MCPB

Item #9
June 23, 2005

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSION

June 17, 2005

Memorandum

To: Montgomery County Planning Board

From: Karl Moritz, Research & Technology Center, 301-495-1312
Re: FY2006 Growth Policy: Review of School Forecasting Methodology and
Acceptance of School Test Results

Beginning in July 2004, the Montgomery County Growth Policy is not revisited
by the County Council on an annual basis. However, there continues to be an annual
component of the new growth policy: a review of the results of the school test. The
school test determines if residential subdivisions in any school clusters should be subject
to either a school facilities payment or a moratorium.

A year ago, when the Planning Board reviewed the school test results based on
the FY2005-2010 Capital Improvements Program, the Planning Board requested a
presentation of the methodology underlying the school forecasts and a discussion of the
major capacity issues facing Montgomery County Public Schools.

Montgomery County Public Schools staff, along with Park and Planning staff,
will make this presentation at the Board’s June 23, 2005 worksession. Staff will also be
requesting the Planning Board’s acceptance of the attached school test results for FY06.

Acceptance of School Test Results

As in the past, the School Test analysis is prepared by Montgomery County

Public Schools staff using the methodology adopted by the County Council. Park and
Planning staff have reviewed the results of the MCPS analysis and we endorse the
findings that there are no clusters where subdivisions should be subject to either the
school facilities payment or to a moratorium.

The school test compares projected 2010 enrollment with 2010 classroom
capacity for each of the 24 high school clusters at the elementary, middle and high school
levels. At the elementary and middle school levels, enrollment must not exceed 105
percent of capacity and “borrowing” from adjacent clusters is not permitted. At the high
school level, enrollment must not exceed 100 percent of capacity, but if it does,
“borrowing” from an adjacent cluster is permitted.

According to the analysis, enrollment does not exceed 105 percent of capacity in
any cluster at the elementary or middle school level. At the high school level, there are
three clusters where enrollment exceeds 100 percent of capacity: Blake, Magruder, and
Wootton. For each of these clusters, however, there is an adjacent cluster with sufficient
excess capacity so that the growth policy test result is “adequate.”

The Planning Board has the official role of finding that school facilities are
adequate for FY2006. In making this determination, the Planning Board must use the
methodology adopted by the County Council to make that finding. Staff has attached the
school text portion of the growth policy to this memo, and will be reviewing the test with
the Board at the worksession.

Park and Planning staff recommend that Planning Board accept the results of the
school test as calculated by Montgomery County Public Schools staff, for FY2006. These
findings are attached at circle 1.

Once accepted by the Planning Board, this table (along with the resolution
adopted by the Council in October 2004) will constitute Montgomery County’s growth
policy for FY 2006.

2
 ELEMENTARY
Annual Growth Policy - Schools Test for FY 2006
Reflects County Council Amended FY 2005 - 2010 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and MCPS Enrollment Forecast

Elementary School Enrollment and Capacity AGP Test

100% MCPS* 105% AGP** AGP Test: AGP Test
Projected Capacity With Capacity Capacity With Students Result -
Sept. 2010 Adopted Remaining @ 100% Adopted Above or Below Capacity is:
Cluster Area Enrollment FY05-10 CIP MCPS capacity FY05-10 CIP 105 % AGP Cap.

B- CC 3,080 2,706 -374 3,238 158 Adequate

Blair 3,936 3,359 -577 4,818 882 Adequate
Blake 2,598 2,148 -450 2,815 217 Adequate
Churchill 2,638 2,466 -172 2,808 170 Adequate
Damascus 3,970 4,101 131 4,895 925 Adequate
Einstein 2,483 2,020 -463 2,809 326 Adequate
Gaithersburg 3,990 3,630 -360 4,729 739 Adequate
Walter Johnson 3,068 2,548 -520 3,110 42 Adequate
Kennedy 2,364 1,781 -583 2,789 425 Adequate
Magruder 2,923 2,514 -409 3,436 513 Adequate
R. Montgomery 2,413 1,993 -420 2,591 178 Adequate
Northwest 3,777 3,503 -274 4,187 410 Adequate
Northwood 2,534 2,419 -115 3,071 537 Adequate
Paint Branch 2,483 2,307 -176 2,720 237 Adequate
Poolesville 720 754 34 851 131 Adequate
Quince Orchard 2,847 2,632 -215 3,159 312 Adequate
Rockville 2,466 2,172 -294 3,166 700 Adequate
Seneca Valley 3,184 2,640 -544 3,261 77 Adequate
Sherwood 2,357 2,277 -80 2,798 441 Adequate
Springbrook 2,698 2,672 -26 3,576 878 Adequate
Watkins Mill 3,232 2,655 -577 3,738 506 Adequate
Wheaton 2,469 2,291 -178 2,949 480 Adequate
Whitman 2,238 2,021 -217 2,394 156 Adequate
Wootton 3,269 2,914 -355 3,425 156 Adequate

