policy areas. In other words, if the North Bethesda Policy Area were to
be found inadequate, this finding would by definition extend to Twinbrook, White
Flint, and Grosvenor MSPAs. This recommendation may appear to be
inconsistent with current policies that progressively encourage growth in MSPAs.
Staff makes this recommendation to apply PAMR to MSPAs and TCPAs for
several reasons:
• Traffic generated by development within MSPAs does have an impact
outside the MSPA and frequently this impact extends outside the bounds
of the LATR study area. The PAMR test is more appropriate than the
LATR test for addressing this impact.
• As we encourage increasing proportions of development into MSPAs, we
also allow an increasing proportion of development to bypass the second-
tier test; more than one-third of our forecast residential growth is within
MSPAs.
• Our transportation needs are severe enough and funding sources scarce
enough that exemptions to any potential source for implementing
transportation improvements should be minimized.
• Our MSPAs have matured as developable land has become more scarce
so that financial incentives to encourage redevelopment in MSPAs are of
decreasing value to the County
• Because the PAMR mitigation tables are based on vehicle-trips (rather
than the measure of jobs or dwelling units applied in PATR), transit-
oriented development in MSPAs already gets a “discount” by virtue of
higher transit mode shares and therefore lower vehicle trip generation
rates as compared to development outside MSPAs.
Staff suggests that if the Planning Board or County Council find that, based on
current County policies promoting smart growth, MSPA developments should not
124
be fully subjected to the PAMR requirements, staff suggests three potential
alternatives to the full PAMR test. Developments in MSPAs could be:
• Allowed to apply for the Alternative Review Procedure (with double the
transportation impact tax and a formal Trip Mitigation Agreement) in lieu of
passing the PAMR test. This policy was in effect during the final years that
Policy Area Transportation Review was in effect;
• Subject to a discount (perhaps 50%, per the transportation impact tax
discount) in trip mitigation or capacity requirements; or
• Be exempted from the PAMR test but subject to a different test, such as a
cordon capacity analysis; or
• Fully exempted from the PAMR test.
Other Potential Policy Area Level Tests
In responding to the Council’s request to reconsider PATR, staff considered six

other approaches to a second, policy area level, transportation test to
supplement LATR. These approaches are summarized below:
• PATR 2003 Using Total Transportation Level of Service and an
Average Congestion Index (ACI): This approach is similar to what was
used previously in the PATR with some refinements in accounting for the
quality of available transit service.
• Proportional Staging: Allow development based on the proportion of the
transportation system as a percentage of the master planned development
potential (proportional facility staging)
• Cordon Line Capacity: The capacities of roadways and transit entering
and leaving an area is used in setting the development levels within the
area (Such an approach was used at prior times for both the Silver Spring
and Bethesda CBD’s for setting the overall development capacity of those
areas).
• Corridor Analysis: The capacities of parallel roads and transit are taken
together to determine the overall system capacity serving specified
subareas of the County (Such an approach is used in parts of Florida).
• Jobs/ Housing Accessibility: This approach would measure
opportunities to match available housing locations with available
employment locations within a given generally acceptable travel time
budget.
• Travel Time Variability: This approach would consider the consistency
of expected travel times from one day to the next with a particular concern
for “Travel Time Reliability”, which is a measure that is of increasing
importance to many transportation service providers, particularly for transit
service and goods movement, as well as for most travelers in private
vehicles.
125
Each of the potential alternative procedures was rated according to how well it
satisfies several characteristics that we judge to be relevant to the Board,
Executive, and Council as well as to the broader stakeholder community. These
characteristics include the following:
• Importance – are the factors measured of interest to constituents
(residents, business interests, and decision-makers)?
• Relevance – are the factors measured appropriate to considering the
transportation effects of growth?
• Coherence – are the test results understandable to the constituents and
are the results from different scenarios intuitive to the decision makers and
stakeholders?
• Reliability – does the test measure what it says it does, and can the
results be replicated?
• Availability – is the data observable and available today for current
conditions and can that measure reasonably be forecast to represent
future conditions?
Exhibit 2-12 shows how the staff recommended Policy Area Mobility Review
(PAMR) compares to the alternative approaches considered.
Exhibit 2-12. Characteristics of Alternative Tests to Supplement LATR
Alternative Characteristics of Desirable Alternative Approaches

Approaches Importance Relevance Coherence Reliability Availability
Current Future
Policy Area Good Excellent Fair Excellent Good Good
Mobility
Review
Policy Area Fair Excellent Poor Fair Good Good
Transportation
Review
Proportional Fair Poor Excellent Poor Good Good
Staging
Cordon Line Fair Poor Fair Excellent Excellent Good
Capacity
Corridor Good Poor Fair Good Fair Poor
Analysis
Jobs/Housing Fair Excellent Poor Good Good Good
Accessibility
Travel Time Good Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor
Variability
126
As shown in the table, most of the potential approaches meet several of the
indicators in a good or excellent manner, but are fair or poor at one or more of
the criteria. The recommended Policy Area Mobility Review is good or excellent
at more characteristics than any other alternative. Staff finds the coherence of
the process remains its weakest point, but that the PAMR coherence is an
improvement over the PATR coherence. Descriptions and the staff review of
each of the potential approaches are summarized below.
Policy Area Transportation Review (PATR) using Total Transportation Level

of Service and an Average Congestion Index (ACI): This approach is what
was used previously in the PATR. The general strengths and weaknesses of
PATR were previously described in the description of PAMR.
Staff also considered more minor adjustments to PATR to better account for the
quality of available transit service without reliance on a quantitative measure.
Such modifications would generally follow the Five-Group Framework identified
in the Staff Draft Policy Element of the 2003 – 2005 Annual Growth Policy Report
that identified five basic types of transit service areas.
The intent would be to have a Policy Area Group System that would be more
sensitive to transit availability and have each group be associated with a range of
standards of average roadway congestion – the ACI standards. Thus an
investment in a sufficient amount of improved transit service could more likely
result in an increase in the staging ceiling for an area because the policy area
“moved-up” within it’s group, rather than needing to move from one group to
another in its entirety. The limitation to this system, however, is that the minor
changes desired to allow an area to “move up” incrementally within its group
require a quantitative analysis tool to ensure that judgments are not arbitrary.
Staff therefore does not recommend pursuing this approach further for regulatory
purposes.
Proportional Staging: This was an option that staff has analyzed in depth in
both 2003 and 2005, and the Council has expressed continuing interest in.
Proportional staging is attractive because its basic premise – providing planned
transportation capacity at the same time as planned development – most closely
meets the definition of APF. However, the proportional staging process has
a fatal flaw in that there is truly no “end-state” condition for either development
or transportation service in Montgomery County. Adding new projects to plans
increases the overall potential system capacity, but immediately reduces the
amount of system that is “complete” since the overall is then larger.
The most compelling example of this fatal flaw is that the addition of a new
transportation service in the master plan, such as the adoption of a Purple Line
alignment east of Silver Spring, would have exactly the opposite effect of that
desired. Because the Purple Line would increase the master planned
transportation capacity, the current and programmed transportation would
127
immediately be a lower proportion of master planned capacity. Therefore, the
adoption of a Purple Line amendment would immediately reduce the current
status of any policy areas it affects. The headline might read, “Council adopts
Purple Line amendment; places Silver Spring in moratorium”. However due to
the interest in this procedure in the past, details of the latest analysis are
available in the Appendix to this report. While this tool is inappropriate for
regulatory work, it might be useful as an indicator of progress in capital
programming.
Cordon Line Capacity measures traffic entering and leaving a policy area
compared to the roadway capacity at the policy area boundary, or cordon.
Cordon line capacity is a concept that has been applied several times during
master plan reviews. In the case of the Silver Spring CBD, the cordon line
capacity is already a Growth Policy measure. The availability and use of transit is
taken into account in an overall manner by the use of mode share and trip
generation estimates.
Policy area boundaries often follow natural or manmade features, such as stream
valleys or railroad lines, which create transportation capacity constraints. Thus in
such cases, the remainder of the traffic volumes crossing into and/or out of these
areas may appropriately reflect roadway capacity constraints. In many other
cases, however, cordon lines do not reflect roadway capacity constraints and
planned congestion relief is not associated entirely with improving capacity at the
cordon lines. For instance, in the Fairland/White Oak Policy Area, the ICC will
increase cordon line capacity. However, in Eastern Montgomery County traffic
congestion is most greatly associated with travel along and across US 29. Even
without the ICC, significant improvements in east-west travel within the
Fairland/White Oak Policy area are being implemented by building grade-
separated interchanges, an improvement that would not be reflected in a cordon
line capacity mechanism.
Corridor Analysis is similar to our previous policy area review procedures in

that it looks at the average volume to capacity ratio for several combined facilities
against a standard. The corridor analysis process has been used in some
locations in Florida as part of their “concurrency analysis” of development. The
procedure defines the higher classification roadways, the freeways and arterials,
in a parallel direction and combines their capacity and demand. This process is
similar to screenline analysis, a tool commonly used to examine facilities
crossing a defined point, such as a stream valley. In some applications the
capacity of nearby transitways are also counted. We used this tool extensively
during the Transportation Policy Report analysis and are using it again in the MD
355/I-270 Corridor study. However, the corridor analysis has the same
limitations as PATR and PAMR but is further limited as its application is only for
selected parallel facilities.
128
Jobs/Housing Accessibility measures how many opportunities for matching
housing with jobs exist within a given travel time budget (such as a 45 minute trip
from any given starting point). From a planning agency perspective, this may be
the purest measure of the balance between transportation and land use.
Jobs/housing accessibility can be improved by either providing additional
transportation system capacity (achieving greater accessibility by increasing the
geographic coverage area within the travel time budget) or by reallocating land
uses (achieving greater accessibility by increasing the number of destination
points within a smaller geographic coverage area).
A primary concern with the accessibility measure, however, is that it is not

important to constituents, as not all jobs are created equal. While we can
reallocate theoretical jobs/housing totals, the jobs that may locate in a housing-
heavy area such as Olney may not have the same value to Olney residents as
jobs that locate in a jobs-heavy area such as Bethesda. A secondary concern is
that the measure is not easily understood. For instance, a typical Montgomery
County resident may today reach many thousands of potential jobs within a 45
minute trip. But most residents only want to reach one job, and the job is defined
by the type of work it entails, and many other issues not related to transportation.
The value, therefore, of increasing the number of potential jobs 20,000 or 40,000
with a new transportation link is of limited importance.
Travel Time Variability considers the consistency of expected travel times from
one day to the next. Transportation system travel time reliability is a measure
that is of increasing importance to many transportation service providers
(particularly for transit service and goods movement) and for all travelers. Travel
time varies based on many external factors. Non-recurring delay is the term
often used, where vehicle crashes and other incidents are perhaps the most
notable, but other factors of equal importance in determining variability include
weather conditions, special events, and system maintenance activities. The
transportation service industry continues to improve data collection, analysis, and
forecasting tools to assess travel time reliability. However, the information
systems in place needed to make decisions based on reliability are still several
years away. Further, while travel time variability is of importance to the County, it
relationship to growth policy is not very strong. This characteristic is currently
reported as part of the Department’s Highway Mobility Report, and can be a
useful indicator of system performance without being the basis for growth policy
decisions.
129
LOCAL AREA TRANSPORTATION REVIEW
The current Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) process applied to all new
subdivisions is consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Recommended Practice on Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site
Development (TAAISD), the national document that guides studies for new
development reviews. The Montgomery County procedures have been, and
continue to be, among the most closely documented and, in some respects, most
stringent in the country. For example, the threshold for requiring a traffic study
on new or amended development is 30 peak hour trips in Montgomery County,
while the TAAISD suggests that a 100-trip threshold is appropriate. The use of
congestion standards based on different parts of the County, related to the
amounts of transit available, with the most congested locations being the
Metrorail station areas, is also very progressive in relation to other locations.
Summary of Information Influencing Recommendations
No significant changes to the LATR philosophy or standards are recommended

by staff, but we recommend some amendments to the Council’s Growth Policy.
The rationale for each of these is described below.
1. Requiring an LATR study for the Alternative Review Procedure in Metro

Station Policy Areas. Section TA1 of the current growth policy states that an
applicant following the Alternative Review Procedure “need not submit any
application or take any action under TL Local Area Transportation Review”.
However, the LATR Guidelines page 9 states that the applicant must conduct “a
traffic study to identify intersection improvements and/or trip mitigation measures
that would have been required.” This was adopted by the Board based on their
acknowledgement that knowing the potential impacts was valuable to staff in
determining potential capital facility projects and roadway modifications. Staff
supports the LATR position and recommends the Growth Policy statement be
amended to say that the applicant “need not take any action to implement
measures identified in the study submitted per TL Local Area Transportation
Review.”
2. Revising the practice for sites being expanded. The “30 trip” threshold for
requiring a traffic study applies to both existing and future trips generated by the
development site. This is a necessary provision required to discourage property
development in a piecemeal fashion that would avoid the LATR study altogether.
One, perhaps unintended, consequence is that if a large property (say, the Life
Sciences Center) applies for a minor amendment that changes the number of
peak hour trips generated from 1,750 to 1,751 trips, that property should, under
the guidelines, perform a traffic study with “five rings” of intersections to
document the effects of the single increased trip. Staff recommends that the
guidelines be amended as follows:
130
A) Allowing an increase of five peak hour trips to avoid a traffic study altogether
based on “de minimis” logic.
B) Basing the number of signalized intersections in the study on the increased

number of peak hour trips rather than the total number of peak hour trips, in
cases where use and occupancy permits for at least 75% of the originally
approved development were issued more than twelve years prior to the LATR
study scope request.
3. Allowing payment in lieu of implementation for non-automobile

transportation amenities in hardship cases. The LATR Guidelines allow
applicants to take vehicle trip credits for implementing amenities such as offsite
sidewalks, bike paths, bus shelters, bike lockers, and Intelligent Transportation
System (ITS) components. Staff finds that this is an excellent tool to guide smart
growth, wherein turn lanes can essentially be converted to pedestrian amenities.
The implementation of these features is a challenge, however, due to evolving
and sometimes competing interests among reviewing and implementing
agencies. The most pervasive example of this challenge relates to the DPWT
agreement with Clear Channel Communications regarding bus shelter
implementation. Based on agreements with Clear Channel Communications,
DPWT has not been able to support developer-installed bus shelters, even in
locations where there may be concurrence on need. Payment in lieu of
implementation has been suggested, but the accounting required to track
payments to individual segments of sidewalks or shelters is not practical and
payment into a general countywide fund is often not satisfying to local
constituents. However, where needs exist and developer implementation is not
feasible, the payment to a general fund, followed by a good-faith effort on the
part of County government to address site-specific concerns, appears most
pragmatic. Staff recommends that the guidelines be amended to indicate that in
cases where DPWT, DPS, an MDOT agency, or WMATA, concurs in writing with
the need for a proposed offsite improvement, but that any other of the same
agencies states in writing that the offsite improvement should not be constructed
by the applicant, the applicant be allowed to contribute payment to the County in
lieu of constructing the improvement. Staff understands that a new, more flexible
project or program may need to be established in the CIP to support this
approach.
4. Requiring documentation that traffic mitigation or trip reduction

measures were considered in all cases. Based on previous Council Growth
Policy Actions, “the Planning Board has the authority to select either trip
mitigation agreements, non-automobile transportation amenities, or physical road
improvements (or a combination thereof) as the required means to relieve local
congestion. Priority will be given to non-physical improvements in Metro Station
and CBD Policy Areas.” Throughout the County, staff has noted community
interest in pursuing trip reduction measures in lieu of physical improvements.
Staff therefore recommends that in all LATR studies where a physical
131
improvement is recommended, the study document the consideration of
mitigation or non-auto amenity improvement alternatives and the reasons why
physical improvements were selected.
5. Requiring studies to be submitted by certified professionals. Staff

recommends that the LATR studies be submitted by a registered Professional
Engineer (P.E.), Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (P.T.O.E), or
Professional Transportation Planner (PTP).
6. Intersection Data Base and Data Collection. With the elimination of Policy
Area Transportation Review, the Council directed the Planning Board to prepare
an annual report documenting traffic congestion trends in the County. Called the
Highway Mobility Report, the most recent edition of this study was prepared in
the summer of 2006. This report is possible due to the development over time of
a GIS-based intersection data repository at the Planning Department. All the
counts of intersections made by DPWT and the Maryland State Highway
Administration, as well as counts made as part of the development review
process for LATR, are entered into the Department data base for use in analysis
of the system conditions. The database includes information from traffic counts
for different years; more up-to-date data for a greater number of intersections
would significantly improve the value of the analysis. Expanding this database
over time with a more robust intersection count will make monitoring of
current (and therefore future since this is the starting point) conditions
more comprehensive, as well as allowing for verification of developer-
provided counts. This would require higher levels of funding for this
activity.
7. Intersection Critical Lane Volume (CLV) Standards. The Council

requested the Board to consider the changes that were proposed to the LATR
standards in 2005. The most significant consideration in 2005 was to revise
downward a number of the CLV standards. Staff does not support this
recommendation. The current standards and those used in 2003 and for several
years before are shown in Exhibit 2-13, with the change made in the 2003-2005
Growth Policy. All CLV standards except those in Metrorail Station Policy Areas
were lowered by 50. The recommendations for use of the Policy Area Mobility
Review procedures are intended to address in part the concerns about the
necessity to further reduce intersection CLV standards due to congestion since it
creates an additional areawide test.
Background Information on the LATR Recommendations
Some changes to the LATR process have been suggested during prior critiques.
These changes are discussed below in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.
Staff does not recommend any significant changes to the LATR process. We do
recommend one amendment to the LATR sections in the Council’s Growth
Policy, as reflected in the recommendations.
132
Should the County use a delay based intersection analysis process, such
as the procedures from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) of the
Transportation Research Board? This has been raised a number of times, and
several detailed work sessions have been held with the Planning Board and
Council over the past years. Interestingly, the “planning” procedures in the HCM
have been evolving over time, beginning as variations on the complex delay
based process used for current signalized intersection analysis, to the current
process that is more like our Critical Lane Volume procedure. However, in our
review we have consistently found the shortcomings of the HCM procedures too
great to warrant a change to our current process. These shortcomings include:
• The need to use software to conduct the analysis, making the calculations
less transparent. A full use has desirable information such as signal timing
and other information on the vehicle mix, such as truck volumes, that is
not available in the future conditions we are dealing with in LATR tests.
• The results are generally unreliable at and above the “capacity” of the
standard intersection, our 1,600 CLV levels, making it not usable in
situations such as the Metrorail stations, where we have found that
acceptable congestion can be maintained well above this level.
• There is a lack of a real world connection between the calculated delay
and the actual observed delay. So using this process would not provide
information about the expected actual delay, but would just be another
calculated outcome.
On the positive side for our CLV procedures, it is ideal for the planning
applications we apply it to, where often the only known information is the
volumes and number and type of lanes. We have enough experience with it now
that we know what levels of congestion are associated with the different CLV
levels, and can fine tune these to reflect different public policies.
Should there be an LATR test in the Metrorail Station Policy Areas? The
issue of appropriate standards for intersections in urban areas such as the
County Metrorail stations and CBDs is a complex one. Density of development
brings with it significant levels of auto use, even with high transit use. The
challenge is to accommodate the vehicles at some acceptable level, and yet
retain a transit supportive environment that encourages walking and bicycling.
Montgomery County has been successful up to now in this with a variety of
policies that have provided the needed roadway capacity primarily via public
infrastructure improvements. Staff recommends that this system be maintained,
with strong incentives for each development in these areas to maximize non-auto
use, create good walking environments, and pay appropriate fees for
improvements to be provided at the most effective locations by the County and
State.
133
Should the LATR test be more multimodal? One emerging national trend in
traffic impact studies is to include non-auto modes in the tests. Montgomery
County has addressed this in several ways already:
• A pedestrian impact statement is part of every LATR study, stating how

the development will impact pedestrians. Staff can use this to assure that
problems identified are mitigated in the process.
• The congestion standards vary according to the availability of transit
options, with greater congestion levels tolerated where transit options are
robust.
• A wide variety of off-site non-auto alternatives are available to the
applicant, to get trip credits in lieu of making intersection modifications.
• The Board has the ability to require demand management rather than
intersection improvements in a situation where it felt the community or
environmental impacts of the improvements would be detrimental.
One issue to be addressed is the need for checking pedestrian crossing

times at urban area intersections. This has some value, but is an operational
traffic control tool controlled by DPWT and can change between the time of the
LATR study and when the development is open. One approach might be for the
Council to set a single County policy on acceptable crossing times for which
DPWT would be responsible for implementation.
The applicant has the ability to propose demand management/ trip reduction
actions that could mitigate some, or even all, the site trips, and this can be
accomplished in a wide variety of methods identified by them an agreed upon by
the Board and DPWT. Our staff recommendation on having each applicant show
that non-roadway improvements were considered is our approach to this valid
issue.
134
OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY COUNCIL
The first two issues below were included in the Council Resolution for comment
by the Board. These are also discussed from a slightly different perspective in
the Infrastructure Financing section of this report. The third topic was requested
at the first Interim Report, and is one that has come up often concerning
transportation analysis.
Accounting for Federal Facilities in Montgomery County
The topic of how to account for possible future Federal employees at large
employment centers in the County has been extensively discussed over the
years in relation to Growth Policy. Since the Federal Government is not subject
to the Growth Policy, the main issue is how and when to count the traffic
generated by Federal facilities as background traffic. Department staff suggests
that a somewhat more proactive approach be taken than in the past, which did
not monitor Federal employment closely and waited to count traffic generated by
new Federal facilities, such as the relocation of the Food and Drug
Administration, until the project was fully-funded in the Federal budget. Staff
recommends monitoring federal employment at federal installations on an annual
basis and counting the traffic from new or expanded federal installations as soon
as the increases are forecast with reasonable certainty.
A short summary of the issues follows. This discussion centers on a limited

number of large federal facilities where jobs are congregated, including: National
Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration at White Oak, the Walter Reed
Annex, the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, and to a lesser extent
federal agencies in privately owned buildings such as National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration in Silver Spring, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in North Bethesda.
How to best treat large Federal agencies within the County growth policies
requires considering the consequences of different approaches. One basic
assumption is that all the employees at the site are already being accounted for
in any intersection counts or other data collection. Thus, it is only future growth
that is at issue. There are several perspectives on this.
• If the Federal employees who may come to the site are counted as
pipeline or otherwise given the status of approved development, then
desired local growth could be denied due to lack of transportation system
capacity, or facilities oversized if the growth does not take place.
• Alternatively, if the future employees are not accounted for and they do
come to the site, congestion over the standards may occur.
• Determining with precision the timing and amount of future growth is
difficult since these activities are often dependant upon funding each year
135
by Congress, and changes that occur in agency missions and staffing.
The agencies are not under any legal obligation to meet local
transportation requirements or to adjust their facility plans to conform to
local land use and public facility goals. Much of our commentary to federal
agencies is via the National Capital Planning Commission, which does
have some authority over the master plans and facility plans of the
agencies. Agencies also do not have an obligation to report employee
levels, but they have been cooperating with Planning staff and providing
updated estimates and forecasts of installation employment for the annual
Economic Forces study.
The County’s most effective approach has been one involving an agreement by
the agencies to emphasize reduced peak hour trip making through strong
demand management programs, often accompanied by a written agreement with
the Planning Board. The most effective of these programs has been with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but National Institutes of Health has also been
a good partner, as has Walter Reed Annex. Food and Drug Administration
growth is accompanied by a significant roadway modification program, and
efforts to assure adequate local bus service to the site are on-going. The Base
Realignment And Closure (BRAC) mandated growth at National Navy Medical
Center Bethesda will have potential roadway effects, and studies to identify these
are underway with good cooperation from the Navy and others involved on the
Federal side. A continuation of these policies is recommended by staff.
Considering “through traffic” in the development review process
Some percent of the trips on the roadway network at any time of the day are
going through the County, meaning neither a beginning nor end in a County
location. Most of these are on the Interstates (I-270 and I-495) but some are on
the major arterials such as US 29. The County approach to these type of trips
has been to limit the number of lanes available at the entry points into the County
on the northern side through caps in the master plans. Consequently, the master
plan for Clarksburg and Vicinity has a maximum of six lanes for I-270 where it
goes into Frederick County. The US 29 bridge over the Patuxent River at the
Howard County line is a maximum of four lanes total.
Any forecasting done with the transportation model takes into account all these
trips, since it uses the land use from the surrounding jurisdictions and the full
regional roadway and transitway network. Thus, the forecasts used for
transportation facility planning and master plans, which always have a future year
horizon and use a travel forecasting model, account fully for through trips.
Another issue is whether some accounting for through trip growth is desirable for
Local Area Transportation Review. The LATR process requires the applicant to
take all the approved development in the study area as background to the
136
analysis. This assumes that all the approved development will develop to the full
extent of the approval. An analysis done several years ago of projected
intersection congestion from traffic studies versus the actual congestion found
that for at least the first six years after the study, the projections were well above
the actual traffic levels. Only after about eight years did the actual volumes
reach and exceed the projections. By that time the effect of additional
development beyond that in the study is probably at work. So there has not been
data that would show that growth in through traffic is making the LATR analysis
incorrect, and staff recommends no change to the LATR process to account for
growth in through trips.
Responses to LATR issues discussed in 2005
In the Growth Policy Resolution No. 16-17, Council directed the Board to provide
analysis and recommendations on “…the current LATR test and alternatives to
it, including those considered during the 2005 review of the Growth Policy”
(emphasis added). The following is staff response to the LATR issues found in
the November 14, 2005 memorandum to Council on the Growth Policy from
Deputy Staff Director Glenn Orlin.
Tighten the number of intersections to be studied by different sized

development. Planning staff finds the current guidelines are conservative from a
public policy perspective, and we do not recommend changes to the current
requirements in the Growth Policy. As distance from the site increases it
becomes less pragmatic to allocate smaller and smaller proportions of the site
traffic to individual intersection turning movements. Staff is very aware of the
Council’s concern for this topic, and we have been rigorous in the application of
the study area definition. Current guidelines are now resulting in larger
developments studying 20 or more intersections, sometimes including ones miles
from the site. We see the current requirements as sufficient to insure the impacts
are effectively analyzed.
Concerning whether intersections outside the County would be analyzed, staff

would recommend against this requirement unless it is for information purposes
only. Other jurisdictions have their own procedures and objectives for the
intersections within their control.
Require a link capacity analysis. This analysis is now incorporated in the

