Wednesday November 16th @ 6pm
Frederick County Planning Commission Public Hearing on the 43 proposals for land development in the New Market region
(sign up to speak at 5pm), Winchester Hall (12 E Church Street, downtown Frederick, 1st floor)

There is no need for additional residential or commercial zoning.

Frederick County’s 20-year growth plan (2010-2030) meets state growth projections with zoning for development of 36,264 homes and over 3000 acres for commercial build out. Existing land use plans are sufficient to build a robust economy while preserving the quality of life for Frederick County residents.

What you should know about these land use change requests:
• Total potential land conversion: 2,973 acres
• Potential number of homes: 4,994
• Number of kids added to FCPS in New Market: 2712 kids
• Number of car trips/day added to local roads: 47,793 car trips
• Area to be built on well and septic: 348 acres

Consider this…

• Cost of new schools will be paid in large part by taxpayers (you)
Elementary school construction cost: $25 million (700 student capacity)
Middle school construction cost: $45 million (900 student capacity)
High school construction cost: $70 million (1600 student capacity)

• Cost for new roads will be paid in large part by taxpayers (you). Frederick County needs $3.5 billion to resolve its current road crisis. The BOCC just zeroed the excise tax, a source for road and bridge maintenance and construction.

If you can’t make it to the public hearing, you can send a letter to Frederick County Planning Commissioners:

John McClurkin, Chair, samjbm@verizon.net
Richard Floyd, Vice-Chair, rmfloyd1@aol.com
Robert Lawrence, Secretary, Boblawrence5753@comcast.net
Catherine Forrence, 404westmain@comcast.net
Robert White Jr., bobwhitejr@mac.com
Audrey Wolfe, al_wolfe@verizon.net

Cc: Jim Gugel, Chief Planner jgugel@frederickcountymd.gov

Have a friend come to the hearing and read it in to the record!

October 28, 2011

David T. Whitaker, AICP Land Use, Smart Growth, Planning urban planning,smart growth, maryland department of planning, martin o’malley, Maryland Board of Public Works, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Maryland Department of Transportation,school construction 1 Comment

State Treasurer Nancy Kopp, Governor Marting O’Malley and Comptroller Peter Franchot.

In late October 2011, Maryland’s Board of Public Works – comprised of Governor Martin O’Malley, Comptroller Peter Franchot and Treasurer Nancy Kopp – approved a little-noticed package of regulatory changes for new and replacement public school construction that could help enhance smart growth in the state.

In 2002, the National Trust for Historic Preservation informed us, “Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School.”  This groundbreaking report highlighted how shortsighted school construction policies and short term cost considerations across the country undermine existing neighborhood schools and result in the construction of new schools located outside of communities. The reasons were many – overly large acreage standards oriented to suburban design standards; escalating land costs in existing or planned communities; lack of effective communication between local planning departments and school facility planners; and numerous state policies across the nation favoring new school construction in farm fields over sites in existing or planned communities.

In 2007, the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) decided to examine school construction and planning practices as they relate to Maryland. This culminated in it’s the 2008 Models & Guidelines publication “Smart Growth, Community Planning and Public School Construction,”. The publication drew national attention and many questions. Ultimately, it started a process of scrutinizing Maryland’s school construction practices with a focus on school siting procedures, capital funding processes and compact/vertical design options for new schools. A broad-based workgroup studied these issues and reported on each one. Three reports which were submitted to the Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in the summer of 2009. The key recommendation of the workgroup was for “school construction funding decisions to be subject to Priority Funding Area (PFA) Review in a similar manner to state funding decisions on water & sewer and transportation infrastructure.”

On Wednesday, October 19, 2011, the Maryland Board of Public Works approved a set of regulatory changes governing the Maryland Public School Construction Program.  These changes promote location decisions and school construction funding for sustainable community-based new public school construction throughout Maryland. These changes to Section 23.03.02 of COMAR, Administration of the Public School Construction Program, are focused in two areas:  The Capital Improvement Program and Site Selection for New Schools.

How does this change affect the process? Well, when a school system – more formally known as a Local Education Agency or LEA – proposes to build a new school or to increase the state rated capacity (student seat capacity) of a replacement school outside of a PFA, the LEA must request a waiver for approval of planning of the school facility and also funding for construction.

Additionally, unless a waiver is granted, a proposed site for a new school or a replacement school that adds capacity must be located within a PFA.

By requiring PFA review of school construction projects and site approval, Maryland has created a powerful incentive for communities to build new schools in existing neighborhoods, which are far more likely to be pedestrian-friendly or capable of being retrofitted than locations in outlying areas.

