Subdivision Staging Policy

Results of School Test for FY 2012

Reflects County Council Adopted FY 2012 Capital Budget and Amendments to the FY 20112016 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

Effective July 1, 2011

Cluster Outcomes by Level
School Test Level
Clusters over 105% utilization

Description

Elementary Inadequate

Middle Inadequate

High Inadequate

5-year test

B-CC (113.2%)
Blake (107.5%)
Gaithersburg (105.6%)
Walter Johnson (112.1%)
Magruder (109.7%)
Northwest (118.3%)
Northwood (116.9%)
Paint Branch (109.7%)
Quince Orchard (110.1%)
Rockville (115.4%)
Seneca Valley (107.6%)
Whitman (109.5%)

Bethesda-Chevy Chase (114.7%)

Walter Johnson (106.2%)
Rockville (107.7%)
Whitman (105.6%)

B-CC (116.9%)
Northwest (108.5%)
Northwood (107.0%)
Quince Orchard (114.5%)
Seneca Valley (108.8%)
Wootton (106.3%)

Richard Montgomery (122.7%)

Richard Montgomery (136.4%)

Effective July 1, 2011

School facility payment required in
inadequate clusters to proceed.

Clusters over 120% utilization

Moratorium requred in clusters
that are inadequate.

Test year 2016-17

5-year test
Effective July 1, 2011
Test year 2016-17

* Capacities in Northwood and Northwest clusters include "placeholder" capital projects of four elementary school classrooms each, pending request for projects in FY 20132018 CIP.
* Capacity in Bethesda-Chevy Chase cluster includes a "placeholder" capital project of four middle school classrooms, pending request for a new middle school in FY 20132018 CIP.
** No "placeholder" capital project is provided for Richard Montgomgery cluster because most of the cluster is in the City of Rockville where a different type of
"school test" results in most of the cluster being in moratium.

Subdivision Staging Policy

School Test for FY 2012: Cluster Utilizations in 20162017
Reflects County Council Adopted FY 2012 Capital Budget and Amendments to the FY 20112016 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Elementary School Test: Percent Utilization >105% School Facility Payment and >120% Moratorium

Cluster Area
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Montgomery Blair
James Hubert Blake
Winston Churchill
Clarksburg
Damascus
Albert Einstein
Gaithersburg
Walter Johnson
John F. Kennedy
Col. Zadok Magruder
Richard Montgomery**
Northwest*
Northwood*
Paint Branch
Poolesville
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Seneca Valley
Sherwood
Springbrook
Watkins Mill
Wheaton
Walt Whitman
Thomas S. Wootton

Projected
August 2016
Enrollment
3,668
4,235
2,648
2,690
4,057
2,445
2,645
4,068
4,145
2,747
2,845
2,852
4,356
3,231
2,489
620
3,091
2,604
2,302
2,328
3,144
2,734
3,059
2,602
3,001

100% MCPS Program

Capacity With
CC Adopted
FY1116 CIP
3,240
4,400
2,463
2,778
3,949
2,420
2,586
3,853
3,697
2,915
2,594
2,324
3,682
2,765
2,268
758
2,808
2,257
2,139
2,716
3,209
2,704
3,058
2,376
3,217

Cluster
Percent Utilization
in 2016
113.2%
96.3%
107.5%
96.8%
102.7%
101.0%
102.3%
105.6%
112.1%
94.2%
109.7%
122.7%
118.3%
116.9%
109.7%
81.8%
110.1%
115.4%
107.6%
85.7%
98.0%
101.1%
100.0%
109.5%
93.3%

Growth Policy
Test Result
Capacity is:

Cluster is?

Inadequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate

School Payment
Open
School Payment
Open
Open
Open
Open
School Payment
School Payment
Open
School Payment
Moratorium
School Payment
School Payment
School Payment
Open
School Payment
School Payment
School Payment
Open
Open
Open
Open
School Payment
Open

Middle School Test: Percent Utilization >105% School Facility Payment and >120% Moratorium

Cluster Area
Bethesda-Chevy Chase*
Montgomery Blair
James Hubert Blake
Winston Churchill
Clarksburg
Damascus
Albert Einstein
Gaithersburg
Walter Johnson
John F. Kennedy
Col. Zadok Magruder
Richard Montgomery**
Northwest
Northwood
Paint Branch
Poolesville
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Seneca Valley
Sherwood
Springbrook
Watkins Mill
Wheaton
Walt Whitman
Thomas S. Wootton