PAMR recommendations, which are based on part on the capacity and demands
on the roadway links of the transportation network. A specific link analysis is not
needed in the LATR procedures.
Tighten the LATR standards. This is discussed in detail in the LATR section of
this report.
137
Address queuing in the LATR standards. There is now a queuing analysis
procedure in the LATR Guidelines, which is applicable in Metrorail Station Policy
Areas where an intersection exceeds 1800 CLV under total traffic conditions.
This comes from the objective of insuring that traffic in our most congested areas
can operate effectively, without “gridlock” which is caused when one intersection
backs up through another upstream, blocking cross-movement. The current
procedure is one of calculating marginal change from the current operations, and
can work well in a closely spaced intersection network such as found in the Silver
Spring and Bethesda CBD’s.
However, queuing in many situations is a function of the signal timing and

phasing, which can be changed, and of larger traffic movements such as on-
ramps to the Beltway. Staff finds that outside of the current procedures for the
MSPAs, addressing queuing would require applicants to use a simulation
program. These are expensive and complex and the results are very sensitive to
variables such as signal timing and percent of trucks and buses in the traffic
stream. If the Board and Council wish staff to investigate this aspect further we
can do so. However, a review of queuing may best be done and reported as part
of the annual Highway Mobility Report, and not associated with specific
development approvals.
Using Transit to Reduce Roadway Congestion
The question of how to use transit or other non-roadway capacity actions to

reduce congestion is one that the Council and others have raised on the context
of the Growth Policy. This is a very complex topic that has generated many
professional articles and books, with approaches and findings evolving over time.
Staff expects that the rewards and risks of relying on demand reduction as an
alternative to roadway capital facilities will be a topic of significant discussion
during the Growth Policy process. We would offer the following as starting
points, based on our review of recent literature.
• Congestion mitigation from other than increasing roadway capacity is best
accomplished with a combination of methods – parking pricing and
supply, corridor specific high quality transit enhancements so that transit
trips are competitive with the auto trip, transit and pedestrian oriented land
uses, and other Travel Demand Management strategies are ones that
have proven effective.
• The addition of bus service in an attempt to capture choice riders for a trip
that is not competitive with the automobile travel time and comfort will
likely have little impact on overall delays attributable to congestion.
Research on actions that cause choice riders to shift from auto to transit
has found that a variety of attributes are important including: trip time
relative to auto, reliability, headways (wait times), safety, and comfort.
Having a congested roadway system with buses in the traffic stream will
138
not in itself therefore cause a mode shift if these other attributes are not
found in the transit services available to the auto users. This problem can
be mitigated to varying degrees by with a variety of approaches to give
travel preference to transit vehicles, or to separate auto and transit travel
lanes.
• New research on pedestrian access to rail services has indicated that
accepted walking distances may be greater than has previously been
found. The potential effects of these findings may vary with the actual
kinds of trips that were surveyed (walk from home to station as opposed to
walk from station to work), and more details on this research should
accompany further discussion on this aspect.
• When auto users are attracted to transit services, they create space on
the roadway that can reduce congestion. As with other capacity
increases, over time this can induce other auto users to shift routes, or
travel further, somewhat reducing or moving the positive effects from the
most desirable routes to lower category, less desirable ones.
Recent use of PATR for assessing master plan balance
Even after the PATR test was eliminated from the Growth Policy in 2003, staff
continued to apply the Total Transportation Level of Service and Average
Congestion Index tools to assess the “balance” between master planned land
use and transportation. The Planning Board and County Council also used the
results from this tool in their deliberations, with master plan policies customized
to reflect the needs of each plan area. The consideration of land use and
transportation balance for the four most recently adopted master plans are
described below; the PATR test featured prominently in three of them:
• The 2005 Olney Master Plan includes a staging element that limits the first
stage of development to a total of 15,235 dwelling units, based on the
PATR standard and concerns regarding potential development densities,
particularly in the mixed-use Town Center.
• The 2006 Shady Grove Sector Plan includes an aggressive transportation
staging plan that includes a requirement that developments generating
more than 100 vehicle trips enter into formal Trip Mitigation Agreements
and includes construction of the MD 355/Gude Drive interchange, or
comparable capacity improvement, as a prerequisite for the second stage
of development. These staging elements were developed in part due to
the fact that the Average Congestion Index for the Derwood Policy Area
was forecast to be substandard in 2025 regardless of the range of actions
included in the Shady Grove Sector Plan (which includes a small
geographic subset of the Derwood Policy Area).
• The transportation analysis for the 2006 Woodmont Triangle Sector Plan
built upon the Bethesda Stage II analysis completed in 2004. The overall
139
land use/transportation balance was not discussed in great detail primarily
because the 2004 staging analysis confirmed that the forecasted 2025
ACI was well below the PATR congestion standard.
• The 2006 Damascus Master Plan included carefully crafted land use
recommendations to retain the recommendation that roadways outside the
Town Center remain at two lanes, based on Average Congestion Index.
The fact that the Plan was in balance for the forecast 2025 conditions was
a key consideration in the recommendation not to reserve right-of-way for
a future Damascus Bypass.
Staff recommends that the PAMR system proposed for regulatory review in this
report should also be adopted for considering the adequacy of master plan
transportation / land use balance.
140
Exhibit 2-13 LATR Intersection Congestion Standards
2003 2007 Difference Policy Areas
1450 1400 -50 Rural Areas

__________________________________________________________________
1500 1450 -50 Clarksburg Germantown West

Damascus Germantown East
Gaithersburg City Montgomery Village/
Germantown Town Center Airpark
__________________________________________________________________
1525 1475 -50 Cloverly Olney

Derwood Potomac
North Potomac R & D Village
__________________________________________________________________
1550 1500 -50 Aspen Hill Rockville City

Fairland/ White Oak
__________________________________________________________________
1600 1550 -50 North Bethesda

__________________________________________________________________
1650 1600 -50 Bethesda/ Chevy Chase Silver Spring/

Kensington/ Wheaton Takoma Park
__________________________________________________________________
1800 1800 0 Bethesda CBD Silver Spring CBD

Friendship Heights CBD Twinbrook
Glenmont Wheaton CBD
Grosvenor White Flint
Shady Grove
141
Exhibit 2-1
142
Exhibit 2-2. PAMR Transit Level of Service Standard
Relative Arterial Mobility: (Congested Auto Speed / Free Flow Auto Speed)
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit
55%
143
LOS F LOS D LOS C LOS B LOS A
50%
45%
Transit
40%
LOS E
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
0%
Relative Transit Mobility: (Transit Speed / Congested Auto Speed)
Exhibit 2-3. PAMR Arterial Level of Service Standard
100%
95%
Arterial LOS A
90%
85%
80%
Arterial LOS B
75%
70%
65%
Arterial LOS C
60%
55%
50%
144
Arterial LOS D
45%
40%
35%
Arterial LOS E
30%
25%
20%
15% Arterial LOS F

10%
5%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
0%
Exhibit 2-4. PAMR Adequacy Standard
100%
95%
90%
The higher the value of this percent, the faster on
85%
average are the transit travel times in an area
80% relative to travel time on congested arterials
75% ( Gain in mobility using transit)
70%
65%
60%
Adequate
55%
50%
145
45%
40%
35%
30%
Inadequate
25% The lower the value of this percent, the
20%
slower on average are the arterial travel
times serving an area
15%
(Loss in mobility using highways)
10%
5%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
0%
Exhibit 2-5. Year 2013 PAMR Chart
100%
Year 2013
90%
Adequate
80%
Damascus CLV
Rural W
70%
CLK
GTW County-wide
RDV
60% Average
146
Rural E Olney
MV NP
AH DerKW
50% Rkv
GTE SSTP
FWO BCC
GBG NB
Pot
40%
Inadequate
30%
20%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Relative Transit Mobility: (Transit Speed / Congested Auto Speed )
Exhibit 2-6. Year 2013 PAMR Tabulation
Forecasted Relative Forecasted Difference
Relative Arterial Relative Between
Exhibit 2-5 Transit Transit LOS Arterial LOS Mobility Arterial Forecast and Adequacy
Policy Area Key Mobility Standard Standard Standard Mobility Standard Finding
Aspen Hill AH 66% C D 40% 49% 9% Adequate
Bethesda Chevy Chase BCC 72% C D 40% 45% 5% Adequate
Clarksburg CLK 54% D C 55% 65% 10% Adequate
Clovery CLV 62% C D 40% 73% 33% Adequate
Damascus Damascus 47% E B 70% 73% 3% Adequate
Derwood Der 70% C D 40% 49% 9% Adequate
Fairland/White Oak FWO 61% C D 40% 42% 2% Adequate
Gaithersburg GBG 57% D C 55% 44% -11% Inadequate
Germantown East GTE 55% D C 55% 47% -8% Inadequate
Germantown West GTW 60% D C 55% 61% 6% Adequate
147
Kensington/Wheaton KW 72% C D 40% 48% 8% Adequate
Montgomery Village/Airpark MVA 60% C D 40% 50% 10% Adequate
North Bethesda NB 67% C D 40% 42% 2% Adequate
North Potomac NP 62% C D 40% 51% 11% Adequate
Olney Olney 67% C D 40% 54% 14% Adequate
Potomac Pot 62% C D 40% 42% 2% Adequate
R&D Village RDV 56% D C 55% 59% 4% Adequate
Rockville Rkv 62% C D 40% 47% 7% Adequate
Silver Spring/Takoma Park SSTP 72% C D 40% 47% 7% Adequate
Rural Area East Rural E 65% C D 40% 54% 14% Adequate
Rural Area West Rural W 64% C D 40% 70% 30% Adequate
Montgomery County Total 69% 49%
Exhibit 2-7. Year 2005 PAMR Chart
100%
Year 2005
90%
Adequate
80%
Damascus
GTW
RDV Rural
70%
CLK
NP County-wide
60% CLV Average
148
GBG Rural E
GTE MVA Olney
50% FWO SSTP
Rkv KW Der
NB
Pot BCC
AH
40%
Inadequate
30%
20%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Exhibit 2-8. Year 2030 CLRP PAMR Chart
100%
Year 2030
90%
Adequate
80%
Rural W
70% GTW
MVA
GTE CLV
NP
60% CLK
149
Damascus
RDV County-wide
Average
50% Olney
GBG Rural E AH
Der
Rkv NB SSTP KW
40% BCC
Pot
Inadequate FWO
30%
20%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Exhibit 2-9. LATR Mitigation Options for Non-Auto Amenities
150
Exhibit 2-10. PAMR Mitigation Options for Providing Roadway Capacity
Minimum Length of Roadway Construction

(Lane-miles of widening or new construction per 100 vehicle trips generated)
Facility type
Land Use Type Freeway Major Highway Arterial Primary Residential
Office 0.38 0.51 0.77 1.54

Retail 0.24 0.31 0.47 0.94
151
Other Commercial 0.31 0.41 0.62 1.23
Residential 0.31 0.41 0.62 1.24
Notes:
Arterial class also includes industrial and business streets
Construction must be recommended in a master plan and have logical termini
Exhibit 2-11. LATR Superdistricts
152
APPENDICES FOR APFO REFORM PART 2: TRANSPORTATION
The Sections below provide additional information on topics related to the

recommendations and findings in the report. These include:
1. Review of current transportation forecasting model process
2. Details of proportional staging analysis
3. Staff recommendations on LATR Guidelines
4. Report to Council on appropriate standards and CLV procedures,
1999
1. Review of the Current Transportation Modeling Process
M-NCPPC has historically been at the forefront in developing and applying travel
demand forecasting procedures. For many years Montgomery County
maintained a travel forecasting model, called Travel/2, that was separate from
the regional MWCOG travel model. Travel/2 was used for a variety of planning
applications, including area master plan studies, countywide planning studies
and PATR growth policy analyses. M-NCPPC developed this separate modeling
tool, in part, because of perceived weaknesses in the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (MWCOG) model that staff was able to address by
developing Travel/2. In 2002, staff determined that the MWCOG transportation
model had evolved to the point where the previous weaknesses no longer
existed. Staff also determined that there were many benefits if the Department
adopted the MWCOG process. In the final analysis, it was clear that a transition
to the MWCOG model would allow staff to focus the Department’s forecasting
resources on applications, while benefiting from the huge investment by the
region and USDOT in the MWCOG model development and maintenance.
Staff has now developed a Montgomery County-focused version of the MWCOG

transportation model, called Travel/3. This model has replaced Travel/2 as the
Department’s regional transportation analysis tool.
What components of the MWCOG modeling process have been adopted?
It should be noted that what is often referred to as “The Model” is really an

analytical process that includes many components such as:
• Software to run the model – Travel/2 used a software package called

EMME/2, along with other GIS and database software for post-processing
and analysis. MWCOG uses a software package called TP+/Viper, the
same software used by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council.
• Mathematical parameters and equations (these are the “real” models).
153
• Inputs to the model. Montgomery County land use and socio-economic
data come from the Department’s Research and Technology Center staff.
Montgomery County transportation network data come from the
Department’s Transportation Planning staff. Regional land use, socio-
economic data and transportation network data come from MWCOG.
• Analysts (real people) to develop, maintain, and apply the model, and to
analyze the results to answer difficult planning questions.
Travel/3 has adopted the TP+/Viper software and the MWCOG model’s
mathematical parameters and equations, while recognizing the critical role that
our own staff have in developing population and job forecasts as inputs to the
model, and applying the model for numerous transportation studies that the
Department conducts.
2. Proportional Staging Method Analysis
Methodology and Alternatives Tested
The proportional staging method compares the percentage of planned

development that has been built to the percentage of existing/programmed1
transportation infrastructure for the various study areas2 of the County. The
calculation process involves a number of process assumptions for existing and
planned capacity for roads, interchanges, and transit. The calculated
percentages are then used to determine whether or not there is remaining
development capacity to allow for additional planned development to be
approved.
For example, if 75% of planned development in an area has been built, and 95%
of planned transportation infrastructure is on the ground, then the result would be
a remaining capacity of 20% for additional planned development to be approved.
In this application “planned development” is defined as the jobs and households

from the County Adopted Forecasts. Built development will come from our
Planning Department totals of current development plus the pipeline of
approvals.
The remaining capacity figures vary significantly depending on the method

selected for estimating the percent-built for transportation infrastructure. This is
arrived at by taking the total of (existing network + programmed additions), and
dividing by the total master-planned network
1
New infrastructure/additional capacity that is funded for construction within the first six years of the
Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
2
Geographies used for the 2002 Transportation Policy Report (TPR) II
154
The analysis for this report used 3 scenarios for estimating the transportation
infrastructure percent-built figure. The percent-built calculations considered each
of the following scenarios:
• Inclusion of the arterial system interchanges (scenario A)

• Exclusion of the arterial system interchanges (scenario B)
• Inclusion of the arterial system interchanges, excluding the US 29
interchanges (scenario C)
Summary of Findings
After initial development of this procedure, staff has looked more closely
and finds that it has a logic “fatal flaw” that make its application
problematic for regulatory process. Defining the “total build out” of jobs,
housing or the transportation system is trying to hit a moving target, with zoning,
redevelopment and other changes occurring often that change the total amount
of future development in an area. Similarly, the transportation network is
constantly undergoing refinement, and can be expanded in many ways, even
within master planned constraints. However the biggest concern is that the
findings of remaining development capacity run counter to the normal public
policy directions. In this process, adding transportation capacity to a master
planned network will actually decrease the ability to approve more development
until it is fully funded, even thought the actual capacity of the programmed
network could possibly accommodate more development. Similarly, taking
pieces out of the future network would add to the ability to approve development,
since the percent of the (smaller) future total would be larger.
It may be that this procedure can be a useful tool in looking at the need for
capital programming among areas of the County, so we have developed the
findings described below.
Scenario B of the methodology, which excludes the arterial system interchanges

from the analysis, would result in the most capacity (3.5% countywide) for new
development to be approved. Scenario A, the most stringent of the staging
concept, would result in the least amount of capacity (-0.5% countywide) for new
development to approved. In its current state, the proportional staging method
favors the approval of new jobs over housing, for several areas of the County. All
three scenarios of this staging concept would allow for the approval of new jobs
in the Georgia Ave Corridor, and Eastern Montgomery County. All three
scenarios would allow for the approval of new housing Inside the Beltway.
Furthermore, the application of all three scenarios of the methodology results in
capacity deficits in either jobs or housing in three of the five study areas (Georgia
Ave, Eastern Montgomery County, and Rural).
Under scenario A of this staging concept, Eastern Montgomery County would

have a net remaining capacity for new jobs of 15.7%. Conversely, this area
155
would have the greatest capacity deficit for new housing at –15.2%. The Georgia
Ave Corridor and Inside the Beltway study areas would have remaining capacity
for housing (6.5%) and jobs (6.6%) respectively. The I-270 Corridor would have
a capacity deficit for both housing and jobs at -0.7% and -1.0% respectively.
Scenario A - Capacity Surplus/Deficit by Study Area
Capacity Surplus Capacity Deficit

Housing Jobs Housing Jobs
Inside The Beltway * *
Georgia Ave * *
Eastern Mont. Co. * *
I-270 Corridor * *
Rural * *
Scenario B of the proportional staging method results in more capacity for the
approval of new development, particularly jobs, more so than that of scenario A.
Eastern Montgomery County would have a net remaining capacity of 22.8%,
which is 7.1% higher than what the remaining capacity would be under scenario
A. In contrast, this area would have the greatest capacity deficit for new housing
at –8.8%. This scenario would yield a capacity surplus for new housing in the I-
270 Corridor and Inside the Beltway at 1.6% and 7.3% respectively. In addition,
the scenario results would yield a net remaining capacity for new jobs in the
Georgia Ave Corridor (8.8%) and the I-270 Corridor (1.2%). The Rural study
area would have a capacity deficit for both housing (–1.0%) and jobs (–6.5%).
Scenario B - Capacity Surplus/Deficit by Study Area

Georgia Ave * *
I-270 Corridor * *
Rural * *
Scenario C of the analysis involves a slight modification of scenario A, in that the

planned and programmed interchanges in Eastern Montgomery County are
removed from the capacity assumptions, since these are dependant upon
Council approval for the “later phases of the interchanges”. . Therefore, the
remaining capacity totals are very similar to those seen in scenario A. Moreover,
the area Inside the Beltway would have a capacity surplus of 6.5% for new
housing. The Georgia Ave Corridor and Eastern Montgomery County would
have a net remaining capacity of 5.5% and 21.4% respectively for new jobs.
Similar to the results seen with scenarios A and B, Eastern Montgomery County
would have the greatest capacity deficit for housing (-9.5%). Under this scenario,
156
both the I-270 Corridor and the Rural areas would have a capacity deficit for both
housing and jobs.
Scenario C - Capacity Surplus/Deficit by Study Area

Georgia Ave * *
I-270 Corridor * *
Rural * *
Additional refinements
Currently, the study areas used in this analysis are aggregates of the County’s
growth policy areas. Ideally, the study areas used in this analysis should more
closely resemble the growth policy area boundaries. However, staff feels that
performing this type of analysis for all 34 of the County’s policy areas may
produce misleading results since many larger projects span several area, and
cannot be built in small pieces.
The staging methodology involves a number of calculations, process and

capacity assumptions that may require some additional refinement in order to
obtain the most relevant and accurate results possible. For instance, a
weighting3 component could be introduced to the calculation process to alter the
way in which the percent-built figures for jobs, housing, and transportation
infrastructure are calculated taking into account the travel expected on each part
of the network. In addition, the process and capacity assumptions may need to
be modified as new transit policy initiatives are introduced, and/or as the region’s
travel demand model capacities are refined.
Additional Staff Recommendations for the LATR Guidelines
Transportation Planning staff and consultants who work with the Planning Board
LATR Guidelines on a daily basis are often confronted with situations that are not
covered or where the Guidelines no longer reflect the best procedures. The
following are changes staff expects to be proposing in the Guidelines when they
are updated next, probably in the context of reflecting any changes made by the
Council in the overall Growth Policy. These are not felt to be of a nature that the
Council would need to adopt them, as with the ones identified in the LATR
Recommendations section of this report. These are included to inform the Board
3
Adjustment of a calculated figure(s) based on the relevance/importance of an equation’s inputs.
157
158
159
160
and others on these potential changes, and to show the evolving state of the
LATR analysis. (Page numbers refer to the 2004 Adopted LATR Guidelines).
1. Inclusion of pass-by trips in defining significantly sized project (p.
5&7). Pass-by trips are to be included in establishing the 30-vehicle trip
threshold requiring a traffic study. The page 5 definition is correct and the
page 7 definition should be amended.
2. Citation that LATR may apply building permit review (p. 5) for cases
not requiring an APF finding without subdivision, and that in limited cases
(less than 12 months vacancy, no increase in square footage, and fewer
than 30 peak-hour trips) the APF test may be approved administratively by
staff
3. Clarification of submittal and review processes (p. 5, 11, 12, 17, 37).
Clarify timelines, including:
a. Transportation Planning staff have 15 working days to develop a study
scope after receipt of a written request
b. Transportation Planning staff have 15 working days to review a
submitted study for completeness (retain p. 11 text, revise p. 5
c. SHA and DPWT have 30 calendar days to review an approved study
and comment on the feasibility of the recommendations, however
d. The applicant must obtain comments from SHA and DPWT and
transmit them to Transportation Planning staff four weeks prior to a
scheduled Planning Board hearing.
4. Clarifying the definition of “all land at one location” (p. 7). The LATR
Guidelines require consideration of all land at one location in considering
the size of total (existing plus proposed) development in traffic study
scoping. The LATR guidelines allow professional judgment. Staff
judgment in the past has generally, but not always, been that parcels
separated by unbuilt roadways or local subdivision streets remain “land at
one location” but that parcels separated by business district streets,
arterial roadways, major highways, or freeways cease to be “land at one
location” even if still in common ownership.
5. Clarifying the definition of “mitigating 50% of their total weekday
morning and evening peak-hour trips” (p. 9). The LATR Guidelines
should define how both the “non-mitigated” and “mitigated” trips should be
calculated. In both cases the applicant must explicitly document the
conversion between person-trips and vehicle-trips to account for transit
use, vehicle occupancy, walk/bike use, internal site trip capture, and
telecommute options. The estimates should document the effect of home-
based work trips separately from all other trips. Special trip rates, such as
for office uses within 1,000 feet of Metrorail stations outside the Beltway
(p. 48), or rates for any uses within the Bethesda, Silver Spring, and
Friendship Heights CBDs (p. 54) should not be used in either “non-
mitigated” or “mitigated” trip rate calculations.
161
6. Clarifying the LATR study area (p. 13). There are several clarifications
required to this study scope parameter:
a. The number of signalized intersections in each direction should be
described as a “minimum” rather than a “maximum”.
b. The Guidelines should indicate that the term “each direction” applies at
every study intersection. For instance, in a hypothetical perfect
rectangular grid, the first “ring” would include four intersections. The
second “ring” would include not only the next four intersections along
the streets serving the site, but also the four intersections among the
cross streets encountered in the first “ring”. In this manner, as the
number of intersections in each direction grows linearly from one to
five, the number of total study area intersections grows exponentially.
c. The site access driveways are not included in the “first ring” of
intersections.
d. Intersections in jurisdictions for which the Planning Board does not
have subdivision authority will not be included in the traffic study.
e. Unsignalized intersections may be included in the definition of “rings” if
they are between two master-planned roadways.
f. Intersections distant enough so that fewer than 5 peak hour vehicle
trips from the site will travel through the intersection need not be
included in the traffic study, even if they would otherwise be identified
as candidate locations.
g. The statement that the background development to be considered will
be in “the same geographic area as the intersections to be studied”
should be clarified to indicate that generally a polygon should be drawn
connecting the intersections furthest from the site and the background
development should be included in that area.
h. Individual background developments that generate less than five peak
hour trips (i.e., subdivisions of four or fewer single family detached
dwelling units) should not be included, as tracking those trips is not
pragmatic.
7. Addressing the effects of the ICC (p. 14). The applicant and staff must
agree upon the impact of transportation projects fully funded for
construction within the first four years of the CIP or CTP. The FY 2007-
2012 CTP identifies the ICC as a single project that will be 99% complete
in FY 2012. Staff recommends that the ICC continue to be considered as
a single project, even though it will be constructed in stages, and that once
the entire project is fully funded within four years its effects be considered
by application of a proportional volume change (either reductions or
increases) to background traffic conditions on intersection approaches
based on the impacts identified in the ICC EIS.
162
8. Clarification of pedestrian and bicycle impact statement
requirements (p. 15). The Guidelines should require that the pedestrian
and bicycle impact statement cover an area within a ¼ mile radius of the
site, regardless of the LATR study area size. Information on bus route
numbers and service frequency should be included. An inventory map of
sidewalks and off-road shared-use paths within the ¼ mile radius should
be included.
9. Clarification of queue length analysis (p. 21). The generally accepted
practice for evaluating queue lengths in CBDs and MSPAs is to observe
the existing maximum queue during the peak hour and add background
and site-generated traffic, assuming LATR lane distribution factors, a 25’
average vehicle length, and a division of hourly approach volumes equally
among the number of signal cycles in the hour. These factors should be
identified in the Guidelines, as well as a statement that alternatives
methods, such as simulation using Synchro or CORSIM, may be accepted
if all simulation parameters are agreed to by staff.
10. Guidance regarding pass-by trips and internal capture rates (p. 31)
should be included directing the user to the current ITE Trip Generation
Handbook.
11. Clarification of unusual CLV processes. The discussion regarding CLV
calculation should address:
a. Right turn overlaps can be assumed where an exclusive right turn lane
exists.
b. Five leg intersections: The CLV for these intersections should be
assessed according to the individual signal phases identified in the
field
c. Pedestrian crossing time: In MSPA cases where pedestrian crossing
time criteria are not met (per p. 22), the applicant must inform DPST of
the condition and request them to revise the signal timing.
d. Identifying a CLV process for roundabouts. The LATR Guidelines
should state that a CLV for a roundabout calculation should be
performed by calculating the sum of the approach flow and circulating
flows, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual, for each approach
and comparing the highest sum to the LATR standards.
12. Addressing effects of nearby traffic constraints. A continuing
community concern relates to the degree to which observed traffic
volumes may be reduced by either upstream or downstream congestion.
Staff notes that the purpose of the LATR is not to establish delay-free
conditions, but rather to assess the appropriate degree of responsibility
applicable to private sector applicants. Staff recommends that the studies
require a qualitative statement regarding observed traffic conditions if
during the time period that the counts were obtained any queueing from
downstream locations or other operational issues were observed. The
163
Guidelines should also clarify that traffic counts affected by adverse
weather or nearby traffic incidents will not be accepted.
13. Clarification of impacts assessment for special exception cases
where the current operations exceed the permitted parameters. In
some cases, a special exception modification may be submitted wherein
the observed traffic reflects a level of activity greater than that already
permitted. In such cases, the petitioner must estimate the reduction in
traffic activity that would be caused by reducing the operations to the
permitted level, and use those conditions for establishing adequate public
facility impacts.
4. MARCH 2, 1999 LETTER TO THE COUNCIL FROM THE PLANNING

BOARD ON LATR GUIDELINES
This presents the detailed review that the Board and a citizen panel did on the
LATR procedures, including Critical Lane Volume analysis, in the late 1990’s.
The Board, and subsequently the Council, endorsed the standards and
procedures after an in-depth review. Staff finds the basic validity of the
process remains sound.
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
Infrastructure Financing
I-270/495 Interchange
INTRODUCTION
Montgomery County finances the provision of infrastructure through several

mechanisms. Development impact taxes are the primary mechanism used to
raise revenue for the infrastructure needs of new development. Development
impact taxes are a charge on new development to pay for the construction or
expansion of off-site capital improvements that are necessitated by and benefit
the new development. Impact taxes provide a useful mechanism for financing the
development of undeveloped land.
However, growth in Montgomery County is changing, and fewer large greenfield

developments on raw land will be created. More and more of the growth will be
infill and redevelopment. Where former growth was primarily single-family homes
on raw land, much of the future growth will be multi-family units in existing
developed areas.
To finance the infrastructure needs of the County, attention must be paid to the
true cost of new development and to the cost of redevelopment. Although
Montgomery County has been a leader in growth management, the current
system of impact taxes has not proven to be a substantial source of revenue in
recent years with actual revenue received below projected estimates.
When the County Council approved the schools impact taxes in 2003, it did so
with certain assumptions about how much money the taxes would generate. The
estimates were that the taxes would generate $24 million in fiscal year 2005 and
$28 million annually thereafter. The assumptions were detailed and included
estimates of the number of additional units; the percentage of each housing type;
the number of units in each of the tax districts; and the percentage of units that
would be exempt from the impact taxes.
The assumptions proved to be optimistic. The taxes generated less than $8

million in fiscal 2005 and less than $7 million in fiscal 2006. A permit rush in
which developers raced to submit building permit applications prior to the
effective date of the impact taxes can explain much of the fiscal 2005 shortfall;
185
about 1,700 permits approved in fiscal 2005 were not subject to the impact tax,
about half the assumed number of additional units. There is no similar
explanation for the fiscal 2006 shortfall.
It is estimated that 72% of the growth in residential development for Montgomery

County between 2005 and 2030 will be in multi-family dwellings. This
phenomenon will further reduce the expected income stream from school impact
taxes since multi-family dwellings are taxed at a lower rate than single-family
homes.
The rates selected in 2003 for both the transportation and schools impact taxes
were not explicitly tied to assumptions about the cost of needed transportation
and school facilities or new development’s appropriate share in paying for those
facilities. Planning staff has reviewed options for revising the impact tax rates for
both schools and transportation.
The impact tax for schools can more accurately reflect the true cost associated
with school construction and expansion. When school impact taxes were
introduced in 2003, the cost per household for building new schools was
estimated to be $10,300. The rate established in 2003 was set at $8,000 for a
single-family home. Bringing the impact tax closer to the cost of development will
not only improve the program’s revenue raising capacity, but will also better fulfill
the County’s goal of encouraging new development to pay for itself.
Another mechanism used to fund infrastructure is the recordation tax. The

current recordation tax in Montgomery County is applied to the transfer in
ownership of residential property. Revenue raised from the recordation tax is
used to supplement General Obligation bond funding of the Capital Improvement
Program for Schools.
In high growth areas, such as Clarksburg, school population growth is the result
of new construction; therefore impact taxes are an effective financing tool.
However in most of the County, much of the enrollment pressure on schools
comes from changes within the community due to neighborhood turnover, which
is when the neighborhood evolves from one with an aging population to one with
more school age children. The financial transaction that accompanies such
turnover is the home sale, so the revenue captured by the recordation tax
appears appropriate to fund school improvements necessitated by the increased
pressure on existing infrastructure. In recent years, the recordation tax has
generated much more revenue than the impact tax; in 2006, the recordation tax
generated $44 million compared to $6.9 million for school impact taxes.
The development impact tax for transportation and schools and the recordation
tax contribute much needed revenue to support growth in Montgomery County.
After review and further research into infrastructure financing, it is recommended
that revision be made to both of these programs. Planning staff has also
186
identified issues that we suggest merit further study. These include alternative
financing methods, and/or more extensive remodeling of these programs, both of
which we discuss in the report.
SCHOOLS
Impact Taxes
Impact taxes are designed to provide a mechanism whereby new development or

growth can pay for the infrastructure needed to support itself. To determine what
level of impact taxes are a realistic reflection of the cost of growth for schools,
three methods were considered.
• By using current school construction costs and student generation rates

for new housing by type, costs per housing unit by type can be estimated.
MCPS report that current construction costs per student are $32,524 for
an elementary student “seat”, $42,351 for a middle school student “seat”
and $47,501 for a high school student “seat”.
Single family, townhouse, and multi-family student generation rates for

new housing, by housing type can be applied to calculate per pupil
construction costs.
Student Generation Factors

