Developers win APFS school standards battle in Rockville

Weary residents who have battled a relentless push by developers to weaken Rockville's Adequate Public Facilities Standards (APFS) on schools often said the issue would keep coming back until the developers prevailed. That happened last night, when the Rockville City Council voted 3-2 to align its school capacity standards with those of Montgomery County. Those standards include allowing capacity to reach 120% (but in reality, MCPS allows individual schools to far exceed even that weaker cap), and to measure overcapacity by cluster, rather than the stricter school-by-school count the city had until last night. The vote sets up not only a slew of new residential development in the city, but also the battleground for this fall's city elections.

Three-fourths of the winning 2013 Team Rockville slate - Councilmembers Tom Moore, Virginia Onley and Julie Palakovich Carr - voted to pass the resolution that had previously been withdrawn by Moore at the Mayor and Council's February 9 meeting.

"We need to work with developers"

- Councilmember Virginia Onley

Both Onley and Moore used hyperbolic language in their arguments, threatening that Rockville would become a "ghost town" if the resolution did not pass. Onley said the change would be a "win-win for the city," allowing a potential 77 affordable housing units to be built in separate projects proposed by developers EYA and Avalon Bay. Palakovich Carr said she was voting with her 3-month-old son's future in mind, saying "funding has been slow to materialize" for new schools under the 2005 APFS standards.

Mayor Bridget Donnell Newton and Councilmember Beryl Feinberg both dissented in the vote, arguing that the issues of school construction and the APFS are more complicated. Newton said public facilities go far beyond schools, and include traffic capacity, services and other infrastructure that would not be covered by Moore's resolution. Feinberg countered the arguments by Moore and Onley which centered on the potential boon of impact taxes to be collected from new development. There was no guarantee that money would be spent in Rockville, Feinberg noted. "It doesn't mean you get the school any faster," she argued. "If it's not working at the county level," she asked, why adopt that policy in Rockville? Feinberg also suggested that the recession was more likely to blame for lower school construction funds than the APFS.

Newton preferred to pursue other avenues rather than simply weakening the Rockville standards. She suggested the city attempt to have new schools funded by payments directly from developers who want to build projects, for example. Taxpayers are also "upset" over ever-rising county and state taxes, she warned, saying "You can't get blood from a turnip."

The 90-minute debate found proponents of weakening the APFS making some surprisingly odd arguments that could come back to haunt them in November. For example, Moore sounded unconcerned - and Palakovich Carr praised - the bane of MCPS parents countywide - portable classroom trailers. Palakovich Carr said portables have not impacted the quality of education in the county, an assertion that would likely invite dissenting remarks at any county PTA meeting. Portables keep class sizes small, she said.

Moore said the city retains control of traffic issues - but is that true, given that many of the congested roads are actually under the control of the state? The city cannot control the timetable or extent of state highway projects, as Montgomery County officials can tell you.

Other arguments made were equally unsupported by the evidence.

For example, yes, MCPS has a 120% cap on overcrowding. But averaging by cluster allows individual schools to far exceed that cap. The 5-year test allows MCPS to permit development for which school capacity actually never gets constructed, using what Rockville Planning Commissioner Jack Leiderman correctly termed "paper schools". Adopting the MCPS standards, Leiderman argued last year, will allow overcrowding to reach or exceed 180%, far above 110% or the county's supposed 120% "cap".

Moore called the 2005 APFS measure a "failed experiment." But is it?

No overcrowded school in Rockville currently is as over-capacity as the most-crowded MCPS schools elsewhere in the county are. And the APFS has not prevented Rockville from getting new schools built. Here is a list of some completed or future projects for Rockville since the measure passed in 2005:

• New Richard Montgomery HS (2008)
• Julius West MS addition (plan underway)
• Rockville ES No. 5 (Edmonston Drive) (2019)

The wealthiest neighborhoods in Montgomery County, by contrast, are still waiting for construction of a new elementary school. One is not even in the planning process - much less coming online - in 2019 in the Westbard area, currently targeted for massive infill development by the county.

Finally, the APFS has indeed prevented excess development from further overcrowding schools; other parts of the county haven't had that safeguard.

