In a way, they give up.
In its discussion of the Annual Growth Policy (AGP) the Park and Planning commission is starting with the assumption that the county is full.
“Many residents of our county believe that all the roads are full and all the schools are full,” said Commission Vice Chair Wendy Perdue.
Starting with the assumption that everything is “full” marks a sea change in the way the county looks at itself. The Planning Commission’s June 5 worksession on the AGP did just that — commissioners acknowledged that the county’s facilities are at capacity already.
However, they also realize that some growth is necessary for a healthy economy. Instead of looking at the Annual Growth Policy as a tool for shutting off any growth, commissioners increasingly viewed the AGP as a way of controlling and directing growth.
The AGP is what the county uses to test the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). In theory, if either of the two tests defined in the growth policy, roads or schools, are found to provide an inadequate level of service, development would be halted in that area.
However, the current AGP uses standards for determining “full” which many critics consider to be abstract formulas without any resemblance to their actual experience.
This year’s revision of the growth policy will likely include some substantial changes, which could alter greatly the nature of growth in the county. Several of the options presented could halt development in Potomac, though that is increasingly unlikely.
One of two major changes the planning board strongly recommends is something the Council has been reluctant to implement — a dedicated tax.
“None of this will work if the funds are not dedicated. Without that, all of this is a waste of time,” said Park and Planning Commissioner Meredith Wellington.
Earlier this year, the county voted down a proposed education impact tax which would have raised an estimated $10 million per year for school construction. Recently, the county raised the recordation tax with the intention of directing the funds toward school construction. However, in the tight budget year the money generated went into the general fund instead.
The Park and Planning Commission does not have taxing authority. Any recommendations for a new tax would have to be adopted by the County Council.
Park and Planning staff had suggested imposing a premium when facilities reached a certain level of capacity.
“There is a growing consensus that we should recommend some sort of payment,” said Park and Planning Chair Derick Berlage.
The commission took the idea a step further and now considers it better to charge for all new development, not just development in areas that exceed capacity.
“I would start charging everybody now,” said Commissioner John Robinson, because the most equitable option is to place a surcharge on all development. If the surcharge is only implemented when development reaches a certain point in an area, developers who start a project earlier can avoid the surcharge, even though their projects will have an impact on the facilities. “It’s kind of arbitrary as far as who the burden falls on,” Robinson said.
The new tax should be imposed at the time an applicant files for a building permit, Robinson said. According to Park and Planning staff, there is space for 100,000 new jobs and 35,000 approved new housing units which have not yet filed for a building permit — the final permit before construction begins.
A tax imposed at any other phase of development would miss generating funds from any of these projects. “Otherwise, the system doesn’t work,” Robinson said.
The new tax discussed by the commission may have a tiered structure based upon available transit in an area.
“I’m tentatively supportive of an impact tax with different rates for different locations,” Berlage said.
Areas closer to Metro stations and transit options would have lower fees than areas further away. “There is a sort of background level of funding necessary to make anything work,” Robinson said.
Areas with less infrastructure, such as Metro stations and buses, would have to pay a higher price. “We’re going to make sure you pay for that very inefficient method of social development,” Robinson said.
One major complication will be defining where boundary lines are and how well an area fits the criteria for having infrastructure. Although it was agreed that the schools test should be administered at the cluster level, the roads test may be viewed in as few as three geographic areas, which may not necessarily be contiguous. Currently there are 29 transportation areas.
Perdue raised the point that although an individual may live in an area with relatively low traffic problems, they might drive to areas which are overly congested. Therefore, by broadening the areas, the tests will better represent the effect development will have on the roads.
The best way to test roads may be radically different from the current standard, Perdue said. “Other places, outside of Montgomery County, don’t rely on complicated mathematical formulas,” she said.
Perdue is considering using a far simpler, more empirical system.
“What I’m toying with is moving away from a lot of counting of anything,” Perdue said. “Simple decisions increase the likelihood of good decisions.” Although it was favorably received, there was not a consensus on this idea.
Setting a ceiling on the amount of growth in a given year is another possible approach. The general consensus is to allow growth to continue on a countywide basis at one percent per year.
“I think we’re trying to slow the rate of growth without stopping it,” Berlage said.
A rate of one percent per year would be slower than the forecast growth rate through 2008. It would allow approximately 3,100 housing units to be built next year. Then certain areas of the county could be allotted different amounts of that 3,100 units in order to focus the growth. “Where are we going to target growth?” said Robinson.
Using the one percent number would mean there are 10 years’ worth of housing projects already approved and in the pipeline. This troubled commissioners who feared that newer projects might be discouraged by the backlog.
The Planning Commission has scheduled one final worksession before it transmits its recommendations to the County Council on June 15.