MIDDLE
Annual Growth Policy - Schools Test for FY 2006
Reflects County Council Amended FY 2005 - 2010 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and MCPS Enrollment Forecast

Middle School Enrollment and Capacity AGP Test

100% MCPS* 105% AGP** AGP Test: AGP Test
Projected Capacity With Capacity Capacity With Students Result -
Sept. 2010 Adopted Remaining @ 100% Adopted Above or Below Capacity is:
Cluster Area Enrollment FY05-10 CIP MCPS capacity FY05-10 CIP 105 % AGP Cap.

B- CC 991 1,098 107 1,181 190 Adequate

Blair 2,155 2,438 283 2,646 491 Adequate
Blake 1,181 1,380 199 1,559 378 Adequate
Churchill 1,426 1,437 11 1,654 228 Adequate
Damascus 1,806 1,706 -100 1,914 108 Adequate
Einstein 1,044 1,506 462 1,820 776 Adequate
Gaithersburg 1,540 1,866 326 2,292 752 Adequate
Walter Johnson 1,556 1,843 287 2,245 689 Adequate
Kennedy 1,238 1,335 97 1,583 345 Adequate
Magruder 1,391 1,714 323 1,890 499 Adequate
R. Montgomery 1,018 1,044 26 1,229 211 Adequate
Northwest 1,868 2,140 272 2,387 519 Adequate
Northwood 1,027 1,480 453 1,772 745 Adequate
Paint Branch 1,227 1,351 124 1,489 262 Adequate
Poolesville 332 500 168 544 212 Adequate
Quince Orchard 1,351 1,712 361 1,843 492 Adequate
Rockville* 916 1,030 114 1,205 289 Adequate
Seneca Valley 1,440 1,421 -19 1,607 167 Adequate
Sherwood 1,244 1,577 333 1,701 457 Adequate
Springbrook 1,118 1,248 130 1,465 347 Adequate
Watkins Mill 1,511 1,721 210 2,009 498 Adequate
Wheaton 1,530 1,554 24 1,890 360 Adequate
Whitman 1,267 1,341 74 1,465 198 Adequate
Wootton 1,528 1,599 71 1,772 244 Adequate

HIGH
Annual Growth Policy - Schools Test for FY 2006
Reflects County Council Amended FY 2005 - 2010 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and MCPS Enrollment Forecast

High School Enrollment and Capacity AGP Test

100% MCPS* 100% AGP** AGP Test: AGP Test AGP Test
Projected Capacity With Capacity Capacity With Students Result - Result -
Sept. 2010 Adopted Remaining @ 100% Adopted Above or Below Capacity is: Capacity is:
Cluster Area Enrollment FY05-10 CIP MCPS capacity FY05-10 CIP 100 % AGP Cap.

B- CC 1,689 1,652 -37 1,710 21 Adequate

Blair 2,759 2,830 71 2,993 234 Adequate
Blake 1,797 1,716 -81 1,778 -19 Paint Branch 409 Adequate
Churchill 2,097 2,008 -89 2,115 18 Adequate
Damascus 2,138 2,691 553 2,745 607 Adequate
Einstein 1,555 1,457 -98 1,710 155 Adequate
Gaithersburg 2,190 2,143 -47 2,340 150 Adequate
Walter Johnson 2,137 2,154 17 2,363 226 Adequate
Kennedy 1,584 1,727 143 1,935 351 Adequate
Magruder 2,140 2,030 -110 2,115 -25 Gaithersburg 150 Adequate
R. Montgomery 1,909 1,966 57 2,093 184 Adequate
Northwest 2,135 2,241 106 2,295 160 Adequate
Northwood 1,489 1,630 141 1,688 199 Adequate
Paint Branch 1,684 1,998 314 2,093 409 Adequate
Poolesville 782 868 86 900 118 Adequate
Quince Orchard 1,970 1,782 -188 1,980 10 Adequate
Rockville 1,233 1,633 400 1,778 545 Adequate
Seneca Valley 1,735 1,842 107 1,935 200 Adequate
Sherwood 2,062 2,055 -7 2,183 121 Adequate
Springbrook 2,128 2,131 3 2,273 145 Adequate
Watkins Mill 2,065 2,178 113 2,295 230 Adequate
Wheaton 1,345 1,508 163 1,643 298 Adequate
Whitman 2,001 1,913 -88 2,025 24 Adequate
Wootton 2,289 2,050 -239 2,183 -106 R. Montgomery 184 Adequate
The Annual Growth Policy schools test compares projected enrollment in 2010-11 to total capacity in 2010-11, including programmed additional capacity available by that year.
The AGP schools test uses 105% AGP Capacity for elementary and middle schools, and 100% AGP Capacity for high schools.
The AGP schools test is within cluster for elementary and middle schools, and at high school level capacity may be "borrowed" from adjacent clusters,
* MCPS program capacity based on rating of capacity for special programs as well as regular education program, (published in November in the CIP and in June in the Master Plan.)
** AGP elementary cluster capacity for schools without class-size reductions based on rating all K rooms at 22, and all other elementary rooms for Grades 1- 5 at 23:1.
** AGP elementary cluster capacity for schools with class-size reductions based on rating all K rooms at 15, elementary rooms for Grades 1-2 at 17:1, and elementary rooms for Grades 3-5 at 23:1.
**AGP secondary school capacity for Grades 6-12 based on rating all rooms at 22.5:1.

