mdp yearbook 2012/2011

M A R Y L A N D D E P A R T M E N T O F P L A N N I N G

Y E A R B O O K

2 0 1 2 / 2 0 1 1

Follow us on:

facebook.com/MDPlanning twitter.com/SmartGrowthMD

Maryland Department of Planning301 West Preston Street, Suite 1101Baltimore, Maryland 21201Tel: 410.767.4500 Toll Free: 1.877.767.6272TTY users: Maryland Relayor visit: Planning.Maryland.gov

Maryland Department of Planning, Yearbook 2012 / 2011 This Annual Report was written and graphically designed by staff of the Maryland Department of Planning

February 2012 Publication No. 2012-001

Photos on pages 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 21 in Section I, courtesy of the Office of the Governor, State of Maryland

M A R Y L A N D D E P A R T M E N T O F P L A N N I N G

Y E A R B O O K

2 0 1 2 / 2 0 1 1

2011 will be known as the year we moved smart growth forward. The concepts and policies wrapped up in the phrase “Smart Growth” are vitally important to Maryland as we move forward. We are the stewards for future generations of the built and economic environments as well as the natural one. As Marylanders, we enjoy a solid legacy of foresight in land-use planning, from creating one of the first state planning commissions in the country in 1933 to nationally recognized, cutting-edge Smart Growth policies.

I am pleased to introduce the Maryland Department of Planning’s 2012-2011 Yearbook. I like that Secretary Hall has changed the name of this annual report to a yearbook. It made me reflect on my school yearbooks and the things I and others would write in our classmates’ yearbooks. Things such as “Good luck next year” or “See you after college.” Words of encouragement and affirmation.

This had me thinking of what I would write in the “yearbook” that the second and third generation would read. Would it be “Hope you enjoy all that wide open farmland we set aside for you” or “All the best in your vibrant community made possible by the forward-thinking folks in 2012?” Or would the tone be more somber: “We tried to curb runaway sprawl but couldn’t stem its tide. Sorry about the congested roads, polluted bays and rivers and dwindling forests and farmland.”

I firmly believe that all Marylanders want to leave a better state to those generations. I had the privilege of sharing a whole day in January of 2011 with more than 200 citizens discussing how together we can move Maryland forward in Smart Growth. That is why we deployed PlanMaryland in 2011 to make our investment in development and land preservation work better. We also convened the Task Force on Sustainable Growth and Wastewater Disposal to study the effects of septic systems on our Bay and formulate alternatives for future growth.

As you read through MDP’s yearbook and see the accomplishments of the past year and view the statistics and indicators of how we’re doing as a state, keep in mind what you would write in the yearbook for tomorrow’s generations to read.

Martin O’Malley, Governor

“Life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.” - Kahlil Gibran, author

The year 2011 is behind us, 2012 is ahead. It is for this reason that the Maryland Department of Planning’s yearbook reports on the past year but also looks forward to what we have to accomplish. Our work during 2011 saw PlanMaryland become a reality, the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission take full flight, and the Task Force on Sustainable Growth and Wastewater Disposal study the issue of septic sprawl and propose the framework for a legislative remedy. The past year also saw the completion of Congressional and Legislative Redistricting that occurs every 10 years and planning for the coming bicentennial celebration of Maryland’s major role in the War of 1812.

While these and other projects are in the rear view, MDP is looking ahead to helping Maryland foster vibrant, livable communities, protect its natural gems and make the most of its abundant historical and cultural resources. This yearbook takes a look at the accomplishments of the department and its contributions toward a “Smart, Green and Growing” Maryland. To assess the road ahead, it’s good to measure the mileposts of where we’ve recently traveled. Three sections of this yearbook do just that:

• MDP’s first Statewide Impacts of Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances report shows the effect that local development restrictions have had on land use inside and outside of Maryland’s Priority Funding Areas (PFA).