As Montgomery County's record of building booms and budget shortfalls prove, development absolutely does not equal what Palakovich Carr termed "a huge windfall." She said new residents will fund services for existing residents. But who will pay for the services for those new residents? It's great to favor adding housing units, but every one of those units carries a cost in transportation, water and sewer, police and fire, city services and - yes - public education. Hence, MoCo's structural budget deficit, which has County Executive Ike Leggett warning of a property tax increase next year. Wait a minute, I thought massive development generated revenue, you might be asking? Wrong.

Moore - dismissing the overwhelming opposition to his resolution by citizens at public hearings - said, "our job is not to count heads," or to "listen to the angriest...voices at the end of a public hearing."

But who are the "angriest voices" in Rockville on the APFS? Those angry voices arguably belong to developers frustrated by the common sense 2005 APFS standards, and the elected members of the Montgomery County Council who collect campaign checks from them. Those have been the angry voices, who eventually threatened the city to change - "or else."

This is but the latest twist in a disturbingly tone-deaf approach to development being taken by those County Council members, and the Montgomery County Planning Department. Tired of arguing with residents whose neighborhoods are threatened by the real consequences of infill development, they've adopted a "development at all costs", ram-it-through approach.

Urbanizing the suburbs? "Shut up! It's smart growth." Traffic? "Don't count it." Portable classrooms? "Bring 'em on - we love 'em, teachers love 'em, and so do the kids." Overcrowded schools, and schools without playgrounds or other facilities? "Stop whining, you big baby."

Talk about angry voices.

FACT-CHECKING MONTGOMERY COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE FORUM

As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now...the rest of the story."

This past Saturday's infrastructure summit at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School was long in hours but short on accurate information. The Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County described it as a "farce." Much of the program was made up of County officials delivering the same talking points we've already heard in other forums, and too little from actual parents and residents. More facts were being tweeted by the PCMC and citizens during the meeting than being generated by the speakers themselves.

No public speaking by the public,
please!

One would think that the beg-a-thon underway currently for school construction money would be enough to dissuade Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson from claiming that development is covering the cost of the new school construction it requires. While everyone is rolling around on the floor laughing in response to that assertion, let me point out:

DC, Fairfax and Arlington have all had real estate development booms - and they all had budget shortfalls this year. Montgomery County has been growing like mad before and after the recession - and is in a structural deficit as far out as the projections go.

Guess what? It's a fact that residential development does not generate the revenue needed to cover the schools and services those new populations require. Your ever-increasing Montgomery County taxes and fees are the best evidence of that.

Developers covering school construction
costs? Not quite... "Need state aid," tweeted
MCPS Board of Education member
Jill Ortman-Fouse. Yep, actual BOE member
said it, not me

The use of cluster averaging allows County officials to give the false impression that overcrowding is currently under 120% of capacity.

FACT: I'm aware of eight Montgomery County public schools which currently exceed 150% of capacity. One is at, or exceeds, 180% of capacity. At some point, it's like having two schools within one building.

FACT: As regards future development in the Walt Whitman cluster - those schools are over capacity now. Wood Acres Elementary is getting an addition, and that will put it at full capacity when completed (it was over-capacity prior to the beginning of construction). Kids are taking gym class in hallways at Pyle Middle School.

FACT: The generation of students from multifamily housing in the Whitman cluster, and in the Westbard Sector in particular, is significantly higher than elsewhere in the county. Bruce Crispell, long-range planner for MCPS, acknowledged this fact at the Westbard Sector Plan charrette.

How about those talking points about "urban" schools? Put aside the point that Westbard and other areas being targeted for massive overdevelopment are definitively suburban and residential in character for a moment. Put aside the point that neither potential elementary school site floated by planners for the Westbard sector is large enough to hold a school. Put aside the point that the acreage of Westland Middle School and the current Little Falls Library site together is not large enough to support the population, employees and facilities for two "collocated" schools (one wonders how many people who are talking about "collocating" a school at the Westland site are aware of the actual size of the property, and that any expansion into Equity One's site is blocked by the driveway for Kenwood Place - and the proposed Equity One grocery store building that would be on that part of the Westwood Shopping Center site).