Housing Type Elementary Middle High
SFD 0.320 0.144 0.131
SFA 0.211 0.122 0.107
Multi-family garden apt. 0.153 0.056 0.073
High/Low Rise w/parking 0.042 0.039 0.033
For example, a new single-family detached house on average generates

0.320 elementary students (and 0.144 middle school students and 0.131
high school students.) By multiplying the cost per an elementary student
seat, $32,524, by 0.320, we can assume that a single family detached
house’s share of an elementary seat totals $10,408. Similarly, the per
pupil costs for each school level can be estimated and totaled to produce
the cost per housing type.
Cost per housing type Elementary Middle High Total

SFD $10,408 $6,099 $6,223 $22,729
SFA $6,863 $5,167 $5,083 $17,112
Multi-family garden apt $4,976 $2,372 $3,468 $10,815
High/Low Rise w/parking $1,366 $1,652 $1,568 $4,585
187
This cost can be referred to as the marginal cost of one more unit of
housing, in this case, a single-family home. Marginal cost pricing is an
efficient pricing mechanism, whereby the incremental user pays his
incremental costs rather than average cost pricing where all users pay the
same proportion of total cost.
• The second method is to use the cost of school construction and

expansion based on projected costs and growth through 2012.
The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for Montgomery County Public

Schools (MCPS) provides detailed expenditure requests for the years
2007 through 2012. Expenditures for projects that add capacity to the
system reflect the cost of growth over these six years, totaling
approximately $270,666,000.
The Montgomery County Round 7.0 Cooperative Forecast provides

estimates for the growth in households through 2030. Using these
estimates, the number of households to be constructed through 2012
totals 27,000. Of these 27,000 housing units, 8,100 are expected to be
single-family units and 18,900, multi-family units. MCPS calculates student
generation rates by type of household. These generation rates are applied
to the number of expected single and multi-family units. Approximately
7,934 new students will be enrolling in the Montgomery County School
system during 2007-2012 as a result of new development. The cost per
housing unit by type would be approximately:
$ 20,298 single-family detached

For single-family detached homes, 0.595 students per unit are generated.
This translates into a household cost of $20,298 for households living in
single-family detached units. The generation rates for single-family
attached, multi-family garden and high-rise units are 0.440, 0.282, and
0.114 respectively.
• An alternate way to calculate future school costs is to base the costs on

growth and school construction costs forecasted to 2030. The total
household growth forecast between 2007 and 2030 is 94,300. Assuming
that approximately one-third of the units will be single-family attached and
detached units and two-thirds will be multi-family, this growth in
households could generate 27,185 students.
188
In preparation of the biennial CIP, MCPS maintains data on the standards
for school construction, such as the recommended size (student capacity)
and market cost of building school facilities. Using these figures, the
forecasted growth in student population from new development will
generate the following number of elementary, middle and high school
students. The number of additional schools needed to serve these
students is also shown.
Elementary Middle High

Students generated by school type 13,670 6,758 6,767
Number of schools needed 18.5 6.8 3.4
Using current construction costs and proportioning the costs per housing
type, costs would be approximately:
$23,020 single-family detached

$17,023 single-family attached
$10,910 multi-family non high-rise
One drawback to this method is that it doesn’t factor in students graduating out of
the school system over the 25-year time horizon. This leads to a slight over
estimation of the number of schools generated by student growth through 2030.
In spite of the different time horizons, the estimated costs of school growth
associated with new development produced by the above calculations are quite
similar. Any one of these methods provides a realistic representation of the costs
of school construction and expansion generated by new development. The first
method does not incorporate forecasted growth figures, through 2012 or 2030. It
is the closest approximation to the marginal cost of an additional dwelling unit in
2006 dollars.
As noted above, in 2003 when school impact taxes were introduced, the cost per
household for building new schools was estimated to be $10,300. The rate
established in 2003 ($8,000) was less than the calculated cost. Subsequently,
the Council passed legislation allowing for biennial updates to the current impact
tax schedule to reflect changes in the cost of living. If the Council does not take
action to change the current school impact tax schedule, the rates that will
become effective in July 2007 are approximately:

* For single-family units there is a surcharge of $1 per square foot of gross floor area above
4,500 square feet to a maximum of $8,500 square feet (gross floor area includes basement)
189
Short Term School Impact Tax Recommendation
In light of the above cost calculations, a simple cost of living adjustment to the
current taxes would not appear to represent the true cost of providing sufficient
school infrastructure to support growth in Montgomery County. The Planning
Department staff recommends that the County adopt the approach that school
impact tax rates reflect the full cost of infrastructure. Our suggested schedule of
tax rates to accomplish that approach is the following:

* For single-family units there is a surcharge of $1 per square foot of gross floor area above
4,500 square feet to a maximum of $8,500 square feet (gross floor area includes basement)
This impact tax rate schedule more accurately reflects the cost of school
construction and expansion associated with new development. In comparison to
the current fee, revenue generated from this tax will fund school buildings and
additions in a more timely fashion.
Recordation Tax
The development impact tax for schools is a mechanism designed to have new
development pay for the infrastructure it requires. The recordation tax is a tax
applied to new housing sales, resales, and the recordation of other transactions
involving housing. A portion of the revenue from the recordation tax funds school
improvements, modernizations and additions. (Currently $2.50 of the $6.90 per
$1,000 is dedicated to Montgomery County Schools and Montgomery College).
The recordation tax has been a more consistent generator of revenue for schools
than the school impact taxes. In 2006 the recordation tax generated $44,860,925
and $142 million in revenue has been collected from the recordation tax for 2003-
2006, approximately $35 million per year for schools.
As the County continues to grow, some of the change that will occur will simply
be changes in population characteristics within existing neighborhoods. As
certain neighborhoods “age”, older residents will move out, younger ones in, and
the school age population within the neighborhood will increase – without new
development. For this source of school enrollment change, the revenue captured
by a recordation tax appears appropriate to fund school improvements
necessitated by the increased pressure on existing infrastructure.
190
The 2005 Census Update Survey found that those who have moved within the
past 5 years, either into the County or within the County, have an average of 0.78
children, while those who did not move had an average of 0.62.1 Thus, 25.9%
more children are generated by households moving within, and into the County
than by those households who have stayed in the same house more than 5
years. In 2006, 89% of all housing sales were resales of existing homes. These
resales can be thought of as turnover of the housing stock. Turnover, like new
development, places a burden on school infrastructure, requiring accelerated
modernization or additions to existing schools. The marginal costs associated
with housing turnover are approximately 25.9% of that for new construction. For
a single-family detached home, 25.9% of the marginal costs would equal $5,887.
Given the recordation fee is based on home value and not a set fee, to determine
what the recordation fee would need to be to produce $5,887, median home
value can be used as a proxy. The median price of the 8,017 single-family
detached houses sold last year (new and resale) was $575,000. For the average
priced home to contribute its marginal cost for school facilities, the school portion
of the recordation fee on home sales needs to equal $11.21. Basically, for a
home value of $575,000, an $11.21 school recordation fee will generate $5,887
to cover that household’s estimated share of school maintenance and capacity.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the rate of $11.20 be applied, with the total
amount collected dedicated to schools.
As a point of reference, most (13) Maryland jurisdictions currently levy higher

recordation tax rates than Montgomery’s current rate: Baltimore City, Calvert,
Caroline, Carroll, Charles, Dorchester, and Frederick counties charge $10 per
$1,000, Cecil County charges $8.20, St. Mary’s County, $8.00, Washington
County, $7.60, and Anne Arundel, Garrett, and Wicomico counties charge $7.00.
Short Term Recordation Tax Recommendation
Planning staff suggests increasing the recordation tax to $11.20 per thousand to
fund the renovation and added capacity needs associated with turnover.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact Taxes
Transportation impact taxes remain a valuable tool to equitably distribute

transportation infrastructure costs among stakeholders. Substantial changes to
the transportation impact rate structure could be used to raise additional
revenues and support a variety of land use policies while retaining or improving
equity.
1
Note that this is different from the “Student Generation Factor” in that includes all children 18 and under,
not just school age children.
191
The motivation for changes to the transportation tax structure is based on the
goal for the new development to pay more of the full cost of transportation
infrastructure and reflects a refinement of the independent variables and rates to
both better estimate future capital costs and apportion them to available growth.
The revised transportation impact tax schedule incorporates the overall degree of
financing appropriate considering current information on development costs and
impacts, and the relative impact of different types of development on the
transportation system.
More specifically, the County’s Adopted 07-12 Capital Budget includes $493.8M
for transportation projects, or 18.5% of the total (excluding WSSC). Of this
amount, $229.0M is estimated to be for transportation system capacity expansion
projects in the region’s Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) (attachment 1).
Another $54.7M is for projects that are not in the FY 2007-2012 Transportation
Improvement Program of the CLRP but could arguably be considered capacity
expansion. It appears that over half of the local transportation budget is for
operations and maintenance as compared to system expansion. The $283.7M
budgeted over the next six years equals an average annual expenditure of
$47.3M.
The 2007-2030 CLRP contains total expenditures for Montgomery County of

approximately $7.4B, of which only $2.6B is for CLRP-type capital expenditures.2
About $3.8B is for operations and maintenance, the remainder is for system
preservation or other types of projects. From a regional perspective, therefore,
only about a third of the transportation budget in Montgomery County is for
system expansion.
The local agency costs in the CLRP are heavily front-loaded, however. All of the
projects that are both in the CLRP TIP and the CIP are assumed to be completed
in a six-year timeframe. Experience indicates that in subsequent years,
additional local projects will be added to the TIP as they come online through the
Facility Planning process. Therefore, the 25-year cost of facility expansion
projects in the CIP is estimated at $47.3M per year for 25 years, or a total of
$1,182B.
http://www.mwcog.org/regionaltransportationplan/documents/Draft_Final_Financial_Analysis_rep
ort_9_06.pdf, Table A.2
192
Table 3.1. Derivation of Recommended Transportation Impact Tax Rates
Single-family Multi-family Other

Office Retail Industrial
residential residential commercial
A. Forecast growth,
26,645 DU 67,655 DU 119,533 jobs 18,232 jobs 12,208 jobs 20,027 jobs
2005-2030
B. Square footage of
29,883,250 7,292,800 5,493,600 10,013,500
commercial space
C. Vehicle trip generation 9.57 6.72 3.30 21.47 2.77 2.77
rates per DU per DU per job per KGSF3 per job per job
D. Daily vehicle trip ends by
254,993 454,642 394,459 156,577 33,816 55,475
land use type
E. Percentage of total daily
18.9% 33.7% 29.2% 11.6% 2.5% 4.1%
vehicle trip ends
F. Proportional allocation of
$1,182M estimated local
$223M $398M $345M $137M $30M $49M
capital cost for facility
expansion, 2005-2030
G. Resultant unit impact tax $8,380 $5,884 $11.56 $18.80 $5.39 $4.85
rates per DU per DU per GSF per GSF per GSF per GSF
3
Assumes a 50% pass-by trip percentage
193
Short Term Transportation Recommendation
Recover County portion of CLRP projects over 25-year timeframe
A starting point for the recommended comprehensive transportation impact tax

rate study is described below and shown in Table 3.1. This proposal uses the
relative trip generation rates from various land uses to proportionally allocate the
estimated $1,182B cost of the 25-year County program of transportation system
improvements according to the relative trip generation of each type of land use.
Table 1 shows the following information:
• Line A shows the Round 7.0 forecast demographic growth

• Line B converts the projected job growth to estimated building square
footage
• Line C shows the vehicle trip rates assumed for this exercise
• Line D shows the total vehicle trip ends (Line C times Line A or Line B as
appropriate)
• Line E shows the proportion of vehicle trip ends within all categories (each
cell in Line D divided by the sum of all cells in Line D)
• Line F shows the distribution of capital costs apportioned to each land use
type ($1.182B times Line E)
• Line G shows the resulting per-unit Transportation Impact Tax rates
For the short term, staff has applied the general findings in Table 1 to develop a
recommendation for amending the impact tax rate structure that could be
implemented in 2007 by Council resolution.
Table 3.2 presents the recommended transportation impact tax rates, developed
using the process described below. The following rates from Table 1 were
inserted into the general category of Table 2 as follows:
• The single family residential rate ($8,380/DU) as single-family detached,

• The multi-family residential rate ($5,884/DU) as multi-family non-high rise,
• The square footage rates for office ($11.56), industrial ($5.39), retail
($18.80), and other non-residential ($4.85) were used directly (with
rounding to the nearest five cents)
Each of the other values in Table3. 2 were based on applying the categorical
ratios (for types of land use and geographic areas) in the current rate structure to
the six values described above. For instance, the current tax rate for a single-
family attached house in Clarksburg ($7,142) is 22.7% higher than that for a
single-family detached house in the general category ($5,819), so the
recommended tax rate for a single-family attached house in Clarksburg ($10,286)
is also 22.7% higher than the recommended tax rate for a single-family attached
194
house in the general category ($8,380). The recommended rates for houses of
worship and private schools are based on the “other non-residential” category.
Consideration of Exemptions
Staff considered several means for balancing the theoretical purity of trip
generation, the precision of available data, and the value of considering
exemptions for desirable land uses that achieve a variety of public policy goals.
The derivation of short-term transportation impact tax recommendations in the
April 30 Staff Draft report assumed that certain uses would be exempt, most
significantly some levels of affordable and workforce housing and government
employment. The April 30 recommendations reallocated the “cost” of those trips
proportionately across all other land uses. Based on further review and
discussions, the Planning Board supported a revised staff recommendation to:
• first, identify the tax rates that would occur without any exemptions, and
• second, consider exempting individual land uses from paying the
established taxes.
This revised process is “purer” from a technical standpoint in that the relative cost
of vehicle travel is identified first, prior to the consideration of whether the
transportation impacts should be exempted from a tax because the land use
achieves another public policy goal such as providing affordable housing or
emergency medical care.
The Planning Board recommends that affordable housing units continue to be

exempt from transportation impact taxes. The Planning Board also recommends
retaining the current exemption for hospitals, on the grounds that emergency
medical care services are more a necessary community facility required for
quality of life than a private enterprise. However, the Planning Board finds that
bioscience facilities do not provide a similar common good to the community and
therefore the current exemption should be repealed. Table 2 removes the line-
item for bioscience facilities from the recommended tax rate structure. As
bioscience facilities typically tend to be a mix of office and industrial space, the
transportation impact tax for such uses should be calculated based on the square
footage of contributing uses, similar the procedure applied to other mixed-use
structures.
In terms of considering affordable housing and buildings housing government

offices, one way of thinking about the rates in Table 2 is that these are the rates
that should be charged to all development in the County based on the
proportional impact to the transportation system. When a use is determined to
be tax-exempt for any reason, the County should, in essence, pay itself the
impact tax and consider that payment as a cost of the broader public policy goal
achieved by the tax exemption.
195
In summary, the recommended rates in Table 2 reflect a synthesis of
considerations from three sources:
• The decisions regarding relative geographic and land use impacts

established as County policy in our current tax rate structure,
• The establishment of higher rates for all categories of uses, based on the
readily available projections of marginal capacity needed to accommodate
growth, and
• Consideration of specific exemptions for certain land uses in the current
tax rate structure.
In general, this exercise demonstrates that overall, transportation impact tax

rates should be significantly higher than current rates, generally by a factor of
two. Retail rates in particular, should be increased by a factor of four if they are
to account for their proportional impact on vehicle trip generation. The study
described in the Long Term Transportation Recommendations discussion below
would provides a opportunity for further analysis and consensus building
regarding the second and third bullets above.
The current tax schedule for transportation will expire on June 30, 2007. If the
Council takes no action to revise the current rates, an automatic increase to
reflect an increase in the cost of living will be applied to the current rates. Table 3
shows the currents rates with a 7.64% increase due to inflation.
196
Table 3.2. Application of Table 1 to Current Rate Structure
CURRENT RATES (THROUGH 6/30/07)

Office $5.30 $2.65 $6.35
Industrial $2.65 $1.30 $3.15
Bioscience facility $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Retail $4.75 $2.40 $5.70
Hospital $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
PROPOSED RATES


Office $11.55 $5.80 $13.90
Industrial $5.40 $2.65 $6.40
Retail $18.80 $9.50 $22.55
Hospital $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
197
Table 3. CPI Escalation
CURRENT RATES (THROUGH 6/30/07)

Office $5.30 $2.65 $6.35
Industrial $2.65 $1.30 $3.15
Retail $4.75 $2.40 $5.70
Hospital $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ESCALATED RATES 7.64% CPI adjustment


Office $5.70 $2.85 $6.85
Industrial $2.85 $1.40 $3.40
Retail $5.10 $2.60 $6.15
Hospital $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
198
Long Term Transportation Recommendations
Planning staff notes that the impact tax rate structure suggested above is based
on some relatively simple, but valid, assumptions and calculations. The County
Council may wish to have a more sophisticated analysis conducted to support
additional changes to the transportation impact tax structure. If the Council were
to request a comprehensive transportation impact tax rate study, Planning staff
suggests that the study accomplish the following objectives:
• Consider a time horizon based on the regional Constrained Long Range
Plan (CLRP) assumptions for development and funded transportation
capital projects that increase transportation system capacity.
• Establish a figure for total anticipated revenue based on the expected
County expenditures toward both those projects in the CLRP as well as a
factor that reflects both the County expenditure on capital projects that
increase system capacity but that are “below the radar” of the CLRP, as
well as an estimate of projects likely to be added to the CLRP in the out
years.
• Distribute the total construction costs among forecasted land use growth
based on the relative amount of vehicle trips generated by each land use
type.
• Explicitly incorporate estimates of the amount of revenue lost due to both
exemptions for desirable land uses such as affordable housing as well as
credits for developer-constructed infrastructure. Re-examine the extent to
which developer-constructed infrastructure is credited against the impact
tax.
• Consider revising the current relationship between transportation impact
tax revenues and the amounts and deadlines applied to the appropriation
of public funds.
The process provided in Table 1 could be the subject of further examination,

perhaps in a consultant study, to address the following:
• Consideration of using vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) rather than vehicle-
trips, as a better measure of transportation system impact
• Disaggregation of the land use categories to the extent feasible in the
forecasting process. In particular, office and retail categories should be
disaggregated.
• Elimination of the credit for providing most LATR study off-site
improvements. If an applicant provides an improvement in the then-
current CLRP, that improvement should be credited. Further, if an
applicant dedicates property for a master planned roadway that would
otherwise not be required due to the lack of a rational nexus, such
dedication should also be credited.
199
• Consideration of a different geographical structure to which this system
could be applied.
• Consideration of incorporating forecast escalation in transportation system
construction costs (relative to total inflation) due to increasing global
demand for products such as steel.
• Examination of legislative changes that would be required. For instance,
the Council must change the County law to change the definition of
categories for which the transportation impact tax is to be charged. Staff
has intended that this effort not require changes to state enabling
legislation, but further research would be needed to confirm whether this
proposal, or a slightly different proposal developed during the next year,
required any changes to state legislation.
• Providing sufficient time to consider comments from all stakeholders
during the study process.
In addition, future impact taxes could be based on an estimate of growth and

transportation system needs through the most distant horizon year in the
MWCOG Cooperative Forecasting arena, currently 2030. This long-range,
regional approach affords us several advantages:
• The impact tax structure can be revised on a regular, periodic basis to
reflect demographic, transportation system, or funding changes that occur
on the regional level.
• A long-range perspective means that substantial changes to the six-year
capital program (such as the initiation or close-out of a project like
Montrose Parkway) would be buffered during the periodic reconsideration
of impact taxes.
• A finite horizon year (rather than a master plan horizon) means that
changes in land use, zoning, or master planned transportation
infrastructure can be coordinated regionally and that the effects of
improved information (such as our residential capacity estimate of 2005)
are buffered.
Long-term General Infrastructure Financing Recommendations
The Planning Department has identified several initiatives that the County could
take to improve its ability to finance needed infrastructure in a timely fashion.
First, a review and analysis of the structure and methodology of impact taxes
may be warranted. Planning staff’s long term transportation impact tax
recommendations identified issues that can be explored further. Staff also
suggests that there is potential benefit in examining the merit of collecting
200
schools taxes and/or some type of tax for affordable housing on some kinds of
non-residential land uses.
Currently, taxes are based on housing type: single-family detached, single-family

attached, multi-family and garden apartment. Basing the school impact taxes on
residential square footage may be more appropriate, for example new large
townhouses may be more attractive to families than older smaller townhouses.
Additionally, residential construction in the County is changing with innovative
housing types (two-over-two townhouses, piggyback townhouses) that may have
differing student generation factors.
Additional study could also look at applying impact taxes for more than schools
and transportation. To do this, a fiscal analysis of the costs of growth would be
prepared that includes the costs of other facilities and services such as libraries,
parks and recreation facilities. As mentioned before, the recordation tax could be
used to provide funding for capital costs for more than schools.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts and development districts were both
considered as funding mechanisms for costs associated with growth. The classic
application of TIFs is to stimulate economic development in blighted urban areas.
Development districts usually impose a property tax surcharge on new
development to pay off public bonds that financed growth-related infrastructure.
Application of development districts saves the general taxpayer money, but shifts
costs to new residents in a way that impact taxes do not. Where development
districts are the best alternative, it may be useful to explore requiring
developer(s) to pursue private bonding, which may streamline the timing and
creation of the district. Planning staff believes that special taxing districts remain
a useful tool, especially to finance facilities that have benefits that are
geographically limited, and when everyone who benefits from the facility is taxed
in proportion to the benefit received.
As Montgomery County moves towards build out,4 there are several anticipatory
infrastructure analyses that its local government can perform. One analysis
would determine the amount of infrastructure needed at the time of build out.
This could be a long-range capital facilities plan and would reflect the
infrastructure and other facilities and services that will be needed to support
County residents by the time most of the planned development has occurred. A
second, related analysis would establish a relationship between the expected
long-term pace at which the private sector builds out the development in the
master plan and the pace at which the public sector provides the infrastructure
needed to support that growth. A long-term capital facilities plan tied explicitly to
growth projections would find utility when considering the growth policy, capital
improvements programming, and infrastructure financing.
4
Acknowledging that build out is a theoretical concept similar to the asymptote: a destination to
which one may move ever-closer but one never reaches.
201
The County should also consider ways to monitor the actual delivery of
infrastructure. Individual master plans make development recommendations that
must be supported by construction of “bricks and mortar”—improved roads, new
or rebuilt schools, new libraries, bigger fire stations. These projects—thousands
of them—go into the Capital Improvement Program, but the CIP doesn’t indicate
when a specific project should be finished so that it can support recommended
development or redevelopment in its area. In the APFO Reform report, Planning
staff recommends that the Growth Policy include master plan status reports and
other analysis to review how well infrastructure is meeting the evolving needs of
existing communities as well as the increased demands brought by new
development.
Options for Phasing In Impact Tax Rate Increases
The phasing-in of the increases in impact tax rates may be warranted. Of the
options below, Option 3, a medium phase in, is recommended.
Phasing Background
• In 2003, new rates were adopted in late October and imposed in early
March. There was a run-up in permits just prior to the effective date of the
new rates.
• In 2003, some specific multi-family projects made an appeal and were
granted a grandfather provision, so they were not subject to the new rates.
• The goal is to develop a phasing schedule that limits the effect of the fees
in market behavior, such as a run-up in permit activity, or harming those
development projects that may have little financial latitude to absorb new
costs.
• A healthy development market provides developers with a greater ability
to absorb cost increases. The most recent housing price data show new
home sales are down in number but home prices are increasing. New
single-family homes were still experiencing double-digit price increase in
the fourth quarter of 2006; new townhouses were increasing at about 4
percent annually. At a recent ULI conference, regional experts stated that
they expect the housing market to rebound by the end of 2007. In the
office market, rents are increasing, albeit slowly, and vacancy rates are
healthy. Office construction is now being spurred as much by the
building’s sales potential as by demand for leased space.
• The Council may not take up impact taxes until the fall. If so, this provides
the market with additional notice that increases may be coming.
202
Option 1: No phasing. This assumes that development projects have some
latitude to absorb new costs, that the tax increases – while large – are
absorbable.
Option 2: Rapid Phase-in. This assumes that the projects that are ready to move
forward very soon are those that would be the most affected by the rate
increases, but can absorb some increase now.
• Impose 50 percent of the increase within 3 months.
• Impose 100 percent of the increase 6 months.
Option 3: Medium Phase-in. This assumes that near-term projects are especially
cost-sensitive, but that the most cost-sensitive projects can move forward fairly
soon.
Option 4: Slow Phase-In. This assumes that the main problem to avoid is
imposing unanticipated costs on development, and that the resulting revenue lost
is acceptable.
• Impose 25 percent of the increase in 6 months
• Impose 75 percent in one year.
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Direction from the County Council
At the March 12th PHED Committee meeting, the committee requested several
items to be included in the April 15th Interim Report. The items pertaining to the
Infrastructure Financing section of this report include: a history of impact
taxes/taxes in Montgomery County including a calculation of the tax to home
value ratio for the County and for other local jurisdictions, a summary of the
changes in demographics and growth within the County, and an investigation into
current changes in legislation at the state level that impact growth policy.
History of Impact Taxes in Maryland and Montgomery County
In order to impose a development impact tax or an excise tax in a Maryland

jurisdiction, that jurisdiction must have explicit authority from the state’s General
Assembly to do so. Sixteen Maryland counties, listed on the accompanying
203
table, impose either a development impact tax or an excise tax. These charges
support public school construction, transportation, parks and recreation projects,
utilities and public safety.
Jurisdictions imposing a development excise tax may set the tax amount at any
reasonable level, and a connection, or nexus, between where the money is
collected and where it is spent is not necessary. The General Assembly can
authorize the amount of the tax and specify activities on which the tax can be
imposed.
Impact taxes are more complex. Jurisdictions must study the impact of the taxes
on public services and establish a connection between the amount of the tax and
the new development’s impact. They must also collect and spend the impact
taxes in the same place.
Montgomery County and Impact Taxes
Montgomery County established an impact tax structure in 1986 for Germantown

and Eastern Montgomery County. The Council and the Executive opted for this
structure because they believed it could be imposed without state enabling
legislation. The taxes applied to all development projects except those
undertaken by the government, but could be used only for specific transportation
projects. The elected officials planned to issue bonds to pay for the projects,
then use the impact tax proceeds to pay a portion of the bond debt. They
believed that existing residents would benefit from new transportation facilities
along with new residents, so impact taxes charged as part of development
should not represent the entire cost of the new facility. In Germantown, officials
expected impact taxes to support half the cost of designated projects.
To calculate the taxes, which were assessed as building permits were approved,
county staff determined, for Eastern Montgomery County and for Germantown,
the cost of the designated transportation project and the percentage of
development in each area that was yet to occur. This fraction:
Project cost
Percentage of remaining development
allowed for the calculation of a factor used to assess the taxes on each unit of a
residential development or on the square footage of a non-residential
development. Receipts from the impact taxes totaled about $1 million a year.
The tax structure included credits against the impact taxes for improvement
projects that were required as conditions of development approvals, this reduced
impact tax receipts. The County has since updated the taxes every two years.
204
Developers who objected to the tax took the matter to court, and in 1990, the
state Court of Appeals held that Montgomery County had imposed a tax, not a
fee, on development, and that the County had no authority under state law to
impose the tax. The Council quickly re-imposed the taxes under a different
section of state law, which grants jurisdictions additional taxing powers, including
the right to impose development impact taxes. The legislation re-imposing the
taxes was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals, which found that the
taxes constituted an excise tax, which the county had the right to impose under
the law granting jurisdictions additional taxing powers.
The County continued to collect the impact taxes in Germantown and Eastern
Montgomery County until the mid-1990s, when the Council expanded the impact
taxes to Clarksburg. In 2002, the Council and the Executive expanded both the
scope of the impact tax structure and the areas to which it would be applied.
The Council approved the Executive’s proposal to expand impact taxes to the
entire County over an 18-month period. This legislation created three sets of
districts in which impact taxes would be collected: policy areas around existing
Metro stations; the Clarksburg policy area; and a general district, which included
all areas, including municipalities, not part of the other two categories. The
taxes would continue to be collected for transportation projects, but the projects
would no longer be specific. Instead, a broader range of projects, including road
projects that added capacity; transit centers or park-and-ride lots; new Ride On
buses; and transit or trip reduction programs, could be funded using impact
taxes. The taxes were lowest in Metro Station Policy Areas and highest in
Clarksburg. The taxes are adjusted every two years, based on changes in the
Consumer Price Index.
The Council also increased the rate of the County’s recordation tax and specified
that the increment of the increase would be devoted to school projects that were
part of the county’s Capital Improvements Program.
In 2003, the Council approved a separate development impact tax for schools, to
take effect in March 2004. This tax applied throughout the County to residential
development, with a specified rate for each housing type. The taxes could be
used to fund new schools or any other project that added teaching stations.
Montgomery County’s Impact Tax Structure
The development impact taxes for transportation improvements and for school
improvements are similarly structured. The laws recognize that growth must be
accommodated through improvements to the County’s transportation facilities
and its schools and find impact taxes to be a reasonable method of raising funds
for those purposes. Each program sets a specific time—the issuing of building
permits—for the collection of the fee. Each exempts Moderately Priced Dwelling
205
Units, and other dwelling units meeting standards based on affordability, from the
impact taxes. In some cases, the transportation impact tax requires money
collected to be spent where it is collected; Metro Station Policy Area funds must
be spent in the same Policy Area or an adjacent Policy Area; money collected in
Clarksburg must be spent in Clarksburg; and Rockville and Gaithersburg funds
must be spent in those cities. General district impact taxes may be spent
anywhere in the general district. The schools impact taxes may be used
anywhere in the county.
Both rate structures allow developers to apply for refunds of impact taxes if the
County has not appropriated the funds for a project within six fiscal years after
the tax has been collected. Each impact tax allows credits if the developer
constructs or contributes to a specific improvement of the type covered by the
taxes (although dedications of land for new schools do not warrant a credit).
The following tables list the transportation and school impact taxes for
Montgomery County.
206
TABLE 3.4 Rates for the Development Impact Tax for Transportation
Residential Units
Rates New Rates
(Prior to 7/01/05) (Expire 7/01/07)
General
Single-family detached $5,500 $5,819
Single-family attached $4,500 $4,761
Multi-family residential (except high-rise) $3,500 $3,703
High-rise residential $2,500 $2,645
Multi-family senior residential $1,000 $1,058
Metro Station
Multi-family senior residential $ 500 $ 529
Clarksburg
Multi-family senior residential $1,500 $1,587
Non-Residential (per square foot of gross floor area)
Rates New Rates