Enrollment projections by Montgomery County Public Schools, October 2004.

In cases where elementary or middle schools articulate to more than one high school, enrollments and capacities are allocated proportionately to clusters.
Excerpt from Resolution 15-375: 2003-5 Annual Growth Policy – Policy Element

Public School Facilities

S1 Geographic Areas

For the purposes of public school analysis and local area review of school facilities at
time of subdivision, the County has been divided into 24 areas called high school
clusters, as shown in Map 32. These areas coincide with the cluster boundaries used by
the Montgomery County Public School system.

The groupings used are only to administer the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and
do not in any way require action by the Board of Education in exercising its power to
designate school service boundaries.

S2 School Capacity Measures

The Planning Board must evaluate available capacity in each high school cluster and
compare enrollment projected by Montgomery County Public Schools for each fiscal
year with projected school capacity in 5 years. If sufficient high school capacity will not
be available in any cluster, the Planning Board must determine whether an adjacent
cluster will have sufficient high school capacity to cover the projected deficit.

The Planning Board must use 100% of Council-funded capacity at the high school level
and 105% of Council-funded capacity at the middle and elementary school level as its
measures of adequate school capacity. This capacity measure does not count relocatable
classrooms in computing a school's permanent capacity.

Council-funded regular program classroom capacity is based on calculations that assign

25 students for grades 1-6, 44 students for half day kindergarten where it is currently
provided, 22 students for all day kindergarten where it is currently provided, and an
effective class size of 22.5 students for secondary grades.

S3 Grade Levels

Each cluster must be assessed separately at each of the three grade levels -- elementary,
intermediate/middle, and high school.

S4 Determination of Adequacy

After the Council has approved the FY 2005-2010 CIP, the Planning Board must
recalculate the projected school capacity at all grade levels in each high school cluster. If
the Board finds that public school capacity will be inadequate at any grade level in any
cluster, but the projected enrolment at that level will not exceed 110% of capacity, the
Board may approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during FY 2005 if the
applicant commits to pay a School Facilities Payment as provided in County law before
receiving a building permit for any building in that subdivision. If projected enrollment

3
at any grade level in that cluster will exceed 110% of capacity, the Board must not
approve any residential subdivision in that cluster during FY 2005.

After the Council in 2005 has approved the amended FY 2005-2010 CIP, the Planning
Board again must recalculate school capacity. If capacity at any level is projected to be
inadequate, the Board must take the actions specified in the preceding paragraph in FY
2006.

S5 Senior Housing

If public school capacity in inadequate in any cluster, the Planning Board may
nevertheless approve a subdivision in that cluster if the subdivision consists solely of
multifamily housing and related facilities for elderly or handicapped persons or
multifamily housing units located in the age-restricted section of a planned retirement
community.

S6 Clusters in municipalities

If public school capacity will be inadequate in any cluster that is wholly or partly located
in Rockville, Gaithersburg, or Poolesville, the Planning Board may nevertheless approve
residential subdivisions in that cluster unless the respective municipality restricts the
approval of similar subdivisions in its part of the cluster because of inadequate school
capacity.

S7 Development District Participants

The Planning Board may require any development district for which it approves a
provisional adequate public facilities approval (PAPF) to produce or contribute to
infrastructure improvements needed to address inadequate school capacity.