This significant step by the Board of Public Works marks a new era toward better decision-making by local and state governments about where new and replacement schools are built.  Schools within PFA’s – whether new or replacement – support the design of pedestrian-friendly communities in which homes, stores and offices as well as libraries, parks, recreation centers and other public facilities are well connected and possibly accessible by foot or bicycle. This as compared to sites isolated from one another and accessible only by motor vehicle travel. Schools located within communities in this manner reduce long term transportation costs and can improve the public health of the students they serve.

With improved community design guidelines that emphasize connectivity of streets and improved walking and bicycle access, schools can once again be anchors that promote the use of active transportation in Maryland communities.

From the public health perspective, experts emphasize the importance of walking or bicycling to school and other routine physical activity as vital to reversing the childhood obesity epidemic. In 2007, 29 percent of Maryland children ages 10 to 17 – nearly one in three – were obese or overweight , putting them at increased risk for serious health problems.[i] The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that if current trends continue, one-third of all American adults will have diabetes in 2050.[ii] In addition, vehicle emissions, including particulates from diesel vehicles and the emissions of cars idling around schools as parents wait to pick up their children after school, are shown to contribute to the rise in childhood asthma rates.

A recent report for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) points to mounting evidence that moderately intense physical activity like walking and bicycling can help prevent disease and disability and improve overall health. Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Maryland’s regional and local transportation agencies are now considering human health in their planning on the assumption that increasing the share of “non-motorized” trips (walking and bicycling) can yield improved public health outcomes.

From the fiscal perspective, the cost of transporting students from home to school can be reduced by locating schools in communities. School bus costs have surged in recent years – Maryland spent $225.1 million on student transportation in the 2009-2010 school year. This is a 28 percent jump from the $175.5 million Maryland spent during the 2005-2006 school year. These higher costs are not due to school enrollment growth – transportation costs per pupil rose 26 percent, from $751 to $949, during the same period.[iii] This is not a trend that can be sustained by the state or by local government budgets over the next decade.

Maryland’s new approach towards school siting and construction within PFA’s can be viewed as a significant first step to reverse these serious public health trends and annual escalation in school related transportation costs. Perhaps with an increased focus on Safe Routes to Schools and improved sidewalk and trail access connecting schools and neighborhoods, in the future both Johnny and Jenny will be able to safely walk or bicycle to schools in the communities in which they live throughout Maryland.

---

[i]Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health; Maryland State Snapshots, Specific Health Problems and Conditions, 2007 Childhood Obesity State Report Card

[ii] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CDC Division of Media Relations press release; Oct. 22, 2010;

[iii]MSDE Fact Book: Transportation 2009-2010, pp. 44-45, and MSDE Fact Book 2005-2006, pp. 48-49.

Number of proposals:  46

Agriculture/open space acreage under discussion:  2769 acres

Agriculture/open space properties requesting reclassification and rezoning

for residential development:  2380.7 acres

Approximate number of homes to be constructed:  5189

Approximate number of new school children:  2818

Approximate number of additional car trips each day on local roads:  49,667

Download letter as pdf file here.

09/14/11 – 09/16/11
Do you believe the state should step into Frederick County’s revision of the comprehensive plan to prevent sprawl?
Yes 70%
No 29%
Not sure 1%

Total Votes: 80

Read about sprawling plans for Frederick County.

.

September 13, 2011

The Honorable Martin O’Malley

Office of the Governor

State of Maryland

State House

Annapolis, MD 21401

Re:         Petition for Intervention in Land-Use Proceedings Before the Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County

Dear Governor O’Malley:

We are writing to request that the State of Maryland intervene in land-use proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Frederick County.  Even before the commencement of these proceedings, the President of that Board vowed to reclassify and rezone for development thousands of acres of farmland and open space whose owners had, in his view, been “robbed” by the County’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.  We urgently need your support to ensure that principles of sound land-use planning and fiscal responsibility are carefully weighed in these proceedings, as more fully explained below.

The Pending Development Proposals

At the invitation of the BOCC on June 1^st of this year, over 196 planning classification and zoning proposals have been submitted for review.  If approved, these proposals would authorize sprawl development on more than 15,000 acres of farmland and open space in Frederick County.  By our calculations, these development proposals could lead to the construction of as many as 23,400 additional residential units (including large-lot parcels with septic tanks).  They would generate well over 12,000 new students in Frederick County whose education would require the construction of approximately 14 new county schools with a price tag of at least $540 million.  The taxpayer bill to cover operational costs associated with educating these children, a cost shared with the state of Maryland, would be approximately $150 million/year.  These developments would also generate 224,000 additional car trips per day on the county’s rural road network.