Put that all aside, and ask yourself if you want your kids in a tiny school, with inadequate playground space, athletic fields and other facilities. As Rockville Planning Commissioner John Tyner pointed out recently, schools involve more than just jamming kids into sardine can classrooms and "urban" (a.k.a. cramped) school buildings. The facilities that high-quality schools require are "the things that really determine if kids get a good education or not," Tyner said. I won't even get into the idea being floated of these schools being placed in industrial areas! What's better than a portable classroom? A portable classroom next to an EPA brownfield, I guess.

"Full disclosure": The architect speaking at the meeting was with Perkins Eastman. The same Perkins Eastman retained by developer Equity One for its Westbard redevelopment plan. The same Perkins Eastman that thereby will profit from approval of the Westbard Sector Plan as currently formulated. An approval that will be decided by Chairman Anderson, and Councilmembers Roger Berliner and George Leventhal, and other officials present at Saturday's forum. Is this a forum, or corporate lobbying?

By the way, there's a lot more to infrastructure than schools. Roads, sewers, police and fire are just some of the major expenses development generates. Yes, proponents of BRT did use this forum to push for that $5 billion bus system boondoggle - which will have zero impact on traffic congestion.

FACT: BRT would reduce capacity on the County's most-traveled commuter routes by a full 33%.

FACT: The current draft of the Westbard Sector Plan includes not a single project or proposal to increase automobile capacity on River Road or Massachusetts Avenue. And how could you do much anyway, given that the River Road right-of-way is constricted by homes east of Little Falls Parkway. Would the War-on-Cars-Capital of the World, Washington, DC, widen River Road within its borders past Western Avenue? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Contrary to what you may be hearing from this meeting and the media - we are not "going to be okay" on our present course regarding development and infrastructure.

"And now you know...the rest of the story."

Just the facts, ma'am.

SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON ROCKVILLE APFS SCHOOL STANDARDS MONDAY, JAN. 26

The Mayor and Council will hold a second public hearing on the proposed changes to Rockville's Adequate Public Facilities Standards regarding school capacity, which have been proposed by Councilmember Tom Moore, on Monday, January 26. These changes would adopt Montgomery County's weaker school standard of permitting 120% overcrowding, and allow school capacity to be measured by cluster, rather than by individual schools, as the city does today.

Residents can sign up to speak by calling the City Clerk at 240-314-8280 by 4:00 PM on January 26. The meeting will be held at 7:00 PM at City Hall, and the public hearing is only one item on the evening's agenda. You can also sign up in person, but you will have to wait until the speakers who signed up in advance are finished.

One public hearing has already been held, and the Mayor and Council are scheduled to act on the proposals in February.

BLACKMAIL! ARE MCPS AND DEVELOPERS HOLDING ROCKVILLE HOSTAGE OVER APFO?

While it seems that the fight over Rockville's Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance keeps coming back like Freddy Krueger, a new talking point emerged at Monday night's public hearing before the Mayor and Council. Some proponents of lowering the city's school capacity standard, from 110% to the 120% overcrowding limit allowed by Montgomery County, appeared to be using the change as blackmail for school construction funds.

Open Rockville to developers who fund the campaigns of all Montgomery County Councilmembers except Marc Elrich, they argued, and those development firms and Montgomery County Public Schools will release funds they apparently won't put towards Rockville classrooms otherwise. While this is most definitely not the legal mechanism for school funding in the state of Maryland, developers and their allies at the County level made clear they are fed up with the City of Rockville retaining control over its development and quality of life.

Former Rockville Planning Commissioner Steven Johnson put into words what many observers may have been thinking after hearing previous speakers, when he used the phrase, "held hostage," in making his case to lower school standards. What was originally designed as a tool to guide development, Johnson said, is now "a blunt instrument to kill" residential development in Rockville.

"You need to change your APFO ordinance," former Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow warned her successor and city councilmembers, or Rockville will be "left in the dust" by Downtown Crown and other urban town centers popping up around the county. Krasnow, now employed by the Montgomery County Planning Department, suggested allowing Rockville schools to get more overcrowded would somehow result in extra MCPS construction money flowing to city schools. Most significantly, Krasnow described Rockville's current relationship with the County as "antagonistic," and that County officials feel that the City is "not willing to work with them."