• The Smart Growth Indicators section provides insight into the statistics and

trends that show how well Maryland is meeting the objectives of the Smart Growth Areas Act of 1997, which created the Priority Funding Areas to better support Smart Growth as an investment objective.

• Finally, the Maryland Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet’s Annual Report on the Implementation of the Smart Growth Areas Act shows how State agencies have invested growth-related funding in accordance with the PFAs and how they are focusing their programs with an eye on smarter growth.

We can better assess how we’re doing, as an agency and as a state, by seeing the progress we’ve made as One Maryland as in local policies, State funding priorities and growth trends. We should all be proud that we’ve made measurable gains, but we still have work to do.

Richard Eberhart Hall, AICPSecretary of PlanningMaryland Department of Planning

1-1 Section I: Maryland Department of Planning

1-2 Highlights1-2 PlanMaryland1-3 Septic Task Force1-4 Congressional and Legislative Redistricting1-5 War of 1812 Centennial1-6 Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission1-7 Sustainable Communities Tax Credit1-8 National APA Award for Governor O’Malley

1-9 MDP Divisions1-9 State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance1-10 Planning Services1-10 Local Planning Assistance1-11 Appalachian Regional Commission 1-12 Infrastructure Planning Public School Construction1-13 Transportation Planning1-14 Agricultural Preservation

1-15 Planning Data and Analysis1-16 State Data Center/Demographic & Socioeconomic Projections

1-18 Communications, Education and Intergovernmental Affairs1-19 Media Coverage1-20 Anatomy of Communicating a Plan

1-22 Maryland Historical Trust1-22 Preservation Planning and Museum Programs1-23 Office of Research, Survey and Registration1-24 Office of Preservation Services 1-25 Jefferson Patterson Park & Museum1-26 Maryland Archeological Conservation Laboratory

2-1 Section II: Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances

3-0 Section III: Smart Growth Indicators3-3 Percent of Improved Single Family Residential Parcles3-4 Residential Development Capacity3-5 Percent Residential Parcels and Acre by PFA, 1997 - 2009

4-1 Section IV: Priority Funding Areas Maryland Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet Annual Report on the Implementation of The Smart Growth Areas Act4-2 Introduction4-3 Priority Funding Areas4-5 Department of Housing and Community Development4-6 Department of General Services4-7 Department of Business and Economic Development4-8 Maryland Department of the Environment4-10 Maryland Department of Transportation4-12 Maryland Historical Trust programs voluntarily restricted to PFAs4-13 Public School Construction Program4-15 Maryland Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet4-16 APPENDIX A 4-18 APPENDIX B

Agency Scrapbook

Maryland is among tops in the nation in using the latest technological tools like GIS for planning analysis. But perhaps the greatest planning invention known to modern man is the simple Post-It note. (As we say at MDP, it’s hard to plan for the next generation if you can’t plan your day – well, we don’t really say that, but it’s true nonetheless.)

For more than a year, Post-Its helped us plan PlanMaryland, the State’s first long-range plan for sustainable growth. They lined a wall of our glass conference room known as “The Fishbowl” on the 11th floor of the State Office Building in Baltimore. We updated the Post-Its, rearranged them and at times, alas, strayed from them. The tiny paper slips, though canary in color, had the effect of a mynah bird. We couldn’t avoid their cold stare and unyielding remainder: Deliver PlanMaryland as promised to the Governor and legislature. With Post-Its as our muse, they helped inspire a theme for the agency’s 2012 Annual Report. Our previous Annual Report a year ago was labeled “2010,” but we’ve decided to begin naming them for the year ahead to better reflect our focus on the work ahead. There are plenty of Post-Its left to be satisfied.

Andrew RatnerExecutive Director of Communications and EducationMaryland Department of Planning

Scene from”The Fishbowl”

Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) is a cabinet-level agency in the executive branch of Maryland State government. It works with State and local governments to ensure comprehensive and integrated planning for the best use of land and other resources. MDP also compiles data for use in planning, including Congressional and Legislative redistricting. The Maryland Historical Trust and Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum are part of MDP. The mission of MDP, now in its 53rd year, is to help preserve, protect and promote the natural, cultural and history resources of Maryland.