Projected
August 2016
Enrollment
1,317
2,338
1,232
1,880
2,232
760
1,260
1,778
1,945
1,175
1,275
1,357
3,518
1,184
1,282
294
1,973
1,025
1,872
1,330
1,204
1,726
1,589
1,342
1,913

100% MCPS Program

Capacity With
CC Adopted
FY1116 CIP
1,148
2,343
1,343
2,135
2,829
740
1,379
1,797
1,831
1,255
1,637
995
3,353
1,357
1,227
459
2,169
952
2,081
1,837
1,275
1,807
1,589
1,271
2,109

Cluster
Percent Utilization
in 2016
114.7%
99.8%
91.7%
88.1%
78.9%
102.7%
91.4%
98.9%
106.2%
93.6%
77.9%
136.4%
104.9%
87.3%
104.5%
64.1%
91.0%
107.7%
90.0%
72.4%
94.4%
95.5%
100.0%
105.6%
90.7%

Growth Policy
Test Result
Capacity is:

Cluster is?

Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate

School Payment
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
School Payment
Open
Open
Moratorium
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
School Payment
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
School Payment
Open

High School Test: Percent Utilization >105% School Facility Payment and >120% Moratorium

Cluster Area
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Montgomery Blair
James Hubert Blake
Winston Churchill
Clarksburg
Damascus
Albert Einstein
Gaithersburg
Walter Johnson
John F. Kennedy
Col. Zadok Magruder
Richard Montgomery
Northwest
Northwood
Paint Branch
Poolesville
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Seneca Valley
Sherwood
Springbrook
Watkins Mill
Wheaton
Walt Whitman
Thomas S. Wootton

Projected
August 2016
Enrollment
1,946
2,842
1,803
1,956
1,906
1,195
1,534
2,163
2,242
1,686
1,622
2,113
2,333
1,603
1,829
1,133
1,954
1,439
1,427
1,949
1,718
1,680
1,173
1,841
2,241

100% MCPS Program

Capacity With
CC Adopted
FY1116 CIP
1,665
2,848
1,724
1,941
1,971
1,509
1,614
2,284
2,274
1,776
1,896
2,232
2,151
1,498
1,899
1,152
1,706
1,516
1,311
2,004
2,073
1,980
1,258
1,828
2,109

Cluster
Percent Utilization
in 2016
116.9%
99.8%
104.6%
100.8%
96.7%
79.2%
95.0%
94.7%
98.6%
94.9%
85.5%
94.7%
108.5%
107.0%
96.3%
98.4%
114.5%
94.9%
108.8%
97.3%
82.9%
84.8%
93.2%
100.7%
106.3%

Growth Policy
Test Result
Capacity is:

Cluster is?

Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate

School Payment
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
School Payment
School Payment
Open
Open
School Payment
Open
School Payment
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
School Payment

* Capacities in Northwood and Northwest clusters include "placeholder" capital projects of four elementary school classrooms each, pending request for projects in FY 20132018 CIP.
* Capacity in Bethesda-Chevy Chase cluster includes a "placeholder" capital project of four middle school classrooms, pending request for a new middle school in FY 20132018 CIP.
** No "placeholder" capital project is provided for Richard Montgomgery cluster because most of the cluster is in the City of Rockville where a different type of
"school test" results in most of the cluster being in moratium.

Excerpt from Resolution 16-1187: 2009-2011 Growth Policy

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 25 areas called high school
clusters. 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 require any action by the Board of Education in exercising its power to designate
school service boundaries.
S2

Grade Levels

Each cluster must be assessed separately at each of the 3 grade levels -- elementary,
intermediate/middle, and high school.
S3

Determination of Adequacy

Each year, not later than July 1, 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 at any
time during fiscal year 2010 the County Council notifies the Planning Board of any
material change in the Montgomery County Public Schools Capital Improvements
Program, the Planning Board may revise its evaluation to reflect that change.
S4

Moratorium on Residential Subdivision Approvals

In considering whether a moratorium on residential subdivisions must be imposed, the