The County’s Inability to Maintain Adequate Public Services and Facilities

The Board of County Commissioners has taken these steps despite the fact that neither the state nor the county can afford even the current (let alone future) costs of  mitigating severe congestion on the county’s road network.  In our June 2010 report on the effects of residential overbuilding on county roads, for example, we demonstrated that, even if there is no further growth:

[T]he costs to remedy current transportation problems [in Frederick County] are staggering.  Frederick County’s top ten priority federal and state primary highway projects have a combined cost of $2.540 billion. And that is just to get traffic moving again.  Frederick also has 18 high priority projects needed to get traffic flowing on secondary roads.  These projects total an additional $924.5 million.  The total estimated cost to resolve our current road crisis is $3.5 billion.  There has never been an identified source for that money.  (See “The Effects of Residential Overbuilding on Our Roads”, attached.)

Nor can the county afford the cost of building new schools to alleviate classroom overcrowding and renovating older ones in serious need of repair.  As we noted in our June 2010 report on schools, the county is even now experiencing an annual revenue shortfall of over $46 million for the education of students in Frederick County Public Schools.  As a result,

Eleven of the county’s 37 elementary schools are at or over 100% capacity.  In [2010], over one hundred portables [were] used at 25 elementary school locations.  Of the county’s 14 middle schools, only one is operating at or over 100% capacity; however, there remains the need for the use of 14 portable classrooms in 4 middle school locations.  Of the county’s nine high schools, four are operating at or over capacity, with 42 portable classrooms in use at five locations. (See “The Effects of Residential Overbuilding on Our Schools”, attached.)

The 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map

It bears emphasis, moreover, that the county’s current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map was revised only last year, for the first time in 20 years, after exhaustive analyses of the costs required to improve and expand the county’s public services and facilities to accommodate new growth.  Over a three year period, from 2007 to 2010, the prior Board of County Commissioners conducted over 100 public hearings; took written and oral testimony from hundreds of citizens, property owners and developers; sponsored multiple traffic studies based on a range of development scenarios; consulted with municipalities and responsible state and local agencies and officials; and carefully weighed the comments of the Maryland Department of Planning and the State Highway Administration.

As adopted, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map authorized over 36,000 additional residential units in Frederick County – almost precisely the number recommended by the Maryland Department of Planning to accommodate projected population increases in the county by the year 2030.  Growth beyond these levels was found to be both unnecessary and unaffordable, only a year ago.  Now, however, without any change in circumstances, the current Board of County Commissioners appears ready to increase the size of the county’s residential pipeline by nearly 80%.

The Costs of the Pending Proposals to the State of Maryland

The costs to the State of Maryland of funding highway improvements to accommodate these developments would run into the billions of dollars.  By letter dated August 16, 2006, for example, the State Highway Administration provided the following cost estimates for highway improvements required by the developments proposed for the New Market Region:

[W]e anticipate that the State-owned highway improvements for the New Market Region, not including right-of-way costs, are estimated to total approximately $138 million in 2006, $181 million in 2015, and $259 million in 2030.  Please note that these estimates are very preliminary and were generated for comparative purposes only.  A detailed project planning study would be necessary to determine the full extent of improvements needed.  The cost of right-of-way impacts would also need to be further analyzed during detailed study and could be expected to be several tens of millions of dollars, if not more, for any highway-capacity improvements, especially in developed or developing areas such as New Market.

(See attached letter dated August 16, 2006 from Neil J. Pederson, the Administrator of the State Highway Administration, to the Honorable Jan H. Gardner, President, Board of County Commissioners for Frederick County.)

These estimates do not, of course, include the state highway improvements required for the developments now being proposed for the New Market Region as well as in the other seven planning regions in the county.

Finally, the state’s share of the cost of educating over 12,000 new students in Frederick County would be approximately $75 million/year.

Conclusion

In sum, the current Board of County Commissioners in Frederick County has pledged to make unnecessary, de facto and massive commitment of county and state resources for sprawl development.  We urge that you authorize the State of Maryland to intervene in these proceedings, on behalf of its taxpayers, and to prevent the needless loss of over 15,000 acres of Maryland’s disappearing farmland and open space.[1]

Thank you for your consideration.

Dru Schmidt-Perkins

Executive Director

1000 Friends of Maryland

Encl:

Fact Sheet on the impact of residential growth on roads in Frederick County.

Fact sheet on the impact of residential growth on schools in Frederick County.

