Comments on Montgomery County Growth Policy June 2007

June 14, 2007

Council President Marilyn Praisner
Montgomery County Council
Stella B. Werner Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850

Dear Ms. Praisner:

At my June 11th interview with the Montgomery County Council regarding possible appointment to the Montgomery County Planning Board, Councilmember Berliner requested that I forward to the County Council any comments that I had regarding the Planning Board’s recommendations for the 2007 Growth Policy. My comments follow.

As I mentioned during our meeting, I think there is much to commend in the Planning Board’s recent recommendations to the County Council. In particular, I broadly support the Board’s recommendations regarding “Identifying and Prioritizing Infrastructure,” “Schools,” “Other Infrastructure,” and “Growth Management Improvements.” However, some elements of the Planning Board’s recommendations, especially regarding “Transportation,” are of concern to me.

Identifying and Prioritizing Infrastructure. The Planning Board has recommended 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. I think this would be a most useful addition to Council’s review of growth policy. According to the Board’s recommendations, this component of the Growth Policy review would include, inter alia: 1. “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; “2. “an update on the County’s success in meeting a set of indicators” that would be useful to measure and analyze growth; 3. “an implementation status report for each master plan and sector plan, that would include a review of how planned development is proceeding and whether the public actions/facilities in the plan are occurring in a timely way;” and 4. “a comprehensive list of priority facilities that are recommended for addition to the Capital Improvements Program.” Each of these elements would greatly assist the Council’s review of County growth policy.

Schools. I support the Planning Board’s recommendation for schools, including the proposed refinements to the adequacy tests for school capacity and the recommendation to retain the “upper limit” for enrollment. The Planning Board has recommended 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.” This refinement of the adequacy test would increase private sector support for school facilities in several areas of the county where schools face enrollment challenges from new development. I think this is an important recommendation.

Other Infrastructure. The Planning Board has recommended that there be no changes to the adequacy tests for 1. water and sewerage systems; 2. police service; and 3. fire and rescue service. I think that, particularly regarding the police, fire and rescue services, this is an area that merits additional analysis as some community representatives and members of the police, fire and rescue services have indicated to me that there may be inadequate manpower levels and service for these functions in some parts of the County and that new development might put pressure on the availability and quality of these services. I strongly support the recommendation (or suggestion) that there are benefits to having the Montgomery County Policy Department participate in the Planning Department’s Development Review Committee for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) review of new development. I have advocated for CPTED review for all new private and public sector projects in the County, in particular, for the new Silver Spring Transit Center project and the new pedestrian bridge in Silver Spring’s Long Branch community.

Transportation. It is the Planning Department’s recommendations regarding “transportation” that are of most concern to me. The Planning Board has recommended the continued development of a new policy area test, tentatively called Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR); and retaining the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), with some revisions. As I understand the Planning Board’s recommendations, the proposed refinements to staff transportation analysis would indicate that only two “policy areas” in the County are presently inadequate in terms of traffic congestion; and would remain inadequate in 2013, five years in the future. If this is the conclusion of the recommended “new” analysis, it seems to fly in the face of my personal experience in the County and anecdotal information from many other Montgomery County residents, i.e., that there are more areas in the County where traffic and congestion are significant quality of life and public safety issues. There are many areas in the Board’s transportation analysis and recommendations where I would like to learn more, including: the tradeoffs between “transit service” and “roadway congestion,” the measures of roadway congestion, the measures of transit service, and the possible “provision of payment-in-lieu of construction.”

Infrastructure Financing. I am broadly in support of the “short term” infrastructure financing recommendations made by the Planning Board for the “Short Term School Impact Tax” and the Short Term Transportation Impact Tax,” to be applied to new development. The Planning Board stated that these recommended “rates would provide the funds needed (approximately $270 million) to supply the school capacity needed for the approximately 27,000 additional school students that would be generated by new development by 2030.” The Short Term Transportation Impact Tax recommendation sets “transportation impact tax rates at levels that reflect the full cost (approximately $1.2 billion) of planned increases in transportation capacity. However, I would like to see more analysis regarding the analytical foundation for the Planning Board’s recommendation, as the estimates of funds needed for education and transportation to the year 2030 seem conservative.

Growth Management Improvements. I strongly support the inclusion of “Sustainable Development” and “Design Excellence” as components of the Council’s assessment of overall growth management. While it appears that the Planning Department staff has not yet completed its analytical work regarding
the establishment of meaningful and measurable indicators for these concepts, it is very encouraging that this analysis will be a part of the Planning Department’s future work program. I am particularly encouraged about the future inclusion of “environmental sustainability criteria in growth policy discussions as I believe that this cluster of issues should inform many aspects of the Council’s and the Commission’s work. How considerations of “design excellence” will be incorporated into the

Council’s and Commission’s growth policy decision-making remains to be seen, but the fact that it is on the agenda is most welcome.

Madame President, in closing I would like to restate my view that I think that the work product produced by the professional staff of the Planning Department is very impressive and reflects a very useful and valuable refinement of the tools that the County Council has to affect growth in Montgomery County. I hope that I have an opportunity to participate in the conversation that you will have about the Board’s recommendations as a new member of the Montgomery County Planning Board.

Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues on the Council with regard to an appointment to the Montgomery County Planning Board.

Sincerely,

Alan S. Bowser