(Prior to 7/01/05) (Expire 7/01/07)
General
Office $5.00 $5.30
Industrial $2.50 $2.65
Bioscience facility $0.00 $0.00
Retail $4.50 $4.75
Place of worship $0.30 $0.30
Private elementary and secondary schools $0.40 $0.40
Hospital $0.00 $0.00
Other non-residential $2.50 $2.65
Metro Station
Office $2.50 $2.65
Retail $2.25 $2.40
Clarksburg
Office $6.00 $6.35
Retail $5.40 $5.70
207
TABLE 3.5
Rates for the Development Impact Tax for Schools
Residential Units
2003 Rates Current Rates

General
Multi-family senior residential $0 $0
Impact tax for single–family units is increased by $1.00 for each square foot of floor area over 4,500 sq. ft.
up to 8,500 sq. ft.
Impact Taxes in Other Jurisdictions
The PHED Committee asked for a discussion of impact taxes or similar taxes
levied by other jurisdictions, and the ability of these programs to generate
revenue. In addition, the Committee is also interested in the rate of growth and
the characteristics of development of these jurisdictions.
Nationwide, there are 213 jurisdictions that impose a transportation impact fee.
The average transportation impact tax across the nation for roads is $2,305 on a
single-family unit. On a multi-family unit the average is $1,568, on retail (per
1000 square feet) it is $4,562, on office it is $2,564, and on industrial it equals
$1,587. The ratio of impact tax to median home value may provide a better idea
of the relative expense of such a fee. Nationally, for single-family homebuyers a
transportation impact tax is on average 1.4% of the median home value. In
Montgomery County, a transportation impact tax of $5,819 on a single-family unit
represents 1.2% of the median home value.
School impact taxes, having become increasingly popular in the past decade,
can appear to be quite high. Nationally, the average school impact tax is $4,138.
This represents a 2.5% tax to home value ratio. Florida and California have the
highest number of impact tax programs in the country.
Florida has not only the highest number of jurisdictions that impose a
development impact tax for schools, but also the highest tax to home value ratio.
In Florida, the impact tax for schools can be as high as $9,981 and as low as
$196 per single-family detached unit. Yet, the county with the highest school
impact tax in Florida is not the county with the highest tax to home value ratio.
The impact tax in Polk County is over $1,000 less than the tax in Osceola, but
the tax to median house value in Polk County is 8.1%. In Osceola, the tax to
home value ratio is 4.7%. The average school impact tax for the state of Florida
is $4,456, which represents a 2.4% tax to home value ratio, practically equal to
the national average.
208
California has the second highest number of school impact tax programs. But,
the state legislature limits the rate of increase in these taxes. In California the
range in tax to home value ratio is only 0.3% to 2.1%.
Closer to the Washington region, Richmond, Virginia imposes a school impact

tax of $2,828, which equals 1.9% of the median home value. In Jefferson County,
West Virginia a $9,877 school impact tax represents 6.6% of the median home
value.
Locally, several Maryland counties impose school impact taxes. Calvert County
has the lowest impact tax to home value ratio. In Calvert County, a $3,000 school
impact tax represents .9% of the median home value. In Prince George’s County,
an impact tax of $12,000 represents 4.4% of the median home value. While in
Montgomery County, an impact tax of $8,464 represents 1.8% of the median
home value. Montgomery County falls below 5 other counties within the State in
terms of the relative expense of its school impact fee. Only three other Maryland
counties have a tax to home value ratio below Montgomery’s.
209
Table 3.6
Ratios of School Impact Tax to Median Home Value
Owner-Occupied Housing Units1
Median Home Value2 Impact Fee3 Ratio of Fee-to-Home Value

California
Alameda County4 $531,300 $7,300 1.4%
El Dorado County $497,800 $5,008 1.0%
Kern County $210,700 $4,480 2.1%
Los Angeles5 $273,100 $800 0.3%
San Joaquin $379,600 $5,460 1.4%
Santa Barbara $646,300 $3,075 0.5%
Florida
Brevard County $193,700 $4,445 2.3%
Citrus County $127,900 $1,917 1.5%
Hillsborough $171,100 $196 0.1%
Lake County $149,000 $7,055 4.7%
Osceola County $186,900 $9,981 5.3%
Polk County $106,600 $8,596 8.1%
Seminole County $213,300 $1,384 0.6%
Volusia County $159,500 $5,744 3.6%
Maryland6
Anne Arundel $329,500 $3,587 1.1%
Calvert County $349,500 $3,000 0.9%
Carroll County $313,400 $6,303 2.0%
Charles County $290,800 $10,247 3.5%
Frederick County $336,100 $10,868 3.2%
Harford County $243,700 $7,442 3.1%
Montgomery $466,100 $8,464 1.8%
Prince George’s $273,600 $12,000 4.4%
St. Mary’s County $265,700 $3,375 1.3%
Virginia
Richmond $149,400 $2,828 1.9%
West Virginia
Jefferson County $149,500 $9,877 6.6%
1
Selected counties from California and Florida are presented, the counties with the highest and lowest school impact
taxes are shown, as well as a random sampling of other counties in those states.
2
Median House Value data is from the 2005 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
3
Impact Tax data is from the 2006 National Impact Tax Survey, Duncan and Associates.
4
Hayward City, in Alameda County, California.
5
Lancaster City, in Los Angeles County, California.
6
No housing data for Queen Anne County is provided in the 2005 American Community Survey.
210
Compared to other Maryland jurisdictions charging impact taxes, Montgomery
County’s rate represents a lower tax-to-median-house-value ratio than other
comparable jurisdictions, as noted above. For example, Prince George’s County
charges almost $5,000 more in school impact taxes for a single family house
outside the Beltway than Montgomery County charges. And, the tax-to-median-
house-value ratio for Prince George’s County is more than three times higher
than in Montgomery County. The table below illustrates the total impact
fee/excise tax imposed in each Maryland county and the revenue this tax
generates.
Table 3.7
Impact Fee/Excise Tax Rates and Revenues
Maryland
1
County Type FY 2007 Rate Per Dwelling FY 2006 Revenues
Anne Arundel Impact Fee $4,781 $11,127,876
Calvert Excise Tax 12,950 5,302,300
Caroline2 Excise Tax 5,000 966,402
Carroll Impact Fee 6,836 3,436,236
Charles Excise Tax 10,859 8,649,532
3
Dorchester Excise Tax 3,671 1,265,851
4
Frederick Both 11,595 15,064,080
Harford Impact Fee 7,442 3,400,200
Howard5 Excise Tax See note. 13,605,188
6
Montgomery Excise Tax 14,283 13,212,000
Prince George’s7 Excise Tax 19,361 43,102,486
Queen Anne’s Impact Fee 6,606 2,474,740
St. Mary’s Impact Fee 4,500 3,789,525
8
Talbot Impact Fee 5,347 1,378,430
Washington Excise Tax 13,000 7,745,961
Wicomico9 Impact Fee 5,231 96,000
Total $134,616,807
Reviewing Table 4, it becomes apparent that there is not a simple one-to-one

correspondence between fee/tax rates and revenue across the region. Although
the rates listed are generally those applicable to single-family detached
dwellings, the table is followed by eight footnotes that denote program details.
Several of the counties have a transportation fee that varies either by size of the
dwelling or by location. A few of the school fee rates vary by location as well.
1
Rates listed are generally those applicable to single-family detached dwellings.
2
A $750 development excise tax for agricultural land preservation is also imposed on single-family lots
3
A slightly higher rates applies outside of the Cambridge and Hurlock areas.
4
Roads tax ranges from $0.10/sq.ft. to $0.25/sq.ft.
5
Roads tax is $0.80/sq.ft. School surcharge is $1.07/sq.ft.
6
Excise tax is $5,819 for transportation and $8,464 for schools. School rate increases by $1 for each square foot between
4,500-8,500 gross square feet. Transportation rates vary for Metro Stations and Clarksburg.
7
Excise tax is $13,151 for schools and $6,210 for public safety. School rate is $7,671 inside the beltway, public safety
rate drops to $2,070 inside the “development tier”.
8
A lower rate, $4,620, applies to “in-town” development.
9
Approximate revenue figure. Impact tax in effect for less than 1 month at the end of fiscal 2006.
Source: State of Maryland Department of Legislative Services
211
This variation in rates and mode of application has a significant effect on revenue
generation. Montgomery County imposes a combined impact tax rate that is 75%
of the amount charged per dwelling unit in Prince George’s County. Yet, Prince
George’s County raised almost four times more revenue from its taxes in 2006.
In Anne Arundel County, the tax is only about 50% of the tax charged in
Montgomery County, but the revenue collected there is almost 85% Montgomery
County’s revenue.
In Montgomery County, the school impact tax does not vary by location, but
across dwelling types. Townhouse and multi-family units are charged a
significantly lower rate than single-family detached units. Table 5 shows the
construction of new housing units in several Maryland counties. Montgomery
County built the most units overall, with Prince George’s County not too far
behind. The striking difference between these two counties is that Montgomery
County built the most multi-family units by far, more than 17 times the number of
units built in Prince George’s County. Prince George’s County, in contrast, built
the most single-family units overall, almost three times as many units as any of
the other counties. In addition, in Prince George’s County, the school impact tax
is the same across all housing types. Therefore, the level of construction as well
as the rate and application of the taxes all contributed to the revenue generating
capacity of the various impact tax programs.
Additionally relevant is the regional housing market. Not only which jurisdictions
are building what type of unit and how many but also the market prices. To
compare the regional housing market, we looked at housing sales and
construction in the Maryland portion of the Washington region: Anne Arundel,
Frederick, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s Counties, (Table 6). The 2005
housing sales data5 show that while Montgomery County led this area (and state)
in total number of housing sales, Prince George’s County had more single family
sales than Montgomery County, while Montgomery County had more townhouse
and condo sales than the other jurisdictions. Sales prices in Howard County
were very close to Montgomery County prices while Anne Arundel and Frederick
County prices were similar. One reason for the large number of condo sales in
Montgomery County is that 59% of the multi-family units built in the region were
built in Montgomery County (these units could be either for sale condos or for
rent apartments. (Table 5).
5
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
212
Table 3.8
Housing Unit Growth (2000 to 2006) – Selected Maryland Counties
By County and Unit Type
New Residential Construction Permits

Existing 2000 Existing Annual
Units to + Growth
County (2000) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 New Rate
Anne Arundel
Single-Family 151,959 2,470 2,013 2,026 2,164 1,769 1,565 1,115 13,122 165,081 1.19%
Multi-Family 31,074 608 479 333 837 595 930 319 4,101 35,175 1.79%
Total Units 183,033 3,078 2,492 2,359 3,001 2,364 2,495 1,434 17,223 200,256 1.29%
Frederick
Single-Family 60,483 2,695 1,721 1,352 1,605 1,718 1,414 1,098 11,603 72,086 2.54%
Multi-Family 11,813 52 262 226 232 55 458 202 1,487 13,300 1.71%
Total Units 72,296 2,747 1,983 1,578 1,837 1,773 1,872 1,300 13,090 85,386 2.41%
Howard
Single-Family 69,313 1,631 1,327 1,341 1,010 1,284 1,340 1,040 8,973 78,286 1.75%
Multi-Family 21,664 551 - 206 469 553 438 527 2,744 24,408 1.72%
Total Units 90,977 2,182 1,327 1,547 1,479 1,837 1,778 1,567 11,717 102,694 1.75%
Montgomery
Single-Family 231,228 2,931 3,191 2,909 2,339 2,376 1,700 1,240 16,686 247,914 1.00%
Multi-Family 102,779 2,019 2,058 2,104 2,089 1,445 1,891 1,798 13,404 116,183 1.77%
Total Units 334,007 4,950 5,249 5,013 4,428 3,821 3,591 3,038 30,090 364,097 1.24%
Prince George's
Single-Family 197,254 3,179 3,049 2,485 2,808 1,875 3,255 2,918 19,569 216,823 1.36%
Multi-Family 103,551 277 - 78 130 73 170 115 843 104,394 0.12%
Total Units 300,805 3,456 3,049 2,563 2,938 1,948 3,425 3,033 20,412 321,217 0.94%
Note: Single-family units include detached single-family homes and townhouses. Multi-Family units include units in buildings with
2-, 3-, 4- and 5+ family units.
Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services.
213
Table 3.9
Housing Sales and Values – Selected Maryland Counties (2005)
By County and Unit Type
Median Sales Price* Residential Sales* Median Housing Value**

Anne Arundel County
All Residential Units $319,308 12,490 $329,500
Single-family n/a 11,547
Detached Single-family $370,000 7,300
Townhouse $275,000 4,247
Condo $244,450 920
Howard County
Townhouse $326,600 2,416
Condo $231,070 797
Frederick County
Townhouse $275,000 2,404
Condo $211,615 553
Montgomery County
Townhouse $347,000 6,353
Condo $275,000 4,823
Prince George's County

Townhouse $246,000 4,071
Condo $157,000 2,755
* Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services. Mobile homes and unclassified residential units
removed.
** Owner-occupied units. Source: U.S. Census, 2005 American Community Survey.
214
Changes in Demographics and Growth Within the County
New Residents to Montgomery County
One out of 5, or approximately 72,000 households, moved into Montgomery

County between 2000 and 2005. The majority of newcomers (59%) are from
outside the Washington metropolitan region and the remainder, in about equal
numbers, hail from elsewhere in Maryland or from the District of Columbia and
Northern Virginia areas.
In-movers
More than half from outs ide the area
Percent New Residents
70%
1987
56% 56 % 59
60% %
1997
50%
2005
40%
30%
21%
20% 18 % 19 % 17 %
13 % 13 %
9 % 10 10
% %
10%
0%
Outside the DC & No Va Prince Elsewhere in
Area George's MD
County
R esearch & Technology C enter S ource: MNC P P C 2005 C ens us Update S urvey
Most of the new households, 37%, choose garden apartments as their first
residence with single-family detached houses the second favorite option at 28%.
The majority of households new to the area (55%) rent their first home and are
twice as likely to rent their dwelling than the County’s households overall (26%).
The 2004 median household income of the new resident households at $72,035
is about $12,000 below the median for the County ($83,880). This difference may
be attributed to the relative youthfulness of the in-comers who have not entered
the prime wage earning years of ages 45 and older. The average new
householder age is 40 years old compared to 51 across the County.New
Residents to Montgomery County
215
In-movers by hous eholder age
Over 70% of in-movers are under 45
25%
20.1%
20%
15.5% 15.5% 15.5%
15%
10% 8.8%
6.6%
5.1% 5.0%
5% 2.5% 3.3%
1.4% 0.9%
0%
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75 &
OVER
Approximately 181,000 people, or 20% of the population, are new Montgomery

County residents since 2000. Moving, for the most part is an occupation of the
young, as the propensity to move decreases with age. This is illustrated in the
accompanying chart detailing the age ranges of the in-mover head of household.
In the total in-mover population, more than one-third of the newcomers range in
ages between 30 and 44 and many are in families bringing toddlers and school
age children (respectively, 11% and 17% of the in-movers). Less than 4% of the
in-movers are ages 65 and older.
2004 hous ehold income

Youthful in-movers yet to enter prime
wage earning years
Percent of Households
25%
20% 21%
19% 19% 19%
20%
15% 15% 16%
15%
11%
9%
10% 7% 8% 7% 6%
4% 4%
5%
0%
Less $15k to $30k to $50k to $70k to $100k $150k $200k+
than $29k $49k $69k $99k to to
$15k $149k $199k
County New Residents
Montgomery County grew increasingly racially diverse during the 1990s and this
trend continues into this decade. Of the new residents, 20% are Black or African
American, 17% are Hispanic/Latino, and 15% are Asian or Pacific Islander.
216
These percentages are only slightly higher than what characterizes the County
overall (17%, 14%, and 13%, respectively). The new foreign-born residents (and
new residents in general) are usually highly educated with 72% of foreign-born
adults ages 25 and older having a Bachelor’s, Graduate, or Doctoral degree. The
2004 median income for the foreign-born, in-movers is $67,400 compared to
$83,880 for the County.
Montgomery County Round 7.0 2005 and 2030 Forecasts

by Master Plan Areas
Jobs
In 2005, there were 500,000 jobs in the County. Almost 70 percent of these jobs
were in two planning areas, about 37 percent in the I-270 Corridor and about 32
percent in Bethesda Chevy Chase/North Bethesda.
By 2030 the County’s jobs are expected to reach 670,000, an increase of 34

percent or 170,000 jobs compared to 2005. The I-270 Corridor will have 60
percent of this growth, 102,000 jobs. The Bethesda Chevy Chase/North
Bethesda Planning Area ranks second with 21 percent of the County’s job
growth, almost 36,000 jobs. These two areas are projected to have 81 percent of
the County’s job growth.
217
The following maps show jobs per acre in 2030 and as suggested in the
Transportation Policy Report.
218
Households
The County’s households are not as concentrated as the County’s jobs. In 2005,
the I-270 Corridor had about 102,000 of the County’s 347,000 households, about
29 percent. The Georgia Avenue planning area ranks second with almost 23
percent of the County’s households.
219
Forecasts show the County’s households increasing to 441,300 by 2030, an
increase of 27 percent or 94,300 households. Most of the County’s household
growth, 68 percent, will be in the same two areas that will lead in job growth. The
I-270 Corridor ranks first with 46 percent of the County’s household growth,
43,500 households. Bethesda Chevy Chase/North Bethesda ranks second with
22 percent of the County’s household growth, 21,000 households.
220
Table 3.10
Round 7.0 Cooperative Household Forecast

Montgomery County, MD
Household Growth by Unit Type (2000 to 2030)
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Single-Family 226,737 239,321 247,525 256,385 262,610 264,935 265,966
Multi-Family 97,828 107,679 122,475 133,615 145,290 159,865 175,334
Total Households 324,565 347,000 370,000 390,000 407,900 424,800 441,300
New Households by Unit Type
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2000 to 2030

Single-Family - 12,584 8,204 8,860 6,225 2,325 1,031 39,229
Multi-Family - 9,851 14,796 11,140 11,675 14,575 15,469 77,506
Total New Households - 22,435 23,000 20,000 17,900 16,900 16,500 116,735
Share of New Households by Unit Type
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2000 to 2030

Single-Family - 56% 36% 44% 35% 14% 6% 33.6%
Multi-Family - 44% 64% 56% 65% 86% 94% 66.4%
Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, Research and Technology Center, July 2005.
221
Population
The household population forecasts mirror the household forecasts. The I-270
Corridor and Bethesda Chevy Chase/North Bethesda areas are expected to have
most of the County’s population growth.
Jobs Housing Ratio
A jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.5 to 1.6 jobs per household is considered balanced.

In 2005, the County’s jobs-to-housing ratio was 1.44 indicating that the County is
slightly imbalanced toward housing. None of the master planning areas have a
balanced jobs-to-housing ratio. The Bethesda Chevy Chase/North Bethesda and
I-270 Corridor are the County’s employment areas with jobs housing ratios of
2.76 and 1.84 respectively. Silver Spring/Takoma Park’s 1.32 jobs-to-housing
ratio is close to balanced but is more housing oriented. Potomac, Georgia
Avenue, and Eastern County all have jobs-to-housing ratios less than 1 indicating
that these areas are serving as a labor force pool for the I-270 Corridor and
Bethesda Chevy Chase/North Bethesda employment areas as well as
employment areas in other jurisdictions.
Between 2005 and 2030, job growth is projected to exceed household growth
enough so that that the County’s jobs-to-housing ratio will be 1.52, a better
balance between jobs and housing. In 2030, none of the areas have a balanced
jobs-to-housing ratio. Bethesda Chevy Chase/North Bethesda and the I-270
Corridor remain the employment areas with jobs-to-housing ratios of 2.48 and
1.99 respectively. The Bethesda Chevy Chase/North Bethesda area is becoming
more balanced, its jobs-to-housing ratio dropping from 2.76 in 2005 to 2.48 in
2030. The I-270 Corridor is expected to become slightly more job oriented going
from a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.84 in 2005 to 1.99 in 2030. The other areas
remain predominately housing areas but in 2030, Eastern County’s ratio exceeds
1 indicating it will become more of a job center.
Examining jobs-to-housing ratios based on the forecast growth between 2005

and 2030 shows that the County’s jobs-to-housing ratio is 1.80. Eastern County
and the I-270 Corridor will be adding far more jobs than housing. The Eastern
County’s is forecast to add 5 times more jobs than households, a jobs-to-housing
ratio of 5.11. Much of this expected job growth is due to the Food and Drug
Administration’s consolidation in White Oak and the proposed Technology Park
near Calverton. The I-270 Corridor is forecast to add more than twice as many
jobs as households, a jobs-to-housing ratio of 2.34. In the northern areas of the
I-270 Corridor; Gaithersburg, Germantown, and Clarksburg; housing growth has
exceeded employment growth. The 2005 to 2030 forecast expects job growth to
catch up to the housing that has already been built in these areas.
222
Possible Changes in Legislation that Impact Growth Policy
House Bill 1220 – The Chesapeake and Coastal Bays Green Fund
House Bill 1220, creating a Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Green Fund,
is currently under consideration in the 2007 Maryland State legislative session.
The Fund is intended to ensure that the State can, and will, meet its
commitments to reduce pollution to the State’s rivers, streams, and the Bay, by
funding essential Tributary Strategy practices. This bill would establish the Fund
and prohibit local governments from granting specified permits for new
development until an impervious surface tax is paid. All new impervious surfaces
will be subject to the fee, with exemptions for specified projects. Local
jurisdictions will be required to collect the tax, based on the imperviousness
associated with building permit requests. The bill will require the Comptroller to
distribute the Fund to specified units of State government and the Chesapeake
Bay Trust, to be made available to local governments through matching grants.
In addition, the bill would establish a Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays
Green Fund Oversight and Accountability Committee, made up of state and
nongovernmental representatives, which will establish performance benchmarks
and monitor financial and other accountability measures.
The Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Green Fund is expected to generate,
on average, about $130 million per year, providing critical funding for
implementing restoration and pollution-reduction practices within the Tributary
Strategies. It will also provide critical planning and technical assistance tools,
consistent with nutrient pollution reductions and Smart Growth policies. It is
intended to benefit all Marylanders, including, but not limited to: farmers, local
governments, conservation groups, watermen, citizens, and academic
institutions.
HB 1220 has passed the House and is now in the Senate. In its original form,
the rate of the impervious surface tax depended, according to a simple formula,
on whether new development is in a Priority Funding Area (PFA), or not. The
version that passed the House, however, is significantly more complicated in how
the tax would be assessed, and in the tax rate structure. Depending on Senate
action, it may be modified extensively yet again. Many observers at present,
however, do not expect it to pass.
Transportation Impact Tax Methodology
The transportation impact tax rate structure in Montgomery County is generally

progressive and most of the general approaches used are also used in other
urbanized areas to both raise revenues and guide growth. Some jurisdictions
have adopted innovative tools to calculate taxes based on more complex
223
modeling approaches and focus tax application to specific modal or project
initiatives.
In establishing transportation impact taxes, Montgomery County includes certain

elements in its program that are commonly used by other jurisdictions:
• The impact tax amounts are considered a pro-rata share of the cost of
needed area wide improvements, rooted in an estimate of the costs of
unbuilt roadway capacity distributed among estimated development
growth.
• Developers are typically required to address localized impacts by
providing additional transportation infrastructure and the cost of that
infrastructure is counted as a credit against their impact tax payment.
The literature review conducted to date identifies two areas, however, where
other jurisdictions are following more aggressive, or progressive, transportation
impact tax procedures:
• Many jurisdictions have established rates based on more finely grained
vehicle trip generation and or vehicle trip-length assessments, and
• Some jurisdictions have notably higher impact taxes than we do, in part
due to the fine-grained process noted in the prior bullet.
An August 2006 survey of taxes from Duncan Associates contains summary

comparisons of impact taxes for some 200 jurisdictions nationwide. While
Montgomery County’s transportation impact tax rates remain higher than the
national average, as a percentage of median home value, the rate on single-
family detached units was lower than the national average. The survey provides
a fairly simplistic comparison of rates across jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions,
including Montgomery County, have a more complex impact tax rate structure.
Some jurisdictions are shifting to more innovative means for establishing impact
tax rates. For instance, Broward County, Florida, has established a separate
Transit Oriented Concurrency (TOC) tax in eight of their ten concurrency districts,
based on a pro-rata share of implementing a five-year adopted Transit
Development Plan.
ISSUES
The Council has raised a number of interesting questions regarding the

proportion of travel in the County due to a variety of causes, including through
traffic and federal government facilities. These issues will be addressed first,
followed by additional issues affecting the current transportation impact tax
program.
224
Through Traffic
Through traffic consists of automobile trips that pass through a jurisdiction

without having either an origin or destination in that jurisdiction. They create a
quandary because these trips are beyond the reach of local growth management
and infrastructure financing programs. Prior analyses have estimated that about
one-third of the traffic entering the County is through traffic, primarily associated
with the Capital Beltway.
Regardless of the actual amount of through travel in the County, staff finds that
there is no effective way other than user taxes (such as tolls collected at the
County boundary) to reduce the impact of through traffic. Some limits have been
placed on traffic entering the County through the agricultural reserve by adopting
master plans that constrain roadway widening (limiting I-270 to six lanes at the
Frederick County line, US 29 to four lanes at the Howard County line, and all
other roadways to two lanes). Most techniques to constrain through traffic,
however, including capacity constraints and toll facilities, work equally to impede
both traffic destined to jobs or housing within the County as well as through
traffic.
Government Employment
Table 8 provides an estimate of the proportion of office employment in

Montgomery County due to federal, state, and local government. This estimate
is derived by comparing Maryland DLLR government employment data for 2006
to our Cooperative Forecast total office employment for 2005.
As indicated in Table 8, total government employment in Montgomery County

accounts for about a third of our office workforce, divided evenly between federal
and local government employees. While the combination of these two sources
may not be completely accurate, the conclusion remains that we owe a
significant portion of our economy to the government workforce.
Table 8
Government and Private Sector Employment
Montgomery County
Office Employment Type Number Percent

Federal Government 39,642 16%
State Government 1,006 <1%
Local Government 38,661 16%
Government Subtotal 79,309 32%
Private Sector 168,472 68%
Total Employment 247,781 100%
The 2006 Economic Forces report estimates that the projected growth rate in
employment (both federal and civilian contractors) at Montgomery County federal
facilities from 2006 to 2020 is 18%. Our estimate of total county employment for
225
the period 2005 to 2020 is 23%. Thus, it appears that the proportion of
government employment will remain fairly constant over time. By 2030, the office
workforce in Montgomery County may include:
• 19,100 additional federal government employees