SHA road improvement costs

CC:

Maryland Delegate Maggie McIntosh, Chair, Environment Matters Committee

Matthew D. Gallagher, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor

Robert M Summers, Ph.D., Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment

Earl F. “Buddy” Hance, Secretary, Maryland Department of Agriculture

Rich Hall,  Secretary, Maryland Dept of Planning (MDP)

Amanda S. Conn,  Attorney General, MDP

Peter Conrad, Local Government Assistance, MDP

David Costello, Director, Office of Smart Growth, MDP

Donald Halligan, Director, Office of Planning and Capital Programming,

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDoT)

Ralign Wells, Administrator and CEO, Maryland Transit Administration

David Coyne, District Engineer, State Highway Administration

Jamie M Lake, Regional Planner, Transportation Maryland

Blaine Young, President, Board of County Commissioners, Frederick County

Paul Smith, Vice-President, Board of County Commissioners, Frederick County

David Gray, Board of County Commissioners, Frederick County

Kirby DeLauter, Board of County Commissioners, Frederick County

Billy Shreve, Board of County Commissioners, Frederick County

Robert White Jr., Chair, Planning Commission, Frederick County

John McClurkin, Vice Chair, Planning Commission, Frederick County

Robert Lawrence, Planning Commission, Frederick County

Catherine Forrence, Planning Commission, Frederick County

Audrey Wolfe, Planning Commission, Frederick County

Richard Floyd, Secretary, Planning Commission, Frederick County

Dr. Theresa R. Alban, Superintendent, Frederick County Public Schools

Kay Romero, President, Maryland PTA

Rick Tyler, Vice President Legislation, Maryland PTA

Daphne Gabb, President, Frederick County PTA

The current  Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) schools test, combined with forward funding for schools, has brought Frederick County schools from over 125% overcrowding  to a 90% system average. The objective of having an APFO   is to ensure that schools are not overcrowded and that we maintain excellence in education.  So, if the APFO is working to do that, why add an additional option that might compromise our children’s education?  Why would we let developers build in areas where the school population would exceed 100% and up to 125% as suggested by some builders?

There are currently two County regulatory options to control school overcrowding:  1)  the APFO school test and 2)  an option where a developer can build a school or addition to one for children who will move into the new housing that will cause the overcrowding.  This 3rd option introduces “school construction fees” and allows the BOCC to determine the amount of funding the developer will pay.  The school construction fee option will be discussed at two Public Hearings in the near future for public input:

• Wednesday, June 29th 7pm Winchester Hall 1st floor – Planning Commission Public Hearing
• Tuesday, July 19^th 7pm Winchester Hall 1^st floor – Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing

FoFC’s opinion is that this third option should be evaluated thoroughly, including an investigation of how it has been used elsewhere – and what those long term impacts have been.  We do not want our Frederick County kids’ public school education steamrolled by a push for building houses that aren’t necessary.  That’s short range gain for some and long range loss for the county.  Economic development is most successful in a community when supported by long term investments in public education and health.

Discussion

The following are FoFC’s questions for discussion:

1. What happens if schools that are not currently overcrowded do not receive school construction  fees, but will need the money in the future when/if they become overcrowded due to the development that occurred? What happens when the students move on to higher level schools?
2. It seems there is currently discussion about allowing schools to go to 120% capacity.  What is the impact on  a child’s education from overcrowding of schools?
3. The BOCC says that the additional funds provided by the school Construction Fee and the Impact Fees will create jobs, employment opportunities, and tax revenue for Frederick County and its residents.  Where is the analysis that demonstrates the type of jobs?  Is there an assurance that a percentage will go to Frederick County taxpayers?
4. What if the Board of County Commissioners decided not to raise fees when necessary?  Will the County Finance Director have a strong voice in this decision?

1. Looking at an analysis if a School Construction Fee option were to be used for the Crum development.

Estimated number of children:  550

FCPS has said that the Crum Farm development would need a new elementary school;  the estimated cost for a new elementary school is $25,000,000, and holds 700 kids.   With the Construction Fee Proposal would the taxpayer pick up the difference between what the school will cost and the fees levied…

(the deficit from choosing the School Construction Fee option) …  $ 16,646,050?

1. It currently costs Frederick County taxpayers $8.5 million/year to operate one elementary school, $10.8/year to operate one middle school and $19.3 million to operate one high school. Are we running a deficit to educate our kids?  If so, how could this construction fee proposal exacerbate that debt? (by how much?)
2. From what we understand a sunset provision could be added to the ordinance saying that the School Construction Fee would expire after 5 years unless renewed.  After expiration would the current APFO apply, or will we not have any APFO at all?

Thank you.