Maryland Department of Planning

1-1

Governor O’Malley on Dec. 19, 2011 accepted “PlanMaryland,” the State’s first long-range plan for sustainable growth, from Maryland Planning Secretary Richard Eberhart Hall. The plan was developed over four years in a process that included meetings with more than 3,000 people across the state and thousands more reached online — one of the largest outreach efforts of its kind in Maryland planning history. In consultation with the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission, MDP revised the plan to address key issues.

During the coming year, MDP will work closely with local governments to develop guidelines for mapping areas for growth and preservation to align with state investments. MDP will also work with sister state agencies to identify changes in strategy to achieve the smart growth goals of PlanMaryland.

Plan Maryland fulfills legislation from the General Assembly in 1959, 1974, 2007 and 2010 that required or laid out the process for a State Development Plan for Maryland — a mandate that until now had gone unmet. Its primary goal is to better align various state programs to help more effectively achieve Smart Growth and resource conservation.

HighlightsHighlights of the past year and plans for the year ahead:

Governor O’Malley accepts PlanMaryland at ceremony with (from left) Planning Secretary Richard E. Hall, former Governors Harry R. Hughes and Parris N. Glendening and Jon Laria, chairman of the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission

1-2

The 28-member task force submitted its final report on Dec. 21, 2011. Del. Maggie McIntosh, chair of the House Environmental Matters Committee, chaired the task force. Its list of 20 recommendations included a tiered land-use approach within local comprehensive plans, requirements for best available technology for all new septic systems, a call for estate tax reform to help farms to remain in agriculture and a comprehensive funding approach to implement Maryland’s Watershed Implementation Plan.

The group’s work informed legislation during the 2012 General Assembly session to address the impact of major developments on septic systems and their effect on nutrient pollution, land preservation, agri-business and smart growth.

MDP served as the lead agency for staff support for the Governor’s Task Force on Sustainable Growth and Wastewater Disposal. The task force represented a broad cross-section from business, agriculture, science, environmental advocacy and government.

Secretary Hall at signing of Executive Order by Governor O’Malley to create Task Force on Sustainable Growth and Wastewater Disposal, at Arlington Echo Outdoor Education Center, April 2011, Millersville

1-3

Maryland, like all states, must redraw the boundaries of its Congressional and state legislative districts every 10 years based on data from the most recent decennial U.S. Census, so that citizens receive equal representation in both Washington and Annapolis. Under the “No Representation Without Population” Act passed in 2010, Maryland census data was adjusted to reassign Maryland residents in correctional institutions to their last known address and to exclude out-of-state residents in correctional institutions from redistricting.

To ensure citizen input in the process, Governor O’Malley appointed the Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Committee (GRAC) in June 2011. With staff support from MDP, the committee conducted 12 public hearings around the state. More than 700 people attended, with nearly 200 citizens offering testimony. Additional testimony was received by e-mail. MDP staff customized maps and provided statistical data reports needed to develop the redistricting plans. MDP also analyzed all the plans submitted to the committee, and provided technical assistance to state and local boards of election. Special web pages, an interactive map and a Twitter account were created to help inform the public. The final 2011 Congressional District plan was approved by the General Assembly as Senate Bill 1 in a special session of the legislature in October 2011. Governor O’Malley signed it into law on October 20, 2011. In December, the U.S. District Court upheld the 2010 Maryland law that counts prison inmates as residents in their home communities for purposes of redistricting, rather than at the prisons where they are incarcerated.

In accordance with the Constitution of Maryland, Governor O’Malley presented the State legislative redistricting plan on the first day of the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House introduced the Governor’s plan as a joint resolution to the General Assembly. The plan enhanced minority voting rights, respected natural and political boundaries, and resulted in districts that are compact, contiguous and that protect communities.