• 500 additional state government employees
• 18,600 additional local government employees
• 81,300 additional private-sector employees
Funding Apportionments, Impacts, and Responsibilities
Most local jurisdictions base transportation impact taxes on projected

demographic growth and the local government share of transportation system
capacity expansion. This practice is generally limited by enabling state
legislation which generally allows the assessment of an impact tax or excise tax
to cover the cost of adequate public facilities, but not to cover operating or
maintenance costs or to raise general revenues.
In the 2003 document “A New Vision for Managing Growth in Montgomery

County”, staff noted that if the total cost for providing master-planned
infrastructure in Montgomery County (then estimated at $5.9B) were divided
evenly among every new job and new dwelling unit, the cost per job and cost per
unit would be about $26,000. However, the delegation of transportation system
responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies is complex. The
consideration of how new development impact taxes in Montgomery County
might be used to subsidize federal highway system funding or enable
renegotiation of the WMATA Compact would be an interesting academic
exercise, but probably not very pragmatic.
Therefore, our analysis does not anticipate major changes in the apportionment
of transportation system funding among federal, state, regional and local
agencies, which reflects existing agreements regarding impacts and
responsibilities. Planning staff leaves identifying opportunities to increase state
and federal funding to another forum, and focuses on the analysis of the impact
tax system that can strengthen local funding of needed transportation system
improvements.
Analysis Timeframe
In an effort to “think regionally; act locally”, any analyses on impact taxes could
be based on work prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (MWCOG) from both the demographic forecasting and
transportation system perspectives. Future impact tax rates could be based on
an estimate of growth and transportation system needs through the most distant
226
horizon year in the MWCOG Cooperative Forecasting arena, currently 2030.
This long-range, regional approach provides several advantages:
• The impact tax rate structure can be revised on a regular, periodic basis to
reflect demographic, transportation system, or funding changes that occur
on the regional level.
• A long-range perspective means that substantial changes to the six-year
capital program (such as the initiation or close-out of a project like
Montrose Parkway) would be buffered during the periodic reconsideration
of impact tax rates.
• A finite horizon year (rather than a master plan horizon) means that
changes in land use, zoning, or master planned transportation
infrastructure can be coordinated regionally and that the effects of
improved information (such as our residential capacity estimate of 2005)
are buffered.
Revision to developer credits for transportation impact taxes
Predicting revenues from Montgomery County’s transportation impact taxes is

complicated by the developers’ ability to take impact tax credits for projects they
must construct or contribute to as a condition of a development approval.
Although the County assesses a developer the entire calculated impact tax for
each unit he builds, the Planning Board may also require him to construct
specific transportation improvements. A key question is whether these
improvements should be instead of, or in addition to, the impact taxes assessed.
The Planning Board referenced this issue in its discussion of the first interim
report of the Growth Policy Study. The Planning Board discussed a policy basis
for establishing that new development has a responsibility to contribute to the
existing network of public facilities. Board members noted that the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission charges new development a “systems
development charge” – a concept that could be applied to other public facilities.
That idea recognizes that much of the development potential of any parcel of
land is the result of previous, and massive, public investments in infrastructure.
Land that is not served by roads, transit, schools, water and sewer, or public
safety is land with modest development potential. A development excise tax
could be structured as a means of recapturing some of the added land value
resulting from previous public investments.
The uncertainty associated with impact tax credits contributed to a Council

decision in September 2005 to reduce the revenue projections for the impact tax
from $12.5 million in fiscal 2007 to $8 million, and to adjust its projections for the
remaining CIP years accordingly.
227
SCHOOL IMPACT TAX ISSUES
Funds Generated from Impact Taxes
When the County Council approved the schools impact taxes in 2003, it did so
with certain assumptions about how much money the taxes would generate. The
Council was advised that the taxes would generate an estimated $24 million in
fiscal year 2005 and $28 million annually thereafter. The assumptions were
detailed and included estimates of the number of additional units; the percentage
of each housing type; the number of units in each of the tax districts; and the
percentage of units that would be exempt from the impact taxes.
The revenue assumptions proved to be optimistic. The taxes generated less than
$8 million in fiscal 2005 and less than $7 million in fiscal 2006. A permit rush in
which developers raced to submit building permit applications prior to the
effective date of the impact taxes can explain much of the fiscal 2005 shortfall;
about 1,700 permits approved in fiscal 2005 were not subject to the impact tax,
about half the assumed number of additional units. Of course, this effect does not
extend to the fiscal 2006 shortfall.
It is estimated that 72% of the growth in residential development for Montgomery

County between 2005 and 2030 will be in multi-family dwellings. This
phenomenon will further limit the expected income stream from school impact
taxes since multi-family dwellings are taxed at a lower rate than single-family
homes.
Other jurisdictions base their impact tax rates differently. Rather than base the
rate on the type of dwelling unit (single-family detached, single- family attached,
etc.), the rate is based on the number of bedrooms or size of the unit. The
literature on impact taxes has suggested that there are benefits to using this
approach. It allows a closer correlation to actual impact, because student
generation does vary by number of bedrooms and size of housing unit, with
some manageable limitations (a locality that charged by the bedroom has found
an increase in the number of rooms called “dens;” student generation increases
as square footage increases, but only up to a point). It is also less regressive.
In addition, the Council could consider the imposition of some type of

development related tax on commercial property. This revenue could be used for
a variety of programs, including schools. Any development, including infill and
redevelopment, that brings jobs to an area also brings workers. These workers
will use the transportation network, their children will go to school, and their
families will use parks and libraries and other public services. But, most
importantly, employees for the jobs created by development and redevelopment
will need housing they can afford.
228
Funds Generated from the Recordation Tax
The current recordation tax in Montgomery County is applied to the transfer in

ownership of residential property. A major source of the pressure on schools
comes from changes within a community due to neighborhood turnover whereby
the neighborhood evolves from one with an aging population to one with more
school age children. For this source of school enrollment change, the revenue
captured by a recordation tax appears appropriate to fund school improvements
necessitated by the increased pressure on existing infrastructure.
In high growth areas, such as Clarksburg, school population growth is the result
of new construction; therefore impact taxes can effectively finance a large
proportion of school capacity needs. However, in most of the County, school
population growth is due to turnover in existing housing stock and redevelopment
of existing homes. The recordation tax does a better job of capturing revenue for
schools from this growth and turnover. In recent years, the recordation tax has
generated much more revenue than the impact tax; in 2006, the recordation tax
generated $44 million compared to $6.9 million for school impact taxes.
The relatively modest revenue raising capacity of impact taxes and the expected
future growth within the County attributable to redevelopment or infill suggest
that, changes in the recordation tax on residential property transfers should be
included among the options for increasing revenues for financing school
capacity.
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
Two alternative methods for financing infrastructure growth are Tax Increment
Financing and Development Districts.
Tax Increment Financing
The Infrastructure Financing team researched literature related to Tax Increment

Financing (TIFs) and had discussions about TIFs with the Montgomery County
Department of Finance. TIFs are often used to stimulate economic development
in blighted urban areas. Capital improvements are financed by selling bonds that
are paid off using the additional tax revenue (the tax increment) generated by the
improvements. In Maryland, all counties and municipalities, other than Baltimore
City, are authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Act to use tax increment
financing for the purposes of financing the development of industrial, commercial
or residential areas.
The use of TIFs seems fairly straightforward. Essentially, the local government
determines the property tax revenue it is collecting in a given area before
redevelopment occurs. Bonds are issued to the local government, and the
229
proceeds of this are used to improve and redevelop the area. As redevelopment
occurs, tax revenue increases, and the excess tax revenue above the pre-
redevelopment state is used to pay off the loans or bonds.
However, there are potential problems with TIFs. If tax increment financing is
imposed where it is not needed to encourage development – where development
would have occurred in the absence of the TIF – then the tax increment cuts into
general tax revenue that the local government would have otherwise received.
This is especially true when the program is set up to freeze property valuations
for general tax assessment at the pre-TIF level. The tax increment also deprives
other governmental bodies that receive property tax revenue – school districts,
other special districts, and so forth – of the increase they would have otherwise
received.
Another potential problem is the possibility that increased development within the
district will fail to generate sufficient revenue to retire the bonds, leaving the
government with the responsibility of servicing the debt from the general fund.
Development Districts
In 1994 the Montgomery County Council enacted legislation to authorize the

creation of development districts and the issuance of County bonds to finance
the construction of certain infrastructure improvements in development districts.
As stated in the legislation, the purpose of the development district is to create a
method to finance infrastructure improvements necessary for the development of
land areas of the County identified for new development. The bill authorizes
taxes and assessments on the property within the district to pay for the bonds,
which finance the construction of the improvements. Development districts have
been used in Germantown and in Clarksburg. In Clarksburg, two districts are
under review and a third one has been formed, however, the third district has not
yet sold any bonds to finance infrastructure improvements.
The development district concept, particularly as it is used to finance

infrastructure required by the adequate public facilities ordinance, is typically
applied to large areas of mostly-vacant parcels that the owners are ready to
develop. It is seen as “fair” if all or most residents within the district are both
paying to retire the bonds and also benefiting from the infrastructure that has
been built. In areas where new growth is interspersed among existing
development, it can be more problematic to assess some landowners an added
increment on their tax bill and not their next door neighbor.
It has become evident that development districts raise a number of other issues,
including the transparency of the process and “who pays” for the infrastructure to
support growth. Impact taxes are probably more transparent than development
districts – developers should be adept at incorporating an impact tax into their
construction pro formas, but potential homebuyers will have more difficulty
230
comparing the initial price and future tax burden of a home inside a development
district to the initial price and future tax burden of a home outside of a
development district. Because of greater transparency, and because of the
backwards capitalization effect mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the use
of impact taxes are therefore more likely to achieve a result where the “developer
pays” rather than the homebuyer. Development districts are, of course, much
more complicated to implement than an impact tax.
Although Planning staff is generally less enthusiastic about these two district-
level taxing mechanisms (TIFs and development districts) than we are about
impact taxes, we note that district-level taxing mechanisms or fee-supported
district level programs can be effective. If, for example, the County were
considering a new Metro stop somewhere along the Red Line, it could be
appropriate to assess an added tax on landowners near the new station that
would benefit from it.
CONCLUSION
The current system of impact taxes is yielding a fairly modest revenue stream –
in the case of transportation, modest compared to needs; in the case of schools,
modest compared to expectations. Given the forecasts of future growth within
the County, revenues from impact taxes will not increase substantially without
changes to the program.
The number of households in Montgomery County is expected to increase

approximately 27% by 2030. It is further estimated that 72% of the growth in
residential development for the same time period will be in multi-family dwellings.
With respect to schools, this type of growth will result in less revenue than was
once predicted. As stated earlier, multi-family dwellings are taxed at a lower rate
than single-family units. Thus school impact taxes cannot generate the revenue
once predicted whereby many more single-family units were forecast. The
recordation tax has proven to be a more dependable source of revenue for
schools.
Transportation impact taxes have provided a more predictable stream of revenue

than the school impact tax. Transportation impact tax rates vary by region within
the County and across various land uses. These program characteristics are
based on the same findings and objectives as the County’s growth management
systems. The current tax rate structure varies rates by geography and land use,
primarily, to reflect the variations in auto trip generation that also occur by
geography and land use. Rates vary geographically because development in
close proximity to Metro generates fewer auto trips, and because in Clarksburg
the amount of needed transportation infrastructure is large. In theory, a variation
in impact tax rates can help steer development to lower-rate locations provide an
231
incentive to developers when making location decisions, although it is not clear
that the current variation is sufficient to influence developer decisions.
The transportation impact taxes could be based on an estimate of growth and

transportation system needs through a long-range approach using a more distant
horizon year. Predicting revenues from the transportation impact taxes is
particularly difficult because of developers’ ability to take impact tax credits for
projects they must construct or contribute to as a condition of a development
approval. Although the County assesses a developer the entire calculated
impact tax for each unit he builds, his project may also include a requirement to
construct millions of dollars in intersection improvements, which can offset his
impact taxes on a dollar for dollar basis.
The goal of analyzing both the school and transportation impact tax programs is
to improve our ability to efficiently and equitably fund the infrastructure needs of
the County, either by modifying the rates and/or application of the taxes for both
school and transportation programs. In addition, if improving the revenue raising
capacity of the program is also a goal, alternative-financing mechanisms should
be considered.
232
Attachment 1. CIP and CLRP Capital Expansion Projects
PROJECT In CLRP In CIP, but

not in CLRP
509928: Brookville Service Park 14456
500522: North County Maintenance Depot 21703
500433: Equipment and Maintenance Operations Center (EMOC) 2962
500552: Glenmont Metro Parking Expansion 17094
500714: Montgomery Mall Transit Center 750
500723: Northern Damascus Park and Ridge Lot 860
509974: Silver Spring Transit Center 67222
500715: Takoma/Langley Park Transit Center 2500
500602: White Oak Transit Center 1476
509525: Facility Planning: Parking 3086
509976: Forest Glen Pedestrian Bridge 405
500718: MacArthur Blvd Bikeway Improvements 1100
500400: Matthew Henson Trail 2867
500600: Shady Grove Access Bike Path 2328
509975: Silver Spring Green Trail 4975
500500: Burtonsville Access Road 5392
500719: Chapman Avenue Extended 620
500310: Citadel Avenue Extended 2104
509337: Facility Planning-Transportation 17549
500402: Fairland Road Improvement 8007
500516: Father Hurley Blvd. Extended 15389
500100: Greencastle Road 2056
500717: Montrose Parkway East 2287
500311: Montrose Parkway West 32343
500528: Montrose Road Extended (Land Acquisition) 2716
500401: Nebel Street Extended 7281
507310: Public Facilities Roads 3048
500502: Quince Orchard Road 1609
500434: Rockville Town Center 6960
500403: Stringtown Road Extended 2999
500101: Travilah Road 6018
509944: Valley Park Drive 211
500151: Woodfield Road Extended 8990
509995: Conference Center Intersection Improvements 846
500322: Friendship Heights Pedestrian-Transit Enhancement 396
507017: Intersection and Spot Improvements 5099
500010: Redland Rd From Crabbs Branch Way to Needwood Rd 3720
508716: Silver Spring Traffic Improvements 3041
Rockville Town Center Loop Shuttle vehicles (in CLRP, but not CIP) 1230
SUBTOTALS 229018 54677
Sources:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/omb/FY07/appr/vol3/transportation
_cip230.pdf
http://www.mwcog.org/regionaltransportationplan/documents/FY2007-
2012TIP.pdf
233
A Vision of Sustainable Development for Montgomery
County
Executive Summary and Recommendations
Sustainability became a common term through a

1987 United Nation’s World Commission on
Environment and Development report titled Our
Common Future. 1 Since its inception, the notion
of “Sustainability” has provided a holistic
worldview of how social equity, economic, and
environmental forces work together to create the
world in which we live and, more importantly, how
we may harness these forces to create something SUSTAINABILITY
INDICATORS
better. This paper proposes that we use this
definition to guide future growth and development
in Montgomery County:
Sustainable Development meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. It recognizes the fundamental inextricable
interdependence between the economy, the environment, and
social equity, and works to promote each to the benefit of all.
The concept of sustainability allows us to discuss policies and plans in relationship

to one another as plans and development proposals are considered. In this way, we
can explore the advantages, conflicts and trade-offs associated with each proposal.
Without this examination and measures or targets for sustainability, we will continue
to approve development based on the rules it doesn’t violate rather than on the
goals, objectives and targets it achieves.
The growth management policy in Montgomery County should incorporate

sustainability as a guiding principle. The growth it guides should contribute to the
sustainability of the county’s environment, economy and social well-being, and it
should be updated regularly to account for better information as well as changes in
people’s concerns and priorities. The sustainability principle should be applied to
both new growth and changes in existing development.
The risk of not including sustainability in the growth policy is that growth will continue
to be managed only in terms of how and when infrastructure is provided rather than
on how well it serves the county’s overall needs as a community and as a
responsible part of the national effort to address the sustainability problem
This paper discusses how well the General Plan Refinement (GPR) expresses
principles and goals that support sustainability, and finds that the General Plan
1
Report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, 1987.
234
already identifies most, although not all, of the principles needed to guide
Montgomery County towards coming to the forefront of the sustainability movement.
We suggest how the goals of the GPR can be modified to reflect sustainability more
comprehensively.
Our survey of what other local governments are doing to implement sustainability
plans around the country shows that many use “indicators” to establish specific
targets and evaluate progress in meeting specified goals. Indicators allow residents
and decision makers to track and monitor select social, economic and environmental
conditions by measuring progress toward specific quantifiable goals or targets.
Indicators simplify vast amounts of information and data, and thus provide a
common ground on which communities create relationships, build trust and
consensus, and base decisions.
Communities take different approaches in developing suitable indicators, but the

dialogue between stakeholders both informs the process and engages the public to
offer clear direction for the future. Generating a sustainability indicators program
offers a logical compliment to effective growth policy. These tools provide a means
to accurately gauge the economic, environmental and social conditions within a
community over the long term, allowing for more effective and informed decision-
making. The Planning Board developed a set of illustrative indicators that could be
incorporated into the growth policy and for which the County could commence
monitoring immediately.
sustainability principle may be applied to the 355/I270 Corridor Study. Of necessity,
this initial effort at applying this broad principle to a local land use exercise will be
conceptual in nature. But it is expected that the product will yield some insights
useful to the further refinement and practical application of this new approach.
The Water Resources Element required by state law (HB 1141) presents another
opportunity to explore sustainability. This law requires that we demonstrate how
planned growth will be supplied with drinking water and wastewater treatment
capacity and show how our streams can accommodate the anticipated stormwater
runoff while protecting local streams and the Chesapeake Bay.
Recommendations
We face a tremendous challenge in the next decade: how to assure that all policy
changes and physical investments in Montgomery County direct growth and
development in a way that is sustainable. We suggest the following actions to begin
meeting that challenge:
235
related plans and studies, such as the 355/I270 Corridor Study and the State
mandated Water Resources Element, to be undertaken in FY 2008.
countywide indicators and targets as soon as feasible within upcoming fiscal
year budgets.
• In the interim, use the illustrative sustainability principles in this report (see
Table 2) to assess growth policy and the Capital Improvement Program.
• Apply sustainability principles and goals to the analysis and evaluation of
trends and actions that are part of the ongoing Growth Policy and Capital
Improvements Program evaluation process.
236
Introduction to Growth and Sustainability
This report holistically addresses the specific questions raised by the County Council
in the Growth Policy resolution to include a concept that extends beyond growth to
the development and well being of the county, its residents and its relationship to
larger systems. It contains specific recommendations, some of which may be
appropriate in the short term, but some that will require further study and interaction
with the community. The concept of sustainability is examined in the context of the
General Plan Refinement. We examined the overall concepts, goals and objectives
in terms of sustainability and sought examples from other jurisdictions about how to
adapt the General Plan Refinement and its implementing mechanisms to achieve
sustainability.
Sustainability and the General Plan
In order for growth in Montgomery County to be sustainable, new development

should reflect the principles of sustainability and be measured in those terms. The
General Plan Refinement contains most of the elements of a plan for sustainability,
but is not focused clearly on that goal.
The County’s General Plan, “On Wedges and Corridors,” first adopted in 1964, set
the County on a visionary path to preserve open space while channeling growth into
carefully defined areas. Updated in 1993, the General Plan Refinement (GPR)
explicitly recognizes the connections between transportation and land use, between
the built environment and the natural, between employment and housing. To
balance these at times competing concerns, the 1993 General Plan Refinement
(GPR) established goals objectives and strategies intended to guide the County’s
land use and development.
But since the refinement and numeration of these goals, the concepts it was based
on have been refined as communities throughout the world struggle to holistically
improve quality of life. Now called sustainable development or sustainable
prosperity, the concept can really be viewed as a different way of looking at
achieving the goals and objectives that County has sought for decades.
The Agricultural Reserve and the Priority Funding Areas have reinforced the
geographic components of the Wedges and Corridors plan to serve smart growth
principles. These principles are similar in many ways to elements of sustainable
development, making the transition from the GPR to a more comprehensive
sustainability program a relatively small step.
Definition of Sustainability
Since its inception, the notion of “Sustainability” has been nothing less than a holistic
worldview of how social, economic, and environmental forces work together to
create the world in which we live and, more importantly, how we may harness these
forces to create something better. Sustainability is not a thing, but rather a way of
looking at things.
237
With this in mind, we propose that the County, as a first step, adopt the following
basic definition of Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. It recognizes the fundamental inextricable
interdependence between the economy, the environment, and
social equity, and works to promote each to the benefit of all.
This definition builds upon the Brundtland definition2, incorporating lessons learned
from jurisdictions around the nation and highlighting the essential elements of
economy, environment, and social equity. The graphic below illustrates this
relationship, and shows how indicators can measure the larger context.
SUSTAINABILITY
INDICATORS
Examples of Sustainable Development
Though the fundamental basis of sustainable development is the recognition of the

interdependence of the three elements, the three “E’s”, it is helpful to look at some
county programs that already promote elements of sustainable development.
Programs that are currently addressing only one “E” (depicted in the lighter shaded
parts of the circles) include actions like tax breaks for certain kinds of businesses
2
Report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, 1987.
238
(economy), health screening (equity) and fish migration barrier removal
(environment). Programs that address two “E’s” (the darker shaded portions of the
circles) include stormwater management charges (environment and economy),
MPDU’s (economy and equity) and air pollution control (environment and equity).
But the most progress towards balanced sustainability results from solutions that
address all three “E’s” at once:
• Walkable, bikeable, transit friendly concentrations of mixed income housing
and employment and services with pleasant green open spaces linked to the
countywide green infrastructure.
• Rural areas with limited development around small communities, profitable
farms that offer employment and support food production, agricultural
activities, green infrastructure and protected water supplies.
While the GPR embraces most of these concepts, the inherent difficulties of meeting
all its goals and objectives at the same time are not reconciled. We have included
smart growth principles such as the Agricultural Reserve, TDR’s, the Priority
Funding Area, Forest Conservation and environmental guidelines to provide
reinforcement of our “sustainability” goals. Each master and sector plan determines
the emphasis, balance and compromise among the many objectives of the GPR.
Decision makers determine the unique mix of actions recommended in these plans
with input from stakeholders. In order for growth to be sustainable, sustainability
should also be expressly addressed in master and sector plans.
Why Include Sustainability in the Growth Policy?
Sustainability should be a goal for both growth and the improvement of existing
developed areas. The preferred term is “sustainable development” which does not
pre-suppose growth, but looks at all changes in a community to improve
sustainability. Regardless of growth, sustainability requires changes to existing
development as well. Just regulating new development cannot attain improvements
in sustainability, but new development and redevelopment should be together in the
vanguard, demonstrating principles of sustainability and forming the foundation for
the future.
The concept of sustainability allows the functional areas of the GPR and master
plans to be discussed in relationship to one another as development proposals are
considered. In this way, we can explore the advantages, conflicts and trade-offs
associated with each proposal. Without this examination and measures or targets
for sustainability, we will continue to approve development based on the rules it
doesn’t violate rather than on the goals, objectives and targets it achieves.
The risk of not including sustainability in the growth policy is that growth will continue
to be managed only in terms of how and when infrastructure is provided rather than
on how well it serves the county’s larger future needs as the implications of global
warming and the global economy are increasingly understood. Here are a few
examples of questions that the sustainability perspective can bring to our attention:
239
• Will we be able to maintain or reduce our electricity demand in the future to
avoid the need for new major transmission lines?
• Can the older infrastructure of the developed areas sustain the increased
density needed to accommodate growth? When and where do we reach a
tipping point and who pays?
• Can we continue to develop on the edges of the sewer envelope using
pressure sewers? Do we want to expand the gravity sewer system into whole
new stream valleys?
• Should we be spending money on building a new water supply intake in the
Potomac River or cleaning up the tributaries that are causing us to move the
intake?
• How can we balance parking and transit in ways that reduce automobile use
and provide increased accessibility for residents, workers and visitors?
How Are We Doing?
In order to examine how well the County’s existing and projected development
adheres to Smart Growth principles and the County’s General Plan, we produced
two sets of maps. The County’s household and employment 2005 existing
development and 2030 Round 7.0 Forecast is mapped showing households or jobs
per acre by traffic zone with the Priority Funding Area and Agricultural Reserve
boundaries as well as the boundaries of the five General Plan Areas.
The maps show that the County’s densities of existing and future household and
employment development are in sync with the goals of the General Plan. The
denser development is occurring within the Urban Ring, the I-270 Corridor, and
villages like Olney and Damascus and less dense development is occurring in the
Suburban Communities, Residential Wedge, and the Agricultural Wedge as defined
in the General Plan.
Households
• Almost all of the traffic zones with household densities greater than one
household-per-acre are within or partly within the Priority Funding areas.
• Most of the densest household development, traffic zones with densities
greater than five households-per-acre, is within the Urban Ring and the I-270
Corridor as defined in the General Plan.
• This density improves multi-modal serviceability and can support local-serving
retail and community facilities, significantly reducing the need to drive.3
• These areas are scattered within the Priority Funding Area, not forming a
consistent pattern.
3
Gordon Price, Simon Frasier University, Vancouver British Columbia. Partners for Smart Growth
Conference, 2007.
240
• In 2030, the County’s 441,000 households are likely to have a similar pattern
under existing trends.
o Between 2005 and 2030 the County has traffic zones increasing in
density within the Priority Funding areas, especially within the Urban
Ring and the I-270 Corridor.
o Some areas increasing in household density are: the Silver Spring
CBD, the Wheaton Metro Station area, White Flint, Twinbrook,
Rockville Town Center, the Shady Grove Metro Station area, the
Crown Farm, Watkins Mill Town Center, and Clarksburg.
Employment
• In 2005, the highest concentrations of the County’s 500,000 jobs are located
within the Priority Funding areas and as defined in the General Plan; the
Urban Ring, I-270 Corridor, and the eastern Suburban Communities (along
MD 29).
• The highest job densities, greater than 10 jobs-per-acre, are found within the
Urban Ring and the I-270 Corridor.
• In 2030, the highest concentrations of the County’s 670,000 jobs remain in
the Priority Funding areas, mainly in the Urban Ring and the I-270 Corridor.
o By 2030, more traffic zones in the northern I-270 Corridor,
Gaithersburg, Germantown, and Clarksburg have job densities greater
than 10 jobs-per-acre.
o The Food and Drug Administration’s consolidation at White Oak and
the development of the proposed Technology Park in Calverton will
created job densities greater than 10 jobs-per-acre at the fringe of the
Urban Ring and in the eastern Suburban Communities along MD 29.
241
242
243
Other Jurisdictions: Common Themes and Elements
Our staff investigation included an examination of plans of other local jurisdictions

that are focused on sustainability and/or smart growth. Our review focused on how
other communities define the concept, how it is applied, and how it guides planning
efforts. The communities we reviewed offer a useful starting point for any future
discussion; closer review is needed to determine how applicable the approaches
used by other jurisdictions are to Montgomery County. These plans featured several
common themes and elements. They universally recognize the interconnectivity
and interdependence of the economy, the environment, and the community, and the
need for an integrated holistic approach to development planning to promote the
sustainability of each of these forces.
For a definition of Sustainable Development, many included some version of the

original from the Brundtland Commission -, i.e., development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. Beyond this, many included the Three E’s – Economy, Environment,
and Equity – as a shorthand way of recognizing their inextricable overlapping links.
The principles of sustainable development contained in the reviewed plans

represented two approaches: the conceptual commitment and the call to action. For
example, Marin County, California’s principles offer an excellent model of a broad-
based, yet policy-area-specific approach that is able to address concept, policy, and
implementation. The concepts of sustainability are incorporated explicitly in the
County’s General Plan.
From there, Marin offers its residents policies aimed at improving sustainability,
particularly in terms of reducing environmental impact. The County also examines
housing affordability, transportation and land use within the context of sustainability
using a graphic very similar to that provided here. Marin’s General Plan also
instructs the County to develop design guidelines to foster development that
complements community character and provides walkable, livable spaces.
King County, Washington does not explicitly recognize sustainability. However, it

does offer a growth policy that includes design, environmental considerations and
social equity considerations (such as housing affordability). Cities are also quite
active in developing sustainability policies. For example, a non-profit organization in
Seattle developed a set of sustainability criteria to help guide Seattle, and ultimately
the surrounding King County, towards sustainability. Sustainable Seattle offers a
complex set of community indicators to measure progress towards this goal.
Santa Monica also instituted a sustainability initiative. It centers on nine guiding

principles articulated through eight goal areas (e.g., resource conservation,
environment and public health, and economic development, etc.). For each goal,
Santa Monica offers indicators and targets that it uses to evaluate its success with
advancing sustainability.
244
The definitions of sustainability in our reviewed materials generally offer an
overarching vision, an end-state, to which communities strive. That vision
addresses all aspects of a community: the built and natural environment, economy
and community. These three broad areas provide sufficient breadth to include the
multitude of aspects determining community quality of life. But the specific policies
and mechanisms to achieve these goals vary. For example, while San Mateo
County provides broad policy statements to achieve sustainability, King County
explicitly includes housing, and historic preservation, transportation, and
environmental protection as part of its growth management policy.
Our research to date hasn’t identified, at the County level, any policies or plans that
consistently apply the concepts of sustainability to the full range of applicable growth
policies. Though King County offers the most comprehensive growth policy by
addressing such topics as transportation, environment, land use, affordable housing
and design, and includes performance indicators, it does not explicitly pursue its
goals under the concept of sustainability. And while many jurisdictions pursue smart
growth, focusing on the location and design of development, this doesn’t necessarily
reflect the broader vision of sustainability, examining concepts such as whether or
not suitable employment opportunities exist or whether housing remains affordable.
What Are the Obstacles to Sustainable Development?
By exploring what success looks like, impediments to that success emerge. The
County should understand these obstacles and work together to overcome them.
• Lack of shared vision of Sustainable Development
• Lack of understanding of interdependence of economy, environment, and
equity
• Limited transit access and choice
• Centers without sufficient mix and density
• Single-use development/Euclidean zoning
• Lack of affordable housing and transit options
• Development that does not respect community context.
How Can We Use the General Plan to Promote Sustainable Development?
The 1993 General Plan Refinement and the subsequent Master and Sector Plans
embody Montgomery County’s on-going commitment community development,
smart growth, and environmental protection. Each of the elements of sustainable
development is already to be found, implicitly or explicitly, in the General Plan
Refinement (GPR), especially in the Guiding Principles and the Goals, Objectives
and Strategies.
245
The Guiding Principles of the GPR
1. Wedges and Corridors Concept