Planning Board must use 120% of Montgomery County Public Schools program capacity
as its measure of adequate school capacity. This capacity measure must not count
relocatable classrooms in computing a school's permanent capacity. If projected
enrollment at any grade level in that cluster will exceed 120% of capacity, the Board
must not approve any residential subdivision in that cluster during the next fiscal year. If
the Planning Board revises its measure of utilization during fiscal year 2010 because of a
material change in projected school capacity, that revision must be used during the rest of
that fiscal year in reviewing residential subdivisions.
Table 3 shows the result of this test for July 1, 2009, to July 1, 2010. Table 3 also shows
the remaining capacity, in students, at each grade level in each cluster. Using average
student generation rates developed from the most recent Census Update Survey, the
Planning Board must limit residential subdivision approvals in any cluster during the
3

fiscal year so that the students generated by the housing units approved do not exceed the
remaining capacity for students at any grade level in that cluster.
S5

Imposition of School Facilities Payment

In considering whether a School Facilities Payment must be imposed on a residential

subdivision, the Planning Board must use 105% of Montgomery County Public Schools
program capacity as its measure of adequate school capacity. This capacity measure
must not count relocatable classrooms in computing a school's permanent capacity. If
projected enrollment at any grade level in that cluster will exceed 105% of capacity but
not exceed 120%, the Board may approve a residential subdivision in that cluster during
the next fiscal year 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 the Planning Board revises its measure of utilization during fiscal year
2010 because of a material change in projected school capacity, that revision must be
used during the rest of that fiscal year in reviewing residential subdivisions.

Table 4 shows the result of this test for July 1, 2009, to July 1, 2010. Table 4 also shows
the remaining capacity, in students, at each grade level in each cluster. Using average
student generation rates developed from the most recent Census Update Survey, the
Planning Board must limit residential subdivision approvals in any cluster during the
fiscal year so that the students generated by the housing units approved do not exceed the
remaining capacity for students at any grade level in that cluster.
S6

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.

S7

De Minimis Development

If public school capacity in inadequate in any cluster, the Planning Board may
nevertheless approve a subdivision in that cluster if the subdivision consists of no more
than 3 housing units and the applicant commits to pay a School Facilities Payment as
otherwise required before receiving a building permit for any building in that subdivision.
S8

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.
4

S9

Allocation of Staging Ceiling to Preliminary Plans of Subdivision

The Planning Board must allocate available staging ceiling capacity in a high school
cluster based on the queue date of an application for preliminary plan of subdivision
approval.
S9.1

Assignment of queue date

The queue date of a preliminary plan of subdivision is the date:

a complete application is filed with the Planning Board; or
6 months after the prior queue date if the prior queue date expires under S9.4.
S9.2

Calculation of available staging ceiling capacity

The Planning Board must determine whether adequate staging ceiling capacity is
available for a project by subtracting the capacity required by projects with earlier queue
dates from the remaining capacity on Table 3 as updated periodically. Based on this
calculation, the Planning Board may:
approve a project for which there is sufficient capacity;
approve part of a project for which there is sufficient capacity, leaving the
remainder of the project in the queue until additional capacity becomes available;
deny an application for a project for which there is insufficient capacity; or
defer approval of a project and leave the project in the queue until sufficient
capacity becomes available for all or part of the project. If insufficient capacity is
available, the Board must not schedule a hearing on the application unless the
applicant requests one.
If sufficient capacity is available for a project based on the queue date, the Planning
Board must not deny an application based on pipeline (but not staging ceiling) changes
while the queue date is in effect.
S9.3

Applicability of School Facilities Payment

The Planning Board must determine whether a project is required to pay a School
Facilities Payment by subtracting the capacity required by projects with earlier queue
dates from the remaining capacity on Table 4 as updated periodically. Based on this
calculation, the Planning Board may:
approve a project for which there is sufficient capacity;
approve part of a project for which there is sufficient capacity, requiring the
remainder of the project to pay the applicable School Facilities Payment until
additional capacity becomes available; or
defer approval of a project and leave the project in the queue until sufficient
capacity becomes available for all or part of the project. If insufficient capacity is
available, the Board must not schedule a hearing on the application unless the
applicant requests one.

If a project must pay a School Facilities Payment, the Planning Board must not deny an
application based on pipeline (but not staging ceiling) changes while the Payment
requirement is in effect.
S9.4

Expiration of queue date

A queue date for an application for preliminary plan of subdivision approval expires:
6 months after the queue date if sufficient staging ceiling capacity was available
for the entire project on the queue date and the Planning Board has not approved
the application or granted an extension of the queue date; or
6 months after sufficient capacity becomes available for the entire project.
The Planning Board may grant one or more 6-month extensions of a queue date if the
applicant demonstrates that a queue date expired or will expire because of governmental
delay beyond the applicant's control.