The most drastic change is the size. The staff draft of the County’s Annual Growth Policy (AGP) has shrunk from 98 pages to 14.
The change is largely due to the Park and Planning Commission’s goal of creating a more transparent growth policy.
“I think we have all the building blocks, here, right now,” said Commissioner Meredith Wellington.
The AGP defines implementation of the county’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. According to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, if there are insufficient facilities – meaning roads and schools – new development cannot go forward.
Critics have charged that the complex mathematical formulas now used in the growth policy render it impotent: the calculations almost invariably indicate there are no problems with traffic congestion or school overcrowding, something which runs counter to the experiences of most residents.
While the commissioners have concluded that overall, the county is “full,” they also agree that some growth is necessary to maintain a dynamic economy and, therefore, a county-wide building moratorium is not a viable option.
THE COUNTY ORDERED a “top-to-bottom revision” of the AGP, and a radically different version was presented to the Park and Planning Commission in early May.
However, that version was revised even more dramatically, and now there is another staff draft reflecting the changes that commissioners have discussed.
This newer, leaner document was brought before the commissioners for final approval before allowing its release for a supplementary public hearing on the growth policy scheduled for July 10.
The new document summarizes what the commission has been discussing to date.
* There would be no more counting of students in the schools or cars on the roads. The premise would be that there is no capacity anywhere in the county.
* All development would have to pay two impact fees, one for education and one for transportation. These fees would be placed into separate, dedicated funds.
* The fee schedule would be adjusted to reflect where in the county the development would take place, with lower transit fees closer to Metro stations and progressively higher fees in areas with fewer mass transit options.
Commissioners asked for a range of possible taxation levels.
“What amount is so high that it would effectively stop development?” said Commission Chair Derick Berlage. The other end of the range would be a bare minimum needed to give facilities a chance to keep up with the rate of development.
Since Potomac’s Master Plan is near the middle of the spectrum of how much development is allowed and how many transit options are available, it can easily shift from a higher impact fee area to a lower fee area.
In the initial draft of the growth policy, there had been several options that could have stopped development in Potomac. However, the more simplified version makes that scenario unlikely.
The Commission is also considering implementing a cap on new development; this would allow only a certain number of building permits to be issued each year.
The number under discussion is one percent of the current development. This number came about because it is projected that development, if left unchecked, would occur at a rate of 1.3 to 1.4 percent next year. “We wanted to pull back from that, not too precipitously,” Berlage said.
The percentage would be re-evaluated every two years. If the county decides that it has completed projects and increased capacity sufficiently, then the rate could go up. “One good year doesn’t allow exceeding the growth rate,” said Commission Vice Chair Wendy Perdue.
Conversely, if crowding has increased, capacity could be lowered, although the commission consensus indicated that growth should not go below one percent a year.
THIS WORKSESSION on the AGP was largely devoted to consolidating the Commission’s views on the project, not to introducing any new initiatives.
However, the one topic that did come up for discussion was a comment Berlage said he had heard from the building community.
“They’re calling it ‘Pay, Wait and Go,’” he said.
Under this proposal, builders would pay an impact fee when applying for a new construction. They would then wait for three years before actually commencing construction with the understanding that they would be able to build whether or not the new facilities had been built.
The rationale is that builders paid their fee and allowed the county time to use it to make necessary infrastructure improvements. If the improvements are not made it is the county’s fault.
The proposal seemed to intrigue the board, but they decided to wait until its expected presentation at the public hearing.