The Wedges and Corridors concept has shaped the County by
channeling growth into the development corridors and an Urban Ring
around Washington, DC. At the same time, Wedges of open space,
farmland, and lower density residential uses have been preserved.
2. Master and Sector Plans

The spirit and intent of the General Plan Refinement (GPR) is embodied
and embellished by these plans. Each plan should attempt to provide a
unique balance among all the goals of the GPR that are appropriate to its
specific location and character within the composite framework of the
county as a whole.
3. Physically Concentrated Centers

The GPR encourages an efficient land use pattern of jobs, housing, and
other uses within centers. The Refinement promotes mixed-use
development and sensitive increases in intensity within appropriate
boundaries in centers to control sprawl, to reduce energy consumption
and pollution, to contain infrastructure needs, and to reduce development
pressure on rural open space areas and farmland.
4. Community Identity
The GPR recognizes the human need for social interaction and for
communities that create a sense of pride, a sense of place, and a
hometown atmosphere. It encourages public and private development
whose architecture and design address these needs by incorporating
individuality, civic features, and the opportunity for social interaction.
5. Transit Serviceability
The GPR encourages land use patterns that can be served effectively by
the County’s integrated multi-modal transportation system. It emphasizes
increased opportunities for alternatives to single-occupant auto travel and
attention to the needs of pedestrians. Favoring transit can make more
efficient use of the existing roadway network, reduce air pollution and
increase access.
6. Compatibility
The GPR encourages new development that will harmonize with the
existing built environment and the natural environment. In some cases,
this is a matter of scale and intensity. In other cases, compatibility is a
question of location, function, or style.
7. Variety and Choice in Housing, Jobs, and Transportation

The GPR supports the concepts of variety and choice to promote a strong
and diverse economy, to meet the housing and employment needs of
246
current and future Montgomery County citizens, and to encourage
effective and efficient transportation options.
8. Resource Management
The GPR seeks to attain the most efficient and socially beneficial
management of all Montgomery County resources, ranging from the
natural environment to public and private finances, and the land itself.
9. Environmental Protection
The GPR calls on development to protect the land, air and water
resources that provide vital services, avoiding or mitigating potential
negative impacts in order to balance the human need for places to live,
work, and play.
10. Public Investment

The GPR recognizes the importance of public investment to implement
the Wedge and Corridor concepts of the Refinement.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
The Goals, Objectives, and Strategies of the GPR build upon the foundation of the
guiding Principles, fleshing out their intent to define a position of growth directed and
controlled to serve a larger public vision. When compared against the definition and
elements of Sustainable Development, many of the goals and objectives fall short of
the mark. This section reviews the GPR goals and objectives, and suggests a way
to restate them that helps bridge the gap. The first part of each section quotes the
specific wording of the GPR goal, then the relevant objectives are reviewed along
with comments about missing sustainability elements and finally, a potential
restatement of the goal is indicated in italics that better reflects issues of
sustainability for that subject.
Land Use
Achieve a wide variety of land use and development densities

consistent with the “Wedges and Corridors” pattern. (p. 45)
This goal promotes sustainable development by focusing development at locations

where infrastructure and density efficiencies begin to promote mixed-use, transit-
oriented, and pedestrian-friendly communities. Several of the objectives begin to
move towards a vision of sustainable communities by encouraging “identifiable
centers of community activity” (Objective 2), the preservation of farmland and rural
open space (Objective 4), and the provision of parks, recreation, and open space
within developments (Objective 8). Objective 7, which encourages the coordination
of housing, jobs, and retail in mixed-use areas, needs only to add transit to the mix
to achieve the goal.
247
What is missing is a definitive statement of preference to focus future development
at centers that combine housing, jobs, transit and recreation. Though implicit in the
objectives, the development of mixed-use centers is essential to guiding sustainable
development within the wedges and corridors scheme. The following principle of
sustainable development makes that commitment explicit:
The County will reinforce sustainable land use patterns,

promoting sustainable development as appropriate everywhere
in the County, refining the “wedges and corridors” concept to a
“wedges, corridors, centers,” and links approach that focuses an
active mix of uses in pedestrian friendly n community, town, and
city centers that are interconnected with multi-modal
transportation linkages.
Housing
Encourage and maintain a wide choice of housing types and

neighborhoods for people of all incomes, ages, lifestyles, and
physical capabilities at appropriate densities and locations. (p. 52)
It is supported by several objectives that encourage sustainable development by

promoting affordable housing (Objective 4), housing options sufficient to allow aging-
in-place (Objective 2), and mixed-use (again minus the essential transit component)
communities (Objective 3).
Our proposed refinement makes explicit the need for affordable housing, but looks
closer at the housing to make sure it responds well to its environment, both built and
natural. Beyond the “sticks and bricks” of the housing itself, this principle of
sustainable development emphasizes the necessity of that housing’s proximity to
transit and places to work and play:
A full range of housing options is vital to sustainable

development. County development regulations, programs,
and policies will seek to realize a diversity of well-designed,
energy-efficient housing types and densities, linked closely to
jobs, transit, and services for a mix of incomes and needs.
Employment/Economic Activity
Promote a healthy economy, including a broad range of business,

service, and employment opportunities at appropriate locations. (p.
57)
Economic development is an essential component to sustainable development.

Objective 3 encourages mixed-use opportunities to improve proximity between work
and home and to promote small business. The proposed principle of sustainable
248
development elevates these essential concerns and specifies which are the most
“appropriate” locations. It reinforces the idea that economy, environment, and social
equity are inextricably linked:
The County continues to support a broad range of economic

opportunities, from local entrepreneurs and national firms, by
closely linking jobs with transit, housing, and services.
Transportation
Enhance mobility by providing a safe and efficient transportation

system offering a wide range of alternatives that serve the
environmental, economic, social, and land use needs of the County
and provide a framework for development. (p. 63)
The expansion and integration of multi-modal transit opportunities linking housing,

jobs, and retail is another key component of sustainable development. Three of the
objectives in the GPR begin to actively support this goal by providing a transit
system that is a viable alternative to single-occupant vehicle travel (Objective 4),
includes pedestrian- and bike-friendly transportation and recreation options
(Objective 6), and prevents further degradation of the overall quality of the air, land,
and water in the provision and use of the transportation system (Objective 7).
These goals and objectives work, as far as they go. Our proposed principle of
sustainable development focuses on linking mixed-use civic centers, making central
previously secondary ideas about convenience and affordability and begins to
address the shared public/private responsibility for implementing sustainable
development:
The County will work cooperatively with the private sector and
all relevant public agencies to expand and enhance our public
transit system to better connect jobs, housing, shopping, and
recreation, focusing especially on community, town, and civic
centers. Affordable and convenient multi-modal transportation
and mobility options should be enhanced to reduce our
dependence on single-occupancy driving, conserve resources,
improve air quality, and reduce traffic congestion.
Environment
Conserve and protect natural resources to provide a healthy and

beautiful environment for present and future generations. Manage the
impacts of human activity on our natural resources in a balanced
manner to sustain human, plant, and animal life. (p. 70)
Protection, maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment

are well defined and supported within the Goals, Objectives and Strategies. . The
249
proposed principle of sustainable development refines these goals by highlighting
some of the central impediments to environmental sustainability and how
sustainable development policies, programs, and projects might address them:
The County will protect the biological integrity of our natural

resources to maintain a healthy and diverse ecosystem for
present and future generations. County policies and projects will
utilize the Principles of Sustainable Development, including
resource efficiency, and land and resource conservation and
protection to promote biodiversity, limit greenhouse gas
emissions, and improve water and air quality.
Community Identity & Design
Although the role of government in creating community is limited,

Montgomery County can establish the framework on which
communities can evolve. This goal is one that guides the County’s
physical development so that it is conducive to the nurturing of
community pride, social interaction, and identity. (p. 74)
Essential to creating sustainable communities is fostering a sense of place, an

identity that encourages more day-to-day activities to occur locally. Each of the
Objectives under this Goal strongly supports this. The GPR does not contain a Goal
for Community Identity and Design as such, but the text begins to define a direction
and intent about the role good design plays in supporting and building (literally and
figuratively) sustainable communities. This proposed principle of sustainable
development makes explicit the importance of this central role:
Design is the process by which we shape the built

environment for living, working, and playing. Design
excellence ensures that the form of the public realm not only
facilitates function, but also creates an identity of place and a
sense of community. This identity helps realize vibrant,
sustainable communities, creating streets, neighborhoods,
and cities where people can afford to live and want to live.
Regionalism
Promote regional cooperation and solutions to problems of mutual

concern to Montgomery County, its neighbors, and internal
municipalities. (p. 81)
As with some of the other goals, this one is strong in direction but limited in scope,
both at the smaller and larger scales. At the smaller scale, many of the elements of
sustainable development are administered by multiple agencies that have not
established a common vision about the development in general, let alone
250
sustainable development. Their coordination and cooperation will be indispensable
to implementing these principles. At the larger scale, we can no longer ignore the
fact that development decisions we make in Montgomery County have impacts far
beyond neighboring counties, indeed to the country and by extension the world.
This proposed principle again refines and makes explicit the recognition of these
relationships and shows a path forward:
The sustainable development of Montgomery County

cannot be separated from its broader regional, national,
and global contexts. The County recognizes the need for
cooperation between County agencies addressing the
diversity of issues involved in implementing sustainable
development, and continues coordination and cooperation
with its internal and neighboring municipalities in the
Baltimore-Washington-Northern Virginia region and
beyond.
How Can We Move Forward?
To move closer to realizing sustainable development, the County should take three
steps:
• Prepare principles of Sustainable Development to guide future review and
revision of regulations, programs, and policies
• Identify a toolbox of opportunities to suggest how these principles can be
realized
• Develop a set of indicators to provide an understanding of what is working
and what is not
The previous section showed how the GPR principles could be redefined to focus on
sustainability (see Table 4.1).
251
Table 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Development
1. Land Use
The County will reinforce sustainable land use patterns, promoting sustainable
development everywhere in the County, refining the “wedges and corridors” concept to a
“wedges, corridors, and centers” approach that focuses density, transit, and an active mix
of uses on community, town, and city centers.
2. Housing
A full range of housing options is vital to sustainable development. County development
regulations, programs, and policies will realize a diversity of well-designed, energy-
efficient housing types and densities, linked closely to jobs, transit, and services for a mix
of incomes and needs.
3. Economic Development
The County continues to support a broad range of economic opportunities, from local
entrepreneurs and national firms, by closely linking jobs with transit, housing, and
services.
4. Transportation
The County will work cooperatively with the private sector to expand and enhance our
public transit system to better connect jobs, housing, shopping, and recreation, focusing
especially on community, town, and civic centers. Affordable and convenient multi-modal
transportation and mobility options help reduce our dependence on single-occupant
driving, conserve resources, improve air quality, and reduce traffic congestion.
5. Environment
The County will protect the biological integrity of our natural resources to maintain a
healthy and diverse ecosystem for present and future generations.. County policies and
projects will utilize these Principles of Sustainable Development, including resource
efficiency and land and resource conservation and protection, to promote biodiversity,
limit greenhouse gas emissions, and improve water and air quality.
6. Design Excellence
Design is the process by which we shape the built environment for living, working, and
playing. Design excellence ensures that the form of the public realm not only facilitates
function, but also creates an identity of place and a sense of community. This identity
helps realize vibrant, sustainable communities, creating streets, neighborhoods, and
cities where people can afford to live and want to live.
7. County and Regional Cooperation

The sustainable development of Montgomery County cannot be separated from its
broader regional, national, and global contexts. The County recognizes the need for
cooperation between County agencies addressing the diversity of issues involved in
implementing sustainable development, and continues coordination and cooperation with
its internal and neighboring municipalities in the Baltimore-Washington-Northern Virginia
region and beyond.
252
Sustainability and Growth Policy
One of the more challenging aspects of growth management is insuring: (1) that
principles of sustainability are reflected in both policy and implementation, (2) that
there is a mechanism for measuring the extent of our success in accomplishing that
objective, and (3) that the process for accomplishing (1) and (2) is straight-forward
and understandable.
In our work on sustainability, our group has reviewed this issue and is of the general
opinion that growth management is one “bridge” between policy and implementation
and is influenced over time by the principles of sustainability derived from our
Community Based Plans on a broader policy level and by an established and
credible indicator monitoring program at a more narrow level closer to
implementation.
Applying Sustainability to Planning Policy
Currently the master and sector planning process is guided by the principles
established in the General Plan Refinement and earlier generations of master plans.
Historically, master and sector plan recommendations have mirrored the GPR format
with recommendations by functional area (Land Use, Transportation, etc.). However,
as the County progresses, master and sector plans should provide comprehensive
and strategic guidance to address growth, specifically emphasizing sustainable
development, to rationalize how multiple objectives are achieved and priorities
chosen from among the many competing goals of the GPR.
A specific section or chapter that focuses on sustainable development should be

included in all master and sector plans. This dedicated focus on
sustainable development addresses specific choices made in each geographic area
when implementing public projects and private development. Having master and
sector plans address sustainability also provides the added emphasis that any
anticipated growth in the future will be sustainable.
But growth policy also centers on the provision of adequate public facilities. So the
question remains: how can the County best apply the concepts of sustainability to
provide infrastructure that simultaneously addresses environmental, economic and
equity concerns? The research suggests that measurable and incremental
indicators play an important role as communities embrace sustainability, providing
the opportunity to establish specific targets and evaluate progress in meeting
specified goals. The indicators employed necessarily vary depending on the scale
of application. In other words, the sustainability indicators relevant at the County
level may be broader than those used at the city or neighborhood level.
253
Toolbox of Opportunities
Opportunities exist for the County to apply sustainability in a number of policies and
ordinances that to ensure practical application of this broad concepts. Examples
include:
County Wide Initiatives

Capital Improvement Program
Forest Conservation Program
Green Infrastructure Functional Plan (including parks and conservation areas)
Water Resources Element (required by HB 1141)
Moderated Price Dwelling Units (MPDUs) and Workforce Housing
Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) and Agricultural easements
Local, Regional and Recreational parks
Stream valley and conservation parks
Jobs to housing balance
Roadway system: highways, residential primary, arterials etc.
Bikeway and path system: Class I (Shared Use), Class II etc
Environmental Resource Inventories
Community/Neighborhood
Community Master and Sector Plans: Specific areas in the County with
recommendations on land use, transportation, public facilities, parks and
open space, environment and implementation procedures.
Urban design: Specific designs for streets and public spaces
Historic resources: Preserving local and regional buildings, vitas or open
spaces for future generations
Public facilities: New facilities that serve existing and future communities
Transportation management: Efforts to encourage residents use of transit-rail
and bus-and reduce single-occupancy travel
Road network: Proposed new roads or expanded street standards
Indicators
Many communities pursuing sustainability measure progress towards their goals

using specific community indicators. The American Planning Association4 defines
community indicators as bits of information that, when combined, generate a picture
of what is happening in a local system. They provide insight into the overall direction
4
Community Indicators. Planning Advisory Service Report 517. December, 2003.
254
of a community, whether it is improving, declining, staying the same, or varying
depending on a given measure. A combination of indicators offers a measuring
system to provide information about past trends, current realities, and future
direction to facilitate decision-making.
The APA report identifies four broad categories of community indicators:
1) Quality of life: indicators that can be used to monitor what constitutes a “good
life” or “good society.”
2) Sustainable development: indicators that measure progress toward

sustainable development (as defined by the Brundtland Commission5 in
1987), offering an opportunity to move beyond standard economic indicators,
such as gross domestic product, to fully assess well-being.
3) Performance Evaluation: indicators that measure how efficiently an

organization, such as local or state government, provides specific services or
addresses key issues.
4) Healthy Communities: indicators that build on the World Health

Organization’s (WHO) Healthy Cities program that evaluates air quality,
access to health care, and nutrition to compare citizens’ health in different
areas.
What Indicators Provide
A survey by the American Planning Association identified several key benefits that
from the development and use of indicators. For example, indicators democratize
information for its use by many constituencies. They also can embody the inherent
values of a community, encouraging public sector responses that reflect these
values.
Indicators represent a method to accurately gauge the economic, environmental and

social conditions within a community over the long term, allowing for more effective
and informed decision-making. Lastly, indicator systems or projects, when
effectively designed and implemented, can improve evaluation of planning policy
and actions by helping establish causality between planning interventions and
outcomes.
Developing Community Indicators
While many communities have already developed community indicators, these are
generally local initiatives that should reflect the specific attributes and concerns of a
community. Based on the experiences of other jurisdictions, developing useful
indicators requires extensive public involvement. Sustainability also requires
5
The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as: development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
255
governmental support. For example, Santa Monica established an expert task force
of community and business leaders appointed by the City Council. For Seattle, a
non-profit organization leads development of indicators, with a board of directors
composed of civic and business leaders and Seattle city government staff. In short,
while different models may be used, each had support and participation from
business, citizens, and the highest levels of local government.
But while communities take different approaches in developing suitable indicators,

the dialogue between stakeholders both informs the process and engages the public
to offer clear direction for the future. Generating a sustainability indicators program
offers a logical compliment to effective growth policy by offering a means to
accurately gauge the economic, environmental and social conditions within a
community over the long term. And this ultimately allows for more effective and
informed decision-making.
Creating an Indicator Program
A useful set of indicators should be able tell us whether urban quality and
performance is improving or deteriorating in relation to desired targets. While it
sounds simple, developing an indicators program that reflects the environmental,
social and economic values of our residents, business leaders and politicians can be
daunting, especially given our diverse population. First and foremost, creating a
program should be as grassroots as possible with numerous opportunities for public
input and involvement.
The County initially should establish a committee comprised of a broad cross-section

of stakeholders to support the program's development and implementation. It is
desirable that the County select core indicators for which data will be continually
available and that allows the County to compare its progress to other jurisdictions,
especially those in the Washington D.C. area. However, data availability should not
be a limiting factor. Sustainable Seattle stresses that a lack of data on a key
sustainability or livability issue may itself be an indicator that the issue has to-date
received insufficient attention.
Generating a sustainability indicators program offers a logical compliment to

effective growth policy. An indicators program could be used in many different ways
including:
• Providing the basis for addressing issues of global climate change
• Improving the process for achieving the proper balance among the many
county plans and policies
• Providing a compilation of information to be used by decision makers on an
informal basis
• Becoming an extension of the Growth Policy trends analysis to monitor how
well projects are assisting progress towards sustainability goals.
256
sustainability principle may be applied to the 355/I270 Corridor Study. Of necessity,
this initial effort at applying this broad principle to a local land use exercise will be
conceptual in nature. But it is expected that the produce will yield some insights
useful to the further refinement and practical application of this new approach.
Another place where sustainability principles have relevance is the Water Resources
Element (WRE) of HB 1141. This legislation requires the County to amend its
General Plan to address water resources-related planning issues. As the County’s
land use and zoning authority in Montgomery County, M-NCPPC will be the lead
agency in coordinating and developing a Water Resources Functional Master Plan
that will amend the General Plan and serve as an umbrella for all the area and
sector master plans.
The plan will need to address how expected growth, as described in the General
Plan will affect and be affected by local water-related limiting factors such as water
supply, wastewater, stormwater, non-point source pollution, and water quality of
receiving streams. Phasing of growth, changes in growth plans, or changes in
methods to address deficiencies may be necessary if there are growth limitations
based on water resources-based considerations. This presents an opportunity to
further explore sustainability as it relates to water resources and planned growth.
During Growth Policy worksessions, the Planning Board developed a set of

illustrative indicators that could be incorporated into the growth policy and for which
the County could commence monitoring immediately. The Board identified five
criteria for indicator selection:
1) Is data available to monitor the indicator?

2) Are we confident that the data is accurate and is measuring the indicator?
3) Can the data be used to compare conditions in different areas of the County?
Are data available at geographic levels that allow such comparisons?
4) Can the indicator be influenced by changes to Growth Policy?
5) Is the indicator related to community livability?
The Planning Board recommends the indicators in this table be incorporated

as illustrative examples into the growth policy. These indicators measure basic
public policy issues related to growth management and achieve a rating of “good” or
“fair” for at least three of the five criteria for indicator selection. The Planning Board
views these initial indicators as a mechanism to establish the utility and value of
indicators for effective public policy, articulated through both growth policy and the
Capital Improvements Program. This inaugural set of indicators should be used to
initiate a broader, more inclusive public process to create a countywide sustainability
indicators program to influence a wider scope of public policies. One indicator that is
also considered important is air quality, although staff would like to work with the
Washington Metropolitan Council of Government staff, state and local agencies to
look for a measure that can be indicative of the changes to air quality related to
growth policy.
257
Table 4.2. Illustrative Sustainability Indicators
Name Confidence Data Geographic Influenced Relation to
– Data Avail- Sensitivity by Growth Community
Accuracy ability Policy? Livability
Mobility- Policy Fair Good Good Good Good
Area Mobility Score
FACILITY ADEQUACY
Accessibility – Fair Good Good Good Good

Number of Jobs
within a 30 minute
commute
Access to Parks – Good Good Good Good Good
Population within ½
mile of parkland
School Capacity - Good Good Good Good Good
Balance- Jobs to Good Good Good Good Good

Housing ratio
ECONOMY
Cost of Debt- Per Good Good Fair Fair Fair

Capita Debt
Service
Deferred Costs- Fair Good Fair Good Good
Deferred capital
projects
Green Area – Fair Good Good Good Good
ENVIRONMENT
Ratio of Pervious to
Impervious Surface
Stream Health- Good Fair Good Good Fair

Index of Biological
Indicators
Affordability - Good Good Good Fair Good

Percent of
Households paying
more than 30% of
income for
housing*
Income Gap – Good Good Poor Fair Good
Difference between
SOCIAL EQUITY
the household
income for the top
and bottom 20% of
population
Job Availability – Good Good Poor Fair Good
Labor Force
Participation
Education – Good Good Good Good Good
Percent of
population with
post-secondary
education
Public Health- Fair Good Poor Good Good
Obesity and
Asthma Rate
258
Recommendations
We face a tremendous challenge in the next decade: how to assure that all policy
changes and physical investment in Montgomery County direct growth and
development that is sustainable. We suggest the following actions to begin meeting
that challenge:
related plans and studies, such as the 355/I270 Corridor Study and the State
mandated Water Resources Element, allowing for varied or divergent
challenges in individual master plans.
countywide indicators and targets as soon as feasible within upcoming fiscal
year budgets.
• In the interim, use the illustrative sustainability principles in this report (see
Table 2) to assess growth policy and the Capital Improvement Program.
• Apply sustainability principles and goals to the analysis and evaluation of
trends and actions that are part of the ongoing Growth Policy and Capital
Improvements Program evaluation process.
259
APPENDIX
What have other American communities done?

Montgomery County is not alone in considering “growth” within the larger
community-based framework of Sustainable Development. Indeed, it was the United
Nations World Commission on Environment and Development that first undertook to
demonstrate the interdependence of economic growth, social development, and
environmental protection by defining Sustainable Development in the 1987
Brundtland Commission Report Our Common Future:
Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to

ensure that it meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
In the United States, several large municipalities have utilized this basic definition to
guide their development in more holistic terms. Below are five examples, three from
California, one from Florida and one from Colorado. These examples illustrate how
sustainability has been defined and how it can be used to guide planning decisions.
Marin County, CA
Marin Countywide Plan
Marin County defines Sustainability as:
Aligning our built environment and socioeconomic activities with

the natural systems that support life. In the long run, sustainability
means adapting human activities to the constraints and
opportunities of nature. Central to this definition is meeting the
needs of both the present and the future.6
To implement this definition, the plan states twelve Guiding Principles “to design a
sustainable future”:
1. Link equity, economy, and the environment locally, regionally, and

globally.
We will improve the vitality of our community, economy, and environment. We
will seek innovations that provide multiple benefits.
2. Minimize the use of finite resources and use all resources efficiently and
effectively.
We will reduce overall and individual consumption, and reuse and recycle
resources. We will reduce waste by optimizing the full life-cycle of products
and processes.
3. Reduce the use and minimize the release of hazardous materials.
6
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/pub/fm/CWP05_WEB/CWP_Intro.pdf
260
We will continue to make progress toward eliminating the release of
substances that cause damage to natural systems. We will use a
precautionary approach to prevent environmentally caused diseases.
4. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

We will join other communities addressing climate change by lowering our
greenhouse gas emissions. We will increase the use of renewable resources,
which do not have a negative impact on the earth’s climate.
5. Preserve our natural assets.

We will continue to protect and restore open space, wilderness, and damaged
ecosystems, and enhance habitats for bio-diversity.
6. Protect our agricultural assets.

We will protect agricultural lands and work to maintain our agricultural
heritage. We will support the production and marketing of healthy, fresh,
locally-grown food.
7. Provide efficient and effective transportation.

We will expand our public transportation system to better connect jobs,
housing, schools, shopping and recreational facilities. We will provide
affordable and convenient transportation alternatives that reduce our
dependence on single-occupancy vehicles, conserve resources, improve air
quality, and reduce traffic congestion.
8. Supply housing affordable to the full range of our members of the

workforce and diverse community.
We will provide and maintain well-designed, energy-efficient, diverse housing
close to job centers, shopping and transportation links. We will pursue
innovative opportunities to finance senior, workforce, and special needs
housing, promote infill development, and reuse and redevelop underused
sites.
9. Foster businesses that create economic, environmental, and social

benefits.
We will support locally owned businesses and retain, expand, and attract a
diversity of businesses that meet the needs of our residents and strengthen
our economic base. We will partner with local employers to address
transportation and housing needs.
10. Educate and prepare our workforce and residents.

We will make high-quality education, workforce preparation, and lifelong
learning opportunities available to all sectors of our community. We will help
all children succeed in schools, participate in civic affairs, acquire and retain
meaningful employment, and achieve economic independence.
261
11. Cultivate ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic diversity.
We will honor our past, celebrate our cultural diversity, and respect human
dignity. We will build vibrant communities, and foster programs to maintain,
share and appreciate our cultural differences and similarities.
12. Support public health, safety, and social justice.