Aakash Thakkar, Senior Vice President with infill development firm EYA, put the message in somewhat more diplomatic terms. By allowing more residential development, including a Tower Oaks project sought by EYA itself, the city could thereby "show goodwill" to County officials who want more tax revenue. This would lead to a more "cooperative relationship" between the city and county. He said developers would also contribute money for schools, although no such legal requirement exists to enforce such a promise, beyond the basic school fees charged now for development in Montgomery County. Thakkar also argued that "new people" are needed to support the retail businesses in Rockville.

Not so fast, Rockville resident Jack Gelin rebutted in later testimony. The idea that the city should accept more-crowded schools and more development simply so that county officials will "not be angry with us" was not a good argument for changing the APFO standards. As for Thakkar's promise of more tax revenue for schools being generated by new development, Gelin referred to the "old discredited theory that somewhere there's a free lunch. This has never happened, and will not happen."

In fact, Montgomery County has been on a building binge for years, with the exception of during the recent recession, and is locked in a structural deficit as far out as can be forecast. All of that tax revenue has failed to keep up with the costs of new infrastructure and services the new developments required. Even jurisdictions who have created more jobs than Montgomery County, like Fairfax and the District, are facing budget crunches. Where is all of the magic tax revenue? Nowhere to be found.

The idea that allowing more development and more school overcrowding would magically solve Rockville's challenges was among a number of false promises made by advocates of watering down the APFO, former Mayor Larry Giammo said. "Stop promulgating myths," he exhorted councilmembers who favor the changes, whose proposals he said were causing "unnecessary and harmful divisiveness" in the community. Rather than change the APFO, Giammo proposed, a better approach would be to update the city's master plan, and engage the county's Board of Education and and County Council to develop new strategies to address overcrowding.

Mayor Bridget Newton said the latter option is in the works, citing a discussion she had with Councilmember Roger Berliner (D-District 1) earlier regarding a work group he is assembling to look at the county's APFO standards. That group will be seeking input from municipalities, and would be a more productive approach to the problem than arbitrarily changing the city's own standards, she suggested. Newton also disputed claims that Rockville had been passed over for school construction money because of its higher APFO standards, pointing out that at least two significant school projects are currently moving forward in the city.

She and resident Joe Jordan also raised questions about how, and under whose authority, the city's staff produced a redline document on APFO changes. Newton asked staff to produce answers to those questions before a vote is taken on the measure. Jordan said he found it "really disturbing" that the process was being rushed without public discussion by the council, leaving residents unclear about each councilmember's position on the changes. Newton criticized city staff for leaving last night's public hearing off of a television announcement for the meeting, and for publishing a front page piece on Rockville Reports that implied she and all councilmembers were advocating changes to the APFO. She argued the city should wait for the outcome of Berliner's effort, and request an opinion from the state Attorney General on the question of whether she and the council have the legal authority to change the APFO, before voting on the proposed changes. The Mayor has the authority to request such an opinion, Newton said, noting that Councilmember Tom Moore had planned to do the same thing last year.

Some would have to question the wisdom of the new talking point deployed last night by proponents of change. "I've got money, but I won't give it to you until you turn over control of your city to us," sounds like a bad mob movie more than a coherent development policy.

ROCKVILLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL STRESS SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING TO MOCO COUNCIL PRESIDENT CRAIG RICE

School construction was the major focus for Rockville's mayor and council, during a presentation by Montgomery County Council President Craig Rice Monday evening. While Rice said the council made an effort to obtain additional funds from the state, "the end result wasn't what we wanted." The plan was rebuffed by politicians in the Maryland General Assembly during the 2014 session.

"We are ready, willing and able to join with you...to get to Annapolis" to testify for additional funds, Mayor Bridget Newton said.

Councilmember Tom Moore asked Rice for "every consideration" for construction of Richard Montgomery Elementary School No. 5. The cluster's elementary schools are "greatly overcrowded," Moore noted, and the new school is desperately needed.

Rice said, based on his review of Rockville's priorities, that the county council is "trying to adhere to many of the same policy goals," as the city. He also stressed the importance of assisting workforce development for those with special needs, and organizations such as Jubilee and ARC.

Ultimately, the holdup of construction funds for Rockville schools "is a joint problem," Rice said, that can only be resolved by working together with the city and the state.