We will live in healthy, safe communities and provide equal access to
amenities and services. We will particularly protect and nurture our children,
our elders, and the more vulnerable members of our community.
Marin County provides an excellent example of aggressive visionary Sustainable

Development Principles that address the conceptual as well as the policy area
issues.
City of Santa Monica, CA

Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan
Santa Monica uses the Brundtland Commission definition of Sustainable
Development as part of their Guiding Principles to “provide the basis from which
effective and sustainable decisions can be made.”7
1. The Concept of Sustainability Guides City Policy

Santa Monica is committed to meeting its existing needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The
long-term impacts of policy choices will be considered to ensure a sustainable
legacy.
2. Protection, Preservation, and Restoration of the Natural Environment is

a High Priority of the City
Santa Monica is committed to protecting, preserving and restoring the natural
environment. City decision-making will be guided by a mandate to maximize
environmental benefits and reduce or eliminate negative environmental
impacts. The City will lead by example and encourage other community
stakeholders to make a similar commitment to the environment.
3. Environmental Quality, Economic Health and Social Equity are Mutually

Dependent
Sustainability requires that our collective decisions as a city allow our
economy and community members to continue to thrive without destroying
the natural environment upon which we all depend. A healthy environment is
integral to the city’s long-term economic and societal interests. In achieving a
healthy environment, we should ensure that inequitable burdens are not
placed on any one geographic or socioeconomic sector of the population and
that the benefits of a sustainable community are accessible to all members of
the community.
7
http://santa-monica.org/epd/scp/guiding.htm
262
4. All Decisions Have Implications to the Long-term Sustainability of Santa
Monica
The City will ensure that each of its policy decisions and programs are
interconnected through the common bond of sustainability as expressed in
these guiding principles. The policy and decision-making processes of the
City will reflect our sustainability objectives. The City will lead by example and
encourage other community stakeholders to use sustainability principles to
guide their decisions and actions.
5. Community Awareness, Responsibility, Participation and Education are

Key Elements of a Sustainable Community
All community members, including individual citizens, community-based
groups, businesses, schools and other institutions must be aware of their
impacts on the environmental, economic and social health of Santa Monica,
must take responsibility for reducing or eliminating those impacts, and must
take an active part in community efforts to address sustainability concerns.
The City will therefore be a leader in the creation and sponsorship of
education opportunities to support community awareness, responsibility and
participation in cooperation with schools, colleges and other organizations in
the community.
6. Santa Monica Recognizes Its Linkage with the Regional, National, and
Global Community
Local environmental, economic and social issues cannot be separated from
their broader context. This relationship between local issues and regional,
national and global issues will be recognized and acted upon in the City's
programs and policies. The City's programs and policies should therefore be
developed as models that can be emulated by other communities. The City
will also act as a strong advocate for the development and implementation of
model programs and innovative approaches by regional, state and federal
government that embody the goals of sustainability.
7. Those Sustainability Issues Most Important to the Community Will be

Addressed First, and the Most Cost-Effective Programs and Policies Will
be Selected
The financial and human resources which are available to the City are limited.
The City and the community will reevaluate its priorities and its programs and
policies annually to ensure that the best possible investments in the future are
being made. The evaluation of a program's cost-effectiveness will be based
on a complete analysis of the associated costs and benefits, including
environmental and social costs and benefits.
8. The City is Committed to Procurement Decisions which Minimize

Negative Environmental and Social Impacts
The procurement of products and services by the City and Santa Monica
residents, businesses and institutions results in environmental, social and
economic impacts both in this country and in other areas of the world. The
City will develop and abide by an environmentally and socially responsible
263
procurement policy that emphasizes long-term values and will become a
model for other public as well as private organizations. The City will advocate
for and assist other local agencies, businesses and residents in adopting
sustainable purchasing practices.
9. Cross-sector Partnerships Are Necessary to Achieve Sustainable Goals

Threats to the long-term sustainability of Santa Monica are multi-sector in
their causes and require multi-sector solutions. Partnerships among the City
government, businesses, residents and all community stakeholders are
necessary to achieve a sustainable community.
These principles function largely as a statement of commitment to the goals and

general implementation of Sustainable Development. While the guiding principles
remain conceptual, Santa Monica has developed eight areas for which it has set
performance goals and measurement indicators:
1. Resource Conservation
2. Environmental and Public Health
3. Transportation
4. Economic Development
5. Open Space and Land Use
6. Housing
7. Community Education and Civic Participation
8. Human Dignity
The structure of these goal areas and indicators will be addressed later in the
discussion of indicators.
San Mateo County, CA

Sustainable San Mateo County Initiative
San Mateo County provides a definition of Sustainable Development and follows up
with measurement Indicators. For San Mateo:
Sustainability is a shorthand term for viewing the relationship

between our actions today and their affect on the future. Living
sustainably means that we meet today’s needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs.
Sustainable planning recognizes the interconnections between

the environment, economy, and society. A disruption in any one
area affects the health of the other two. Discussions of
sustainability often cite the three Es: Environment, Economy, and
social Equity. At Sustainable San Mateo County, we focus on how
all these areas affect the health of our region.8
8
www.sustainablesanmateo.org
264
In addition to this definition, the Initiative explicates each of the “three Es”:
Environment
Vital communities have clean air, water, and are free from pollution. A healthy
environment is one where resources are replaced, not depleted. Healthy
environments include natural spaces where non-humans can thrive.
Economy
Vital communities have strong economies. They foster sound businesses,

government, and non-profit entities. They provide jobs, meet basic community
needs, and offer a ground for innovation. A strong economy creates a solid
foundation for society.
Social Equity
Vital communities meet the needs of all their citizens. They provide good schools,
affordable housing, and the basic services that enable even the least affluent to live
comfortably. A healthy society fosters a wide sense of individual responsibility for the
community.
Denver, CO
Greenprint Denver Initiative
The Greenprint Denver Initiative was launched by the city’s mayor to address issues
of Sustainable Development. The Initiative defines Sustainable Development to:
Balance economic, social and environmental impacts of our

actions. Greenprint Denver is an effort to fully integrate
sustainability as a core value and operating principle in Denver
city government. 9
The Initiative has seven Guiding Principles:
• Communicate sustainability as a public value and expanding the concept of

the city as a steward of public resources.
• Support sustainability as a core business value to improve efficiencies in
resource use, reduce environmental impact and invoke broad cultural
changes.
• Incorporate “triple bottom line” analysis (seeking to balance economic, social
and environmental considerations) into all city policy and program decisions.
• Set clear metrics of success and report on our progress moving forward
through annual report cards.
• Pursue activities that support environmental equity and health for all citizens.
• Partner with community organizations, cultural institutions and businesses to
achieve broad Impact.
9
www.greenprintdenver.org
265
• Lead by example in City practice wherever possible.
The Austin Matrix for Evaluating the Capital Improvement Program
Austin’s Sustainability Matrix was devised to help provide an indication to the

community of whether or not a project would help move towards identified
sustainability goals and objectives. After establishing these goals, Austin developed
it matrix to equally evaluate environmental, economic and equity concerns. The
matrix included the following 13 criteria:
Public Health/Safety (13 points)

Maintenance (13 points)
Socioeconomic Impact (10 points)
Neighborhood Impact (11 points)
Social Justice (12 points)
Alternative Funding (5 points)
Coordination with Other Projects (6 points)
Land Use (10 points)
Air Impact (4 points)
Water Impact (4 points)
Energy Impact (4 points)
Biota Impact (4 points)
Green Building (4 points)
Austin developed these criteria to evaluate, and assigned specific weighting to each.
City government departments scored projects, while a City Sustainability Officer
appointed by the City Manager reviewed scores. This ensured some consistency in
what Austin recognized was a largely subjective process.
In discussing lessons learned, Austin did not view the matrix as a likely final
determinant to project selection. However, the dialog resulting from the matrix
served to greatly further understanding of sustainability within various city
departments. For example, departments followed certain building guidelines more
closely in order to achieve higher matrix scores.
The key points from Austin are that the concepts of sustainability, themselves
subjective, can be systematically included to better evaluate capital improvement
projects. And by creating greater dialogue between departments, the Austin
example illustrates that tools like a matrix, which attempt to both identify and quantify
impacts, effectively encourage the use of more sustainable practices. By articulating
sustainability in its policies, by establishing clear sustainability goals and objectives
in master plans, and by supplementing these policy efforts with analytic processes to
evaluate capital improvement projects, the County could potentially direct
development and provide infrastructure to more effectively balance economic,
environmental and equity concerns.
266
Common Indicators from Around the U.S.
An indicator presents a trend over time to allow residents and decision makers to track and monitor select social, economic and
environmental conditions. Indicator programs recognize that communities are complex, dynamic natural and human settlements
and, therefore, attempt to measure progress toward specific quantifiable goals or targets. Indicators simplify vast amounts of
information and data, and thus provide a common ground on which communities create relationships, build trust and consensus, and
base decisions.
Numerous jurisdictions across the county have successful indicator programs, several of which were studied by the sustainable
growth team: Sustainable Seattle; King County, Washington; Santa Monica, California; San Mateo, California; and Marin County,
California. With the exception of Sustainable Seattle, which is run by a citizen-managed non-profit organization, these programs are
operated by government entities.
These programs are successful largely because they represent the values, interests and concerns of key stakeholders in their
respective jurisdictions. Redefining Progress, a non-profit organization based in California that tracks indicator programs nationwide,
identifies 11 important characteristics of indicators:
1. Relevant. The indicator tells you something about the system you need to know, and it is meaningful to your community.
2. Valid. Understandable rationales exist for using both the specific indicator and for drawing conclusions from it.
3. Credible. Community members must believe it important to measure.
4. Measurable. Data must exist that are relevant and linked to goals/targets.
5. Consistent and Reliable. The data must be available over time.
6. Comparable. Community and civic leaders should be able to use the data to compare progress to other jurisdictions.
7. Understandable. Indicators must be simple and logical
8. Leading. Like the canary in the coalmine, an indicator should forewarn of developing problems.
9. Compelling and interesting. Remember, you must be able to communicate results and grab people’s attention.
10. Engaging to local media.
11. Accessible and affordable.
Generating a sustainability indicators program, or at least identifying the framework for developing such a program, offers a logical
compliment to effective growth policy. Indicators, developed by stakeholders from the community, business and government, provide
an opportunity to clearly measure progress and evaluate success. Ultimately, indicators provide an additional tool for better policy
formation, allowing decision makers to establish causal links between planning interventions and outcomes. Any developed
indicators would then function as the backbone for the forthcoming Energy and Environment Functional Master Plan Process, during
which additional quality of life indicators not necessarily limited to growth policy could be identified.
Page 267
The indicators included in this table represent those indicators we found most relevant to growth policy issues and for which Planning
Board or County Council decisions on growth and development could alter an indicator’s progress or trend. We broadly grouped
similar indicators based essentially on the pillars of sustainability described above—environment, social/equity and economy—and
further subdivided them to improve organization and readability. The table shows which indicators repeat and where categories of
indicators are similar and at times identical. With the current county focus on green building, we added the draft Leadership for
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Design to illustrate measurable attributes of community design that
could support sustainability.
Indicator Category Sustainable King County Santa San Mateo Marin County LEED-ND
Seattle Monica County
Environment – Land Use and Transportation
New Construction in Urban Center Percent of

Urban Areas Residential residential,
Permits As mixed use
Percentage of projects within
Total Permits ¼ mile of
transit nodes
Land Consumption Ratio of Land A variety of housing sizes
Development and types that achieves 0.5
and Population according to the Simpson
Growth Diversity Index
Percentage of
New Housing
Built on
Redevelopable
Land
Parks and Open Space Number of Acres Per 1,000 Acres of public Acres per Acres of Parks, green plazas or
city residents Residents open space by 1000 county-owned squares are at least 1/6
within 1/8 type residents neighborhood acre in area, and at least
mile of open parks 150’ in widthActive open
space Percent of space (playfields etc): of at
Page 268
households least 1 acre lies within ½
and population mile walk distance of 90%
within ¼ and of dus and non-residential
½ mile of a projects larger than 7
park acres-all parks shall
average at least ½ acre in
size
Modes of Travel Percent of Number of Commute in Modal travel Implement a TDM program
Population By trips by type County By split that reduces weekday peak
Mode Choice Mode Countywide period by at least 20%
For Work Trips Average compared without any TMD
vehicle Modal split by requirements
Percent Change ridership County
In Jobs & Bus employees Sites with transit service of
Ridership Annual bus 20 or more accessible
and transit transit service per day; in a
Change In ridership MPO and transportation
Average analysis zone where VMT
Commute Time Average per capita or SOV driving
For County Vehicle mode share is no more
Residents Ridership of than 80% of the average of
businesses the metro region as a
Percent with greater whole
Increase In Use than 50
– Commercial employees
vs Non
Commercial Percent of
Vehicles residents who
have used a
sustainable
mode in the
last month
Page 269
Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Total VMT VMT Within Development within MPO
Traveled In County and within Traffic Analysis
County – Total Zones where VMT per
& Per Capita capita or SOV driving mode
share has been
demonstrated to be no
more than 80% of the
average of the region as a
whole
Bicycle Lanes and Paths Percent of Miles of Class I 50% of dwelling units and
arterial streets and Class II business entrances are
with bike bicycle paths within 3 miles of at least 4
lanes, Total or more diverse uses using
miles of bike an existing biking network;
paths or
50% of all buildings are
located within ¼ mile walk
to multi-use trail or Class I
bicycle trail of at least 3
miles in length
Bicycle and pedestrian Annual
safety number of
bicycle and
pedestrian
collisions with
motor vehicles
Traffic Congestion – Number of Average
Level of Service signalized congestion
intersections delay
and local
streets with
LOS D or
lower
Page 270
Residential/Mixed Use Percent of Locate development that is
Projects in proximity to Residential/Mix near existing or planned
transit ed Use transit service so that at
Projects within least 50% of dwellings and
¼ or ½ mile business entrances are
of transit within ¼ mile walk distance
of bus or streetcar stops or
within ½ mile walk distance
of bus rapid transit stops
Environment – Ecology, Energy and Public Health
Air Quality Number of Number of Greenhouse Supports the design and

Days In A Year Days Over gas emissions construction of energy
In Each Air California from county efficient buildings to reduce
Quality Standard government air pollution and
Category sources environmental impacts from
energy production;
Demonstrate a minimum
10% of proposed building
performance compared to
the baseline building
performance rating per
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1.2004
Energy Consumption Per Capita Fuel Reduce energy
Energy consumption by consumption and
Consumption – County vehicles production by increasing
BTU’s Per Year the efficiency of the power
Number of zero delivery system; onsite
or low-emission energy generation system
County vehicles with peak electrical
Page 271
generating capacity of at
Electricity use least 5%; incorporate on-
per employee site nonpolluting renewable
in County energy
buildings
Total MW of
County
photovoltaic
systems
Water Consumption Total & Per Per Capita Water usage by Non-residential: Employ
Capita Water County facilities strategies that in aggregate
Consumption – Consumption use 20% less water than
Gallons Per Day the water use baseline
Residential: Average flow

rate of all lavatory faucets
and shower heads must be
<2.0 GPM; landscaping
does not require permanent
irrigation systems
Surface and Proportion of Number of Water quality
Groundwater Water Streams In and amount (Macro –
Quality Each Biotic of Organic invertebrate
Status Chemicals diversity)
Found in
Levels of Drinking
Arsenic, Nitrate Water
& Lead
Impervious and Percent of Percent of Percent of land Non-Roof:
Pervious Surfaces land Permeable preserved Shade trees; paving
identified as land area materials with a Solar
urban or Miles of open Reflectance Index (SRI) of
Page 272
residential Percent of space trails at least 29; open grid
open space pavement system; place a
that is minimum of 50% of parking
permeable spaces
Roof: Use roofing materials

that have a SRI of 29 or 78
depending on the roof
slope;
Green-vegetated-roof for at
least 50% of roof area
Biodiversity Total Number Presence of key Protect species and
of Plant and indicator ecological communities-
Animal species comply with Habitat
Species Conservation Plan under
Listed as Endangered Species Act
Rare
Threatened
and
Endangered
Tree Protection and Percent of Use native trees and plants
Conservation tree canopy
coverage by
neighborhood
Percent of
newly
planted and
total trees
that meet
defined
sustainability
criteria
Page 273
Social Equity
Supply and Demand for Number of 15% of total rental units

Rental Units Affordable priced for 50% of area
Rental Units By median income; at least
Income Group 30% of rental units should
meet 80% area median
income
Home Purchase % Market Gap Between Average cost Average cost 10% of new for-sale
Affordability price of Affordable Price of home of home housing is priced for
housing that For Median HH ownership ownership households up to 80% of
is above and First Time area medial income; 20%
affordable Buyer HH of households up to 120%
level Compared To median income
Median Home
Value
Existing Housing Units % of Percentage of
Affordable to Low Countywide households
Income Households Housing who can
Affordable to afford
Low Income average cost
Groups of housing
Economy
Location of Percentage of Percent of

Employment New Jobs county
Created In employers
Urban Centers who live in
County
Page 274
New Housing Units Built
Through
Redevelopment
Balance of jobs and Change In Jobs Ratio of Include a residential
housing Per Housing housing to component equaling at
Units In King & jobs least 25% of the
Surrounding development’s total building
Counties sq.ft.; locate development
within ½ mile walk distance
of a # pre-development
jobs;
Agriculture Number of Percentage of Dedicate permanent and
traditional local produce viable growing space
farms served at and/or related facilities per
County- square feet-related to
Number of owned residential development;
organic farms facilities alternative is to purchase
and shares in Community
Annual Supported Agriculture
Number of number of program; proximity to a
farmer’s farmers farmer’s market-1/4 mile
markets and markets
vendors
Acres in King
County with
Agricultural
Zoning
Page 275
Design Excellence: Tools to Improve Growth’s
Contribution to Our Quality of Life
Bethesda
INTRODUCTION
The following discussion of design excellence is intended to address methods to

achieve the objectives identified in the other papers included in the Growth Policy
report. Design is not an end unto itself; it is the means by which we use the forces of
growth and change to achieve objectives that we mutually set. As an example, if the
report on sustainability identifies a set of objectives for the preservation of the
environment, design excellence provides the tools to achieve those objectives in the
best possible manner.
Planning in Montgomery County in the next century will require significant attention to
design quality in community building. Directing development to more dense Metro
station areas and the I-270 Corridor and away from rural areas is a hallmark of the
General Plan …on Wedges and Corridors for Montgomery County. The County has a
limited amount of available land for development. Preserving the Ag Reserve and the
character of the existing communities continues to be a challenge. A significant portion
of the growth in the future will occur through redevelopment of currently developed
properties including the older retail centers. Another challenge would be to preserve and
enhance the character of the major transportation routes. From an economic point of
view, design excellence should also be part of maintaining the County’s competitive
edge in attracting quality businesses in the 21st century global market place. All of
these are primarily design issues and require attention to design in community building
for success as part of a comprehensive growth policy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report provides both short-term and long-term recommendations for achieving
design excellence through sustainability goals, enhancing the public realm, improving
our public infrastructure, and encouraging non-motorized mobility mainly by improving
our planning and regulatory tools such as master planning, regulatory planning, public
facilities and the CIP, and the promotion of good design and staff training.
276
Short-term Recommendations
Growth Policy-related recommendation
The language in the growth policy should include emphasis on design excellence
when reviewing and measuring the impact of a development on the pedestrian
facilities on the adjoining area. Any traffic mitigation measures should take into
account not only the objective traffic standards but also give priority to the pedestrian
environment with a focus on design excellence and creating safe, comfortable and
attractive public realm for all users, especially when it comes to pedestrian and transit
access to schools, libraries, recreations centers and other neighborhood facilities.
[Language to this effect has been added to the draft growth policy resolution.]
CIP and Design Excellence
The County CIP process should be reviewed to identify opportunities to foster a

greater focus on design excellence and better coordination among different
agencies involved in the design and development of public infrastructure – roads,
schools, libraries, recreation centers and other public facilities. Currently, the
design of these facilities, and the impact of a proposed design on the adjoining
community and the environment, is reviewed as part of the final mandatory referral
review by the Planning Board. Due to the iterative nature of facility implementation, in
most cases decisions about facility location and scope are made by the Planning Board
and County Council prior to mandatory referral. When resources are available to pay
attention to design details, it is too late to make changes without causing delays and
adding extra costs. Early design coordination between Park and Planning and other
agencies, starting by inserting design goals into the purpose and need (along with items
such as environmental protection and improved safety and mobility) for the project
should help reduce conflicts and create better design while saving time and money by
eliminating successive redesigns and changes necessitated by the last minute reviews.
The County Council could direct the Planning Board and the County Executive,
to convene a design summit among different agencies involved in the design and
development of public facilities to develop a consensus and commitment to
design excellence as a core value in all public projects, and focus on how to
improve design of public facilities through various means but more specifically
through better coordination among agencies. [Language to this effect has been
added to the draft growth policy resolution.]
An outcome of this design summit could be the designation of one or more

upcoming CIP projects as a demonstration project to help create a CIP process
that fosters design excellence.
277
Mid-term Recommendations
Zoning Ordinance Reform
Emphasize design excellence and provide more focused and clearly articulated
standards for better design in the new zones and the proposed rewrite of the
Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance reform is already one of the work program items
for the Planning Department. The Department intends to pursue design excellence as
one of the major goals of the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, including development of
new zones.
Design Protocol for the Planning Department Staff
Creating a design protocol for the staff and the applicants that would further
elaborate on the design controls in the Zoning Ordinance and cover different
situations as well as provide a set of best urban design practices. Currently, the
zones in the Zoning Ordinance vary in the specificity of design controls, and the
interpretation and application of these controls varies from project to project depending
upon the intent of the applicant and the ability of the staff to negotiate certain level of
design excellence through the review process (for example, are sidewalks part of the
public use space?). This is partly due to the fact that the zoning text has to cover many
different site conditions through the same language for all. Even when new zones are
developed with more detailed design guidance, the issue of interpretation and the clarity
in application of design controls remains. A design protocol for the staff and the
applicants would help clarify the intent of the regulations and how to apply the controls
in different site conditions. It would serve the same function as the current recreation
guidelines used by the Site Plan review staff. But it would be different from recreation
guidelines or typical design guidelines in that it would not specify a certain type of open
space for each location, or level of fenestration on each façade. Rather, it would provide
best practices for each type of open space, building type, or walkability factors. For
example, it may provide the most desirable proportions of an urban open space
(between 1:2 and 1:3), or the appropriate building height to street width ratios. It may
also describe best example of urban design from around the country as a reference
source and serve as a staff training tool.
Urban Design Compendiums to Master Plans for Mixed-use Centers
Prepare design guidelines for high-density areas targeted for compact, mixed-use
developments. New master plans are providing more design guidance than the older
plans. However, because master plans are long-term documents for larger areas they
may not be the appropriate tools to provide the more detailed design guidance that is
needed on a block-by-block basis, the kind that is provided in the new form-based
codes. Also, the context may change as new developments occur in an area requiring
modifications and adjustments to already approved design concepts and guidelines
over time, something that is not easily done through master plan amendments.
278
We recommend that the Planning Department prepare design guidelines for high
density areas targeted for compact, mixed-use developments. These design guidelines
— urban design compendiums — would provide design guidance more detailed than
the master plans for CBDs, town centers, metro station areas, and other mixed-use
centers. They would be reviewed by the Planning Board and the County Council along
with the master plans but would not be part of the approved master plans. The Planning
Board would have the authority to make changes and adjustments to these documents
as needed without the need for master plan amendments.
Sustainability
Take a leadership role in reviewing the LEED for neighborhood pilot program to
develop standards in the design of green communities. LEED- ND (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development) standards have
been proposed as part of a pilot program for developing standards for planning and
development of more environmentally sensitive and sustainable communities. Planning
for sustainability is best done early in the design of communities. Montgomery County
could participate in this voluntary program and help develop new standards for
sustainable neighborhood planning.
Quality of the Public Realm
Focus design excellence on the quality of the public realm. The quality of the public
realm—streets, parks and open spaces, and the layout of blocks and buildings—forms
the basis of our perception of a place. Although the quality of the private realm is
important in that it impacts the health and welfare of its inhabitants, the use of energy,
building materials and other resources, the public realm is the context in which the
private realm exists. Achieving design excellence in the public realm would significantly
improve the quality of all man-made environment in Montgomery County. The following
three areas of the public realm should be the focus of design excellence:
- Streets and Highways: emphasize design excellence in the proposed
revisions to the County’s Road Code. The design of streets (the area of the
public right-of-way) is a major determinant of the function and character of a
place. The revisions to the County’s road code currently underway represent
a great opportunity to emphasize better design for walkability of our streets.
- Public Spaces: enhance the design of public use spaces, green areas,
and active and passive recreation areas required by the Zoning
Ordinance. The design of public spaces and space between buildings has a
significant impact on the character of any development. Open areas should
be the focus of design excellence in the development review processes.
- Blocks and Buildings: enhance the findings for compatibility and
provision of adequate, safe and efficient layout of buildings and open
space specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The layout of blocks and
buildings provides the form and structure for the space between buildings. In
most cases the experience of the public realm is impacted more by the
spaces between the buildings than the buildings and plazas alone.
279
Pedestrian Access
Improve walkability in neighborhoods through pedestrian connections and

enhancing the pedestrian experience. As the development pattern gets more
compact in the future, especially in the redevelopment of shopping centers and mixed-
use developments near high-density residential areas, the pedestrian accessibility and
the quality of pedestrian experience will become more important. Improving walkability
in our communities provides the opportunity to significantly benefit the overall health of
the residents by encouraging alternatives to automobile travel.
DISCUSSION
Design excellence in the built environment is the tool to create high quality (safe,
functional, attractive, and sustainable) places for living, work, leisure and transportation.
A program of needs and constraints guides the design process, and the quality of the
end product depends upon the shared vision and goals of all participants but especially
the decision makers. Toady, the overarching vision of sustainability has emerged as a
significant guiding principle and objective for design excellence in the built environment.
Before discussing how to achieve design excellence, concrete terms should define the
goals of design excellence in Montgomery County under the umbrella of sustainable
design, and in ways that are understood by all stakeholders and participants in the
development process. Sustainability should be defined at different scales (countywide,
neighborhood, streets, block, buildings, and open spaces); and the most sustainable
development pattern at each scale. A well-defined and clear set of objectives should set
priorities and resolve conflicts among competing and conflicting goals.
Achieving design excellence is a complex and long-term undertaking that involves

numerous stakeholders in both the public and the private sectors. This report focuses
on how to achieve design excellence mainly through the public review process and
better design of the public infrastructure. We propose that the following four principles
guide the design excellence initiative in Montgomery County:
• Design excellence is a core value in the process of community building in
Montgomery County
• Sustainability is a guiding principle for land use planning and design
• The public realm is an important concern for design excellence
• Pedestrian access should be a major focus of community development
Importance of Design
Design Excellence and the Growth Policy

This growth policy document proposes a new way to look at growth management. It has
been developed with the belief that growth policy should not be about the adequacy of
infrastructure alone. It should also address the quality of that infrastructure, and reflect
the fact that good design is the tool to achieve all the other goals of the growth policy
280
including sustainability and better quality of life. More than that, it is about expanding
our focus beyond the characteristics of things – roads, schools, etc – to more broadly
include the experience of the people going about their daily lives. In some ways,
Montgomery County is a pioneer in this approach since we have not found many other
jurisdictions that have taken such a comprehensive approach to growth management.
Therefore, some of the ideas presented here may need to be modified and refined as
we implement this broader view of growth management. Even though it adds more
complexity to the growth policy, we still believe that a comprehensive approach is the
right way to go about managing growth.
Quality of Life
Good design is a growth management issue because growth is fundamentally a quality
of life issue. Growth is never neutral. It is going to have an effect on the community’s
quality of life—positive or negative. Growth management is avoiding, minimizing, and
mitigating the negative impacts and maximizing the positive aspects of growth. Good
design is one of the tools to help manage the desired growth and improve the quality of
life of the community. We want good growth, not bad growth, and design quality is more
often the only difference between the two.
Economic edge
From a purely economic point of view good design is extremely important in terms of
what it can do to help increase the County’s competitive edge in attracting quality
businesses and workers in the twenty-first century global market. Good design is one of
the most cost effective ways to achieve that edge. Now that Montgomery County is
moving from the green field development phase to a redevelopment phase, the design
and character of that development is going to be even more important than it has been
in the past. Research has shown that a better-educated professional segment of the
population is attracted to places that have the energy and vibrancy associated with well-
designed places for living, working and leisure activities. The new generation of workers
is looking for more diverse and attractive places to live and work. And this group can
move to other places that offer such qualities far more easily than their parents’
generation did.
Walkability
In the past the County’s approach to growth management has generally been
concerned primarily with the quantity and timing of infrastructure delivery needed to
support certain levels of growth and redevelopment. The design quality of the growth
and especially the quality of the needed infrastructure was not evaluated as part of
biennial growth policy discussions. We believe that we need to look at growth
management in a more comprehensive manner and analyze not just one factor such as
traffic congestion or school crowding but also the overall quality of life. While pedestrian
amenities are considered in detail during mandatory referral reviews and subdivision
cases, pedestrian consideration in growth management has historically been performed
by policy-level tradeoffs among traffic congestion levels, pedestrian crossing times, and
the equivalency between vehicle trips and non-auto amenities. In addition to providing
an assessment of the adequacy of the infrastructure, growth policy should more
proactively evaluate how walkable and safe our communities are for pedestrians and
281
other non-motorized transportation, and how more walkable places can reduce our
reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and increase pedestrian accessibility to schools
and other neighborhood facilities.
Well-designed transit
Transit must be well designed to compete with the single occupancy car travel. It must
be well designed in every way possible including time advantage over private auto
travel. The relative transit mobility index introduced in this growth policy is a step in the
right direction to addressing this need. Productive ways to address (not eliminate)
congestion include giving people more choices through better transit and land use
coordination — by making land use and transit work with each other, not against each
other.
Cost and benefit

All development has certain costs and benefits: economic, cultural, social, and
environmental. These costs and benefits can be: intentional and unintentional; tangible
and intangible; explicit and implicit; short-term and long-term; avoidable and
unavoidable. Bad design has additional costs. It is very expensive in the long-term,
more so for the community than the developer since a larger share of these costs is
borne by the community. For example, an owner can get rid of a building that doesn’t
have economic value anymore (sell at a loss, or even abandon it). But the community
doesn’t have that option, and suffers the negative consequences (loss of value for
adjoining properties, unsafe conditions) for a much longer period. Even the short-term
costs to the developer are ultimately passed on to the community in higher rents, prices
of goods and services and other ways. That is why we should be more concerned about
the costs of bad design.
The other side of that coin is benefits of good design. Good design can bring some
additional benefits to both the developers and the community. For the developer the
benefits might be more short-term and purely economic. For the community a good
project can be a benefit to the surrounding properties (economic), a source of affordable
housing (social) and may have a great open space or amenity (cultural) that would be
there for a very long time.
The Growth Policy is an appropriate tool

Although our master plans and the Zoning Ordinance are forward looking and based on
the up-to-date planning and design thinking when written, advances and new
techniques occur at a more rapid pace. With a shelf life of 15-20 years, the master plan
timing is not flexible enough to respond to development demands and advances in
current sustainability thinking. Growth policy is a more flexible tool than some other
controls, is reviewed more often, and can be used to supplement our master planning
and zoning tools. Also, as development gets more complex, we will need all the tools
available to us in order to manage growth in the best possible way. Growth policy is one
of the tools and we should take full advantage of its potential uses in creating better
communities.
282
TOOLS AND PROCESSES
Our efforts to manage growth and achieve design excellence must occur within the
existing framework of various laws, policies and past practices. This framework consists
of tools and processes each of which is appropriate for certain purposes, and is applied
at various geographic scales and stages of the development process. Some of them are
more general in nature while others are more detailed oriented. The following
discussion outlines these tools and processes available to us for managing land use
and development in Montgomery County.
Tools: Master Plans, Zoning Ordinance, Road Code, and Design Guidelines
Master Plans
At the countywide and regional level, the County’s master plan, the General Plan … on
Wedges and Corridors, defines the land use and design vision of the county. It provides
a very broad-brush macro-level vision and land use guidance. This vision is further
refined in forty-four area master plans and sector plans. These master plans provide
the next in-depth level of land use and planning guidance. They vary in terms of their
style and degree of design guidance - some are very detailed while others are more
policy and land use oriented. CBDs, Metro stations, and certain areas with special
issues have sector plans, which cover a smaller geographic area and therefore provide
the next more detailed level of planning framework.
Zoning Ordinance
After the area wide recommendations on land use are set in the master and sector
plans, a significant portion of the implementation of the recommendations occurs
through the Zoning Ordinance. The design guidance in the Zoning Ordinance is more
detailed—on the site plan and building level even though it varies depending upon when
each zone was created and what the prevailing best practice on designing development
controls at the time was. Today, new techniques such as form-based codes or smart
codes include higher design emphasis than the typical traditional Euclidean zones.
Road Code
The County’s road code specifies the width, type and character of all public and private
streets, including sidewalk areas, in the County. It is the major regulatory tool that deals
with a significant portion of the public realm—the streets and sidewalks. To a large
extent it determines the character of a place and how walkable and pedestrian-oriented
it is going to be. The County is currently in the process of revising its road code. The
level and the degree of emphasis on design guidance in the final road code will have a
major impact on the quality of public realm in future developments.
Design guidelines
Design Guidelines can provide the most detailed level of design guidance for a limited
area. They have been used in Montgomery County to provide detailed design guidance
generally not possible, and sometimes not desirable, through master or sector plans, or
even the Zoning Ordinance. They could be used to supplement master and sector
plans in providing design guidance, which may be too detailed for master plans and
283
may be more flexible than allowed by the constrained legal structure of the Zoning
Ordinance. Planning Board could approve guidelines for staff use to provide detailed
guidance for streetscape, open spaces, recreational needs, compatibility of buildings,
and environmental protection.
Processes: Development Plans, Preliminary Plans, Site Plans, and Mandatory

Referral
In Montgomery County, the regulatory tools of Master Plans, Zoning Ordinance, the
Road Code, and design guidelines are applied through the regulatory processes of
project plans, development plans, preliminary plans, and site plans for private
developments. Mandatory referral is the review process used only for public projects
and can use the guidance provided in the master plans, the Zoning Ordinance, or the
design guidelines. Design excellence for projects going through any of these processes
can be achieved by including more focused design guidance in the findings that any
project must make before the Planning Board or the Council can approve it. The
existing findings required for approval could be expanded to emphasize design
excellence. These findings could be tailored to the specific needs of an area starting
with two broad geographic categories: inside the Ag Reserve; and outside the Ag
reserve.
Inside the Ag Reserve
The following considerations could augment the goal of preserving agriculture in the Ag
Reserve:
• Is the proposed use consistent with the intent of preserving agriculture?
• Are the proposed uses and structures clustered to save agricultural land?
• Does the proposal preserve rural character of the area by preserving view sheds
and unique vistas, rustic roads, historic resources and their settings, and the
setting and character of small towns?
Outside the Ag Reserve
The areas of high density such as CBDs, Metro stations areas, mixed-use town centers,
and other commercial areas should be the focus of design excellence outside the Ag
Reserve. For projects going through any of the regulatory processes (project plans,
preliminary plans, site plans, or mandatory referral) existing findings should be
augmented to include a greater emphasis on design excellence. These findings could
focus on three major areas:
• Streets and highways (coordinate with the revised Road Code with standards for
urban, suburban, rural and rustic roads):
• Public spaces (local parks and open spaces, public use spaces and amenities,
spaces between structures); and
• Blocks and buildings
284
ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD DESIGN
The required findings in the project plans, preliminary plans, site plans and mandatory
referral could be refined based on the following considerations, or attributes of design
excellence. Although design excellence can mean many different things to different
people, there are attributes of good design that research has consistently shown to be
associated with good design in community building. These attributes generally fall in
the following broad categories: economic strength; accessibility; affordability; healthy
environment; diversity; safety; and urban design. The staff recommends the following
six attributes as the most appropriate considerations for achieving design excellence
through regulatory processes in Montgomery County.
1. Safety: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) type review
of streets and highways including sidewalks, trails, pedestrian bridges and other
pedestrian facilities, individual building sites, and open spaces.
2. Walkability - interconnected street network with adequate and convenient
sidewalks to public facilities, and the surrounding neighborhoods.
3. Identity/character - Unique design features for various types of streets,
buildings and open spaces that give a special character to a place. Buildings and
open spaces should have local character and be pleasing to see, feel, and be in.
Major civic buildings should have distinctive architecture.
4. Sustainability - The design of our buildings, public spaces, and infrastructure
should be guided by the best environmental stewardship principles including
LEED standards for neighborhood planning, imperviousness caps, forest
conservation, street tree standards, and best practices for stormwater
management in high-density areas.
5. Durability - Our built environment must be durable and adoptable through better
design with quality materials and workmanship, especially when it comes to the
public realm.
6. Context Sensitivity - street design appropriate to its context (rural, rustic, urban,
suburban), relationship of buildings and open spaces to their context, setback
from adjoining uses and other considerations. As the development becomes
denser in the future, context will become more significant since the potential
conflicts between different uses and building forms may be more intense and
would require better design skills on the part of the designers. A deeper
understanding of the context helps identify when it is appropriate to blend in with
the surroundings (AFI in Silver Spring) and when it may be appropriate to stand
out (the Discovery Headquarter in Silver Spring).
DESIGN EXCELLENCE IN PLANNING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
Design excellence can also be achieved by improving the County’s infrastructure

planning and development process, and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This
can be done by employing high quality designers, through competitions for major civic
285
projects, adopting stricter design standards for County facilities, and by including design
guidance in the mandatory referral process. Another possibility would be to designate
one project in each of the following areas in the County’s CIP as a demonstration
project with the idea of using this exercise to develop a rigorous design excellence
program for public projects:
• Office building (Park and Planning headquarter building)
• Urban open space
• Library, recreation center or another community facility
• Road project
• Public parking garage
• Renovation of a county facility
PROMOTION AND TRAINING
A design excellence initiative would benefit from a promotional and training program to
raise awareness of good design for developers, elected officials, professional staff, and
the community. It could include the following items:
• Annual design awards program (results of project plans, preliminary Plans and
site plans)
• Staff training on how to analyze a project from a public interest and regulatory
perspective.
• Develop three dimensional design tools and standards for use in regulatory and
master planning.
• Study existing projects and learn what works, what doesn’t. Analyze built spaces,
buildings and open spaces. Create an electronic library of good design in the
County and elsewhere
286
APPENDIX A:
HOW TO MEASURE DESIGN EXCELLENCE
Measuring design quality is somewhat like measuring a community’s quality of life.

Except for some quantitative indicators, (economic health, affordable housing, average
travel times, etc.) the qualitative measures for the design quality of a place, that give a
place its local flavor, are specific to each community and are hard to distill and not
widely available in the literature. The hard part in developing good design indicators is
that it requires that we first define what we are trying to achieve, and what the desired
quality of that end product is. Walkability, for example can be measured by measuring
just the linear feet of sidewalk in a community, but measuring walkability should also
assess sidewalks are lined with retail, building entrances, and open spaces to make
walking a safer and more interesting experience.
The following is a list of design measures commonly used to evaluate some aspects of
the design quality of the built environment. These and other indicators should be
considered as Montgomery County develops its own measures of design excellence.
Measures of Design Excellence
1. Qualitative indicators that can be evaluated:

a. Quality of life indicators
b. Polling and sampling data
c. Public space use
d. Diversity of architects/landscape architects
e. Diversity of styles and projects
f. Recognition and awards by professional organizations
2. Quantitative indicators that can be evaluated:

a. Quality of life indicators
b. Walkability indicators
c. Health statistics
d. Design review timelines
e. Travel times
f. Public transportation use
g. Public parks use
h. Standard economic indicators
i. Diversity statistics
j. Housing market statistics
k. Pollution measurements
l. Environmental measurements
m. Public art projects
287
APPENDIX B:
IMPEDIMENTS TO GOOD DESIGN
Bad design does not just happen; it requires a lot of work. It is the result of a series of
bad decisions made during a complex process by different participants at various times.
These decisions are made not necessarily in bad faith, but they are certainly misguided
and controlled by conflicting priorities and requirements of the various parties involved.
Since nobody disagrees with the general notion that all developments should be well
designed, the fact that there is so much bad design indicates that there must be some
impediments to good design in the typical development process. Following are some of
the factors that may hinder achieving the best possible design of a development.
1. Lack of commitment to design excellence. This impediment exists both in the

public and the private sectors. It probably is rooted in the lack of awareness of
the costs of bad design and the benefits of good design, especially when some
upfront work on design can save significant money and time and create both
short and the long-term benefits. On the private side it prevents developers from
hiring good designers. On the public side it shows up in public land use policy
and CIP process, which sometimes favors initial cost over long-term value.
2. Upfront Costs. Creating well-designed buildings, open spaces and public

facilities requires higher upfront costs in terms of time, money and resources. In
the design phase, the extra cost may come from higher consulting fees from
better designers, larger multi-disciplinary design team, and more time needed to
study and evaluate various options including new materials and building
techniques. In the construction phase, higher cost may be due to better and
more expensive materials, shortage of skilled labor for specialized or new
construction techniques, and extra time and cost added by a more complex
construction process such as saving adjoining trees or wetlands during
construction.
3. Lack of knowledge and design skills. Designers and those reviewing and
approving their projects may not have the knowledge or skills to raise questions
that would lead to exploration of better design alternatives.
4. Lack of a comprehensive design-oriented review process. The current public

review process often does not consider overall design questions and therefore
does not require that better design alternatives be explored and evaluated.
5. Lack of consensus or a shared vision. The participants and decision makers

come to the table with their own vision of what the appropriate form of
development is, which creates conflicts in the development process. Most
storeowners, for example, want parking right in front of their stores, and for
stores to be visible from the highway. The community, on the other hand, may
prefer stores more integrated into the community and oriented to pedestrians.
288
6. Conflicting priorities of different stakeholders. A developer may define the
problem in terms of maximizing units and profits, while the community planner
defines the problem as compatibility and environmental protection. Similarly, the
developer’s priority may be to deliver the project quickly and cheaply to reduce
carrying costs and to capture the market before the demand changes. Achieving
better design, however, may require more time to explore other design options.
7. Regulatory controls and guidelines do not provide adequate checks when

short-term market conditions prevail.
Development based on market economics alone can lead to disposable or short-
lived, less sustainable buildings and infrastructure. For example, high density
mixed use development is desirable next to metro stations, but market conditions
in some areas of the county support medium density townhouses resulting in far
less green open space than would be provided with a more compact footprint of
a mid to high-rise condominium building pattern.
8. Lack of good design indicators. Design by its very nature is subjective, and the
results of any effort to achieve design excellence are not easily quantifiable,
especially the intangible values of aesthetics, balance, composition and other
purely design related components of the built form. The benefits of good design
may be more readily apparent in a large signature-type project. But in most
cases such benefits are subtler and require a certain critical mass of good
examples over a period of time to have a material impact. The difficulties are
summarized in “the value of urban design” by the Commission on Architecture
and the Built Environment (CABE) as follows:
a. “The problem of defining urban design on simple scale from good to bad,
and within that coping with the fact that urban design is both a product and
a process.
b. The problem that good urban design-even more than good architectural
design-generates benefits for adjoining sites and areas; therefore only a
proportion of the benefit created by good design is enjoyed by those
working in a particular development or visiting it as customers.
c. Even those benefits enjoyed by workers and customers may not be
transmitted as profits to companies, to the rents paid by occupiers, or the
valuations placed on buildings by investors.
d. Different stakeholders have different expectations regarding value.”
289
APPENDIX C:
AIA COMMUNITIES BY DESIGN: 10 PRINCIPLES FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
1. Design on a Human Scale

Compact, pedestrian-friendly communities allow residents to walk to shops,
services, cultural resources, and jobs and can reduce traffic congestion and
benefit people's health.
2. Provide Choices
People want variety in housing, shopping, recreation, transportation, and
employment. Variety creates lively neighborhoods and accommodates residents
in different stages of their lives.
3. Encourage Mixed-Use Development

Integrating different land uses and providing a variety of building types creates
vibrant, pedestrian-friendly and diverse communities.
4. Preserve Urban Centers

Restoring, revitalizing, and infilling urban centers takes advantage of existing
streets, services and buildings and avoids the need for new infrastructure. This
helps to curb sprawl and promote stability for city neighborhoods.
5. Vary Transportation Options

Giving people the option of walking, biking and using public transit, in addition to
driving, reduces traffic congestion, protects the environment and encourages
physical activity.
6. Build Vibrant Public Spaces

Citizens need welcoming, well-defined public places to stimulate face-to-face
interaction, collectively celebrate and mourn, encourage civic participation,
admire public art, and gather for public events.
7. Create a Neighborhood Identity

A "sense of place" gives neighborhoods a unique character, enhances the
walking environment, and creates pride in the community.
8. Protect Environmental Resources

A well-designed balance of nature and development preserves natural systems,
protects waterways from pollution, reduces air pollution, and protects property
values.
9. Conserve Landscapes
Open space, farms, and wildlife habitat are essential for environmental,
recreational, and cultural reasons.
10. Design Matters

Design excellence is the foundation of successful and healthy communities.
290
APPENDIX D:
THE BUILDING FOR LIFE QUESTIONS
(FROM CABE, THE VALUE HANDBOOK)
Character
1 Does the scheme feel like a place with a distinctive character?
2 Do buildings exhibit architectural quality?
3 Are streets defined by a well-structured Building layout?
4 Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around?
5. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography?
Roads, Parking and Pedestrianization

6 Does the building layout take priority over the roads and car parking, so that the
highways do not dominate?
7 Are the streets pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly?
8 Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scene?
9 Does the scheme integrate with existing roads, paths and surrounding
development?
10 Are public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe?
Design and Construction

11 Is the design specific to the scheme?
12 Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management
arrangements in place?
13 Do buildings or spaces outperform statutory minima, such as Building
Regulations?
14 Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that
enhance its performance, quality and attractiveness?
15 Do internal spaces and layout allow for adaptation, conversion or extension?
Environment and Community

16 Does the development have easy access to public transport?
17 Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact?
18 Is there a tenure mix that reflects the needs of the Local community?
19 Is there an accommodation mix that reflects the needs and aspirations of the
local community?
20 Does the development provide for (or is it close to) community facilities, such as
a school, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes?
291
APPENDIX E:
WHITE PAPER ON DESIGN EXCELLENCE
November 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Montgomery County Planning Board
FROM: John Carter, Chief

Community-Based Planning Division
PARTICIPANTS: Khalid Afzal, Marion Clark, Marilyn Clemens, Robert Kronenburg,

David Lieb, Michael Ma, Calvin Nelson, Mary Beth O’Quin,
Margaret Rifkin
SUBJECT: Design Quality in Community Building
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Planning in Montgomery County in the next century will require significant attention to
design quality in community building. Directing development to more dense Metro
station areas and the I-270 Corridor and away from rural areas is a hallmark of the
General Plan …on Wedges and Corridors for Montgomery County. Montgomery
County has a limited amount of available land for development. Redevelopment of
existing areas including older retail centers is a focus of development. Preserving the
character of the existing rural communities continues to be a challenge. The character
of the major transportation travel routes could be significantly improved. These
development conditions require attention to design in community building for success.
Existing regulations already provide a bonus density for including moderately priced
dwelling units, work force housing, and amenities and facilities as an accepted practice
in Montgomery County. Providing bonus densities requires quality design to establish
compatibility with existing neighborhoods.
AUTHORIZATION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance provides some authorization for the
Planning Board to address design issues. The CBD Zones provide the most significant
opportunity for the review of buildings in central business districts. The Montgomery
County Zoning Ordinance also provides authorization in select zones for the review of
the layout of buildings, structures, and open spaces as part of the compatibility finding
necessary during the review of site plans. The development standards (e.g. standards
for building height, setback and open space) specified in all the zones provide another
more limited method to address design standards.
The following paragraphs summarize the existing authorization in the Montgomery
County Zoning Ordinance for the Planning Board to review design issues.
292
1. Section 59-C-6.212. Intent of the CBD Zones
(c) To encourage designs which produce a desirable relationship between
buildings in the central business district, between buildings and the
circulation system and between the central business district and adjacent
areas.
2. 59-D-2.42. Findings for Approval of Project Plans

(b) It would conform to the approved and adopted sector plan or an urban
renewal plan approved under Chapter 56.
(c) Because of its location, size, intensity, design, operational characteristics
and staging, it would be compatible with not detrimental to existing or
potential development in the general neighborhood.
3. 59-D-3.4 Action by the Planning Board Concerning Site Plans

(a) (3) The locations of the buildings and structures, the open spaces, the
landscaping, recreation facilities, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation
systems are adequate, safe, and efficient
(4) Each structure and use is compatible with other uses and other site
plans and with existing and proposed adjacent development
(b) The Planning Board shall not approve the site plan if it finds that the
development would not achieve the maximum of compatibility, safety,
efficiency and attractiveness; and the fact that the site plan complies with
all the stated general regulations, development standards or specific
requirements of the zone shall not, by itself, be deemed to create a
presumption that the proposed site plan is, in fact, compatible with the
surrounding land uses and, in itself, shall not be sufficient to require
approval of the site plan.
4. Development Standards in all Zones

The Development Standards for setback, building height, green space, public
use space, and pedestrian facilities in the existing zones provide a limited set of
design standards.
OTHER TECHNIQUES AND AUTHORIZATION
The following paragraphs summarize the techniques established by the Planning Board
to address design issues outside the Zoning Ordinance.
Guidelines Established by the Planning Department

The Planning Department has addressed design quality by providing design guidelines
for public art in central business districts, establishing guidelines for the provision of
streetscape in central business districts, and guidelines for development in areas such
as the Germantown Town Center. The Planning Department has also provided design
services to other departments including the design for the relocation of Montgomery
College in Silver Spring, and the selection of sites for public facilities.
Standards for Streets and Highways and Other Requirements
293
The approved Road Code with the Published Design Standards establishes the
requirements for streets and highways in Montgomery County. In addition, standards
for stormwater management facilities, forest conservation, and the preservation of
historic structures and environmental settings have also been established.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to augment and enhance design quality in
community building in Montgomery County.
1. Master Plan Recommendations

The master plan process provides a significant opportunity for the Planning
Department to emphasize design quality in community building. The next set of
master plans include portions of two corridor cities, three Metro station areas,
and three neighborhoods. These small area plans need a significant emphasis
on design quality. These master plans should include extensive use of design
guidelines, and reliance on the use of three dimensional visualization techniques.
The master plan outreach process could be supplemented by establishing
advisors or focus groups from the design fields to assist the Planning Board and
staff in preparing design recommendations.
2. Create New Zones with Expanded Design Expectations

To implement the recommendations in the new set of master plans, new zones
should be created. These new zones would replace the existing TS-M and TS-R
Zones at Metro stations with four Euclidean zones with expectations for high quality
design. In addition, a new floating zone could be created for use in large
commercial areas. The new zones include the following:
• Create one mixed-use floating zone for large, commercial centers with
requirements and standards based on design (form based codes and
performance zoning (0.5 to 3.0 FAR)
• Create four Euclidean Zones for transit station areas with the use of a Project
Plan with specific requirement for consistency with master plan
recommendations concerning quality design (0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 FAR)
3. Design Guidelines
The Planning Department could expand the use of streetscape standards.
Bethesda, Friendship Heights and Silver Spring have long established streetscape
standards. Streetscape standards will be necessary for the Shady Grove,
Twinbrook and White Flint areas to allow the use of special street lighting, special
sidewalk paving, closely spaced street trees and other elements that will
substantially improve the character of these areas. Streetscape standards should
also be considered for other areas in Montgomery County.
4. Expanding the Site Plan Review Process

The site plan review process is authorized to consider compatibility. The use of
the compatibility finding could be used in appropriate cases to consider building
materials, location of windows in addition to the more traditional reliance on
294
massing of buildings, setback and building height.
5. Design and Performance Measures Included in Master Plans

Specific design and performance measures could be included in master plans.
Examples of performance measures include the following:
• Amount of open space and public use space
• Imperviousness
• Number of trees planted
• Length of streetscape
5. Community Design Presentations to the Planning Board

Recent presentations of the status of public and private development in
Clarksburg and Silver Spring provided the Planning Board with an opportunity to
assess the quality of design in community building. This post planning and post
occupancy evaluation practice should be extended to other areas.
6. Expanded Visualization Techniques

An emphasis on quality design will require extensive use of visualization tools
including the following:
• Three dimensional computer techniques
• Computer animation
• Rendering and delineation
• Photo library of high quality public and private projects
• Public use space examples and evaluations
• Documentation for the public art program
7. Newspaper Articles by Staff Members Concerning Community Design

Issues and Ideas
The staff could be encouraged to prepare articles concerning community design
issues to be included in both national and local publications. These articles could
be used to both advocate and publicize high quality design in Montgomery
County.
8. Community Design Awards Program

A design awards program could be established to publicize private projects
approved by the Planning Board. A list of approved projects would include
participating architects, landscape architects and planners involved in the design.
9. Create a Design Summit

A design summit could be established to review the authorization, techniques
and approach to improving the design quality in community building for
Montgomery County. This summit could be a joint effort with a respected design
organization such as the American Institute of Architects or a university such as
the College of design of the University of Maryland.
295
STAFF DRAFT 2007 GROWTH POLICY
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF CONTACTS
Gwen Wright, Acting Planning Director
Growth Policy Steering Committee

Khalid Afzal, Community-Based Planning
Melissa Banach, Strategic Planning
John Carter, Community-Based Planning
Mary Dolan, Countywide Planning
Roselle George, Research & Technology Center
Rick Hawthorne, Countywide Planning
Rose Krasnow, Development Review
Karl Moritz, Research & Technology Center
APFO Reform Team

Rick Hawthorne (Team Leader), Neil Braunstein, Cathy Conlon, Shahriar Etemadi, Eric
Graye, Glenn Kreger, Karl Moritz, Kristin O’Connor, Jorge Valladares, Ronald Vaughn, and
Piera Weiss.
Infrastructure Financing Team

Roselle George (Team Leader), Bill Barron, Fred Boyd, Pamela Dunn, Dan Hardy, Barbara
Kearney, John Schlee, and Mark Symborski
Sustainable Growth Team

Mary Dolan (Team Leader), Malaika Abernathy, Tom Autry, Elza Hisel-McCoy, Chuck Kines,
Wayne Koempel, Jay Mukherjee, Callum Murray, Tina Schneider, Nkosi Yearwood, and Matt
Zisman.
Design Excellence Team

Khalid Afzal (Team Leader), Marion Clark, Larry Cole, Clare Kelly, David Lieb, Marybeth
O’Quinn, and Joshua Sloan
Notable Contributors
Faroll Hamer led the Montgomery County Planning Department through most of the initial
work on the 2007 Growth Policy. Staff of the Research and Technology Center (principally
Lisa Tate and Pamela Zorich) prepared the Montgomery County and Growth report. The
Strategic Planning Division (Melissa Banach, Bridget Stesney and Matt Zisman) coordinated
the Growth Management Speaker’s Series and the public forum. Bob Winick consulted on
transportation modeling and Dick Tustian advised the Growth Policy Sterring Committee on
numerous issues. Nancy Lineman and Valerie Berton provided community outreach and
media relations.

Toward Sustainable Growth for Montgomery County:
A Growth Policy for the 21st Century
Final Draft 2007-2009 Growth Policy
Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Board

May 21, 2007

Toward Sustainable Growth For Montgomery County: A Growth Policy For The 21

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward Sustainable Growth For Montgomery County: A Growth Policy For The 21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward Sustainable Growth For Montgomery County: A Growth Policy For The 21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Draft

2007-2009 Growth Policy

Toward Sustainable Growth for Montgomery

Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Board

May 21, 2007

Along Montgomery County’s northeast boundary

Statement of the Montgomery County Planning Board, M-NCPPC

The 2007 Growth Policy marks an important evolution in the management of

This evolution in growth policy is possible because of the cumulative experience

Applying these principles involves a conceptual adjustment from thinking of

Reinvigorating Growth Policy’s role in establishing priorities for the Capital

Shifting from reliance primarily on a strategy of denial or delay of

Linking Growth Policy and Area/Functional Master Planning more closely

Providing a biennial analysis of the pace and patterns of growth, the

1. The adequacy of transportation facilities to serve a development

a. Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) should be adopted as the best

The PAMR test is dichotomous—an applicant either passes or fails

b. Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) should continue to be

i. A traffic study should be required for the Alternative Review

2. The test for the adequacy of public school facilities should be

b. The Planning Board recommends that the School Facilities

c. A moratorium on development in an area should be imposed if

a. The Planning Board should have clear authority to require a new

4. New development projects should be assessed impact taxes that

a. The cost of marginal additions to the transportation network

Table 1 (on the following page) reflects actual impacts on

Bio-Science facilities are included as a separate category in the

General Metro Clarksburg

Non-residential (per square

Places of Worship and Private Schools are included in the current

b. The cost of marginal additions to school capacity necessary to

Table 2 contains the Board’s recommendation for the school

Table 2. Proposed School Impact Tax Rates

For each FTE Student,

As the table suggests, this component of the infrastructure impact

c. The Board recommends that the transportation and school impact

5. The Recordation Tax levied on housing sales, resales, and other

The impact of turnover in existing ownership housing stock on school

6. The FY 2007 Growth Policy resolution should direct the Planning

Design is an important instrument of Growth Policy on two levels: (1) At

To encourage placing a high priority on improving the design of public

Revison of the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations should

7. The Planning Board should monitor the sustainability of the

Indicators of Facility Adequacy;

Indicators of Fiscal/Economic Sustainability

Indicators of Environmental Sustainability

Indicators of Social Equity

Toward Sustainable Growth for Montgomery

Established neighborhoods north of Viers Mill Road

Staff Report Supporting the Montgomery County Planning

Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Department

May 21, 2007

Author: Montgomery County Planning Board

Subject: Recommendations for infrastructure financing, sustainable

Source of Copies: The Montgomery County Planning Department, 8787 Georgia

Date: May 2007

Number of Pages: 390

Abstract: Montgomery County Code Section 33A – 15 establishes the