Framed by redistricting maps, Governor O’Malley and Senate President Miller field public comments at December 2011 hearing in Annapolis

1-4

The Maryland Historical Trust was engaged in a variety of activities to commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain and Maryland’s major role in that war.

The Maryland Maritime Archeology Program, working with the U.S. Navy and the State Highway Administration (SHA), undertook the second year of a six-year project investigating what is believed to be the site of the Scorpion, the flagship of Commodore Joshua Barney, in the upper Patuxent River. Barney’s Chesapeake Flotilla clashed with the British in the Battle of St. Leonard Creek in 1814 in the largest naval engagement in the history of Maryland. Electronic remote sensing, provided through a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), indicated the presence of several targets and possibly that more of the flotilla survives archaeologically than was previously believed. Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum (JPPM) in April opened the exhibit “Farmers, Patriots, and Traitors: Southern Maryland and the War of 1812.” It also launched the newest addition to its audio tour, “1812 Remembered.” The Maryland Heritage Areas Program provided grant funds totaling nearly $140,000 to War of 1812-related projects throughout the state.

The MHT Press will publish a travel guide/history publication on the Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812 in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The MHT Museum Assistance Program will work with history museums to incorporate interpretive strategies that relate to the National Historic Trail. JPPM will host the annual 1812 Reenactment on September 22, 2012. And archeological investigations at the Scorpion site will continue throughout the year with construction of a cofferdam at the site expected to begin in fall 2012 or winter 2013.

Commodore Joshua Barney

1-5

The commission was established by the General Assembly in 2010 as a successor to the two-year Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development.

The commission, chaired by Jon Laria, began its first full year of operation, with meetings around the state. It organized itself into work groups to focus on various issues: Funding, Concentrating Growth, Education, PlanMaryland, Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), Indicators and Housing. The PlanMaryland Workgroup met intensely during the year and was very involved in shaping the various drafts of PlanMaryland.

The commission will continue to provide advice on growth issues and policy. The Funding, Education and Indicators work groups all expect to have recommendations for the full commission.

Bel Air Mayor David Carey leads Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission on tour of refurbished Bel Air Reckord Armory, May 2011

1-6

The Sustainable Communities Tax Credit program succeeded the former Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credit. It was expanded in 2012 to include qualifying non-historic buildings and to promote LEED energy-efficiency standards. During the O’Malley-Brown Administration, $56 million in tax credits has helped create 4,000 construction jobs.

Ten projects that scored highest in the application process received a total of $11 million in tax credits to leverage about $55 million in commercial property rehabilitation. The projects selected were: Sheppard Pratt Gatehouse, Towson (hospital use); Oella Community Hall (office space); Hoen Lithograph, Baltimore (office, commercial); Algonquin Building, Baltimore City (housing); Clifton Park Mansion, Baltimore City, (community center); Crown Cork and Seal, Baltimore City (art/design high school); Raffel Building, Baltimore City (housing); W. Antietam Street and South Potomac Street, Hagerstown (housing), and Oxford Community Center (community use).

Six projects received a total of nearly $7 million in tax credits to leverage construction projects with a total cost of $36.5 million. The projects selected were: Public School No. 37, Baltimore City (renovation for office space and housing); Hebrew Orphan Asylum, Baltimore City (renovation for a food market, health and dental clinic and pharmacy and health care uses); Centreville Armory (student programs); Senator Theatre, Baltimore City (expansion); Mount Vernon Mill No. 1, Baltimore City (restaurant, offices, housing); 1911 Building, Cambridge (housing).

19th Century stonework on the former Hoen Lithograph plant in Baltimore city, recipient of a Sustainable Communities Tax Credit, reads “Saxa Loquuntur,” Latin for “the stones speak.”

1-7

APA National Award for Planning Leadership

The American Planning Association gave Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley a National Planning Leadership Award in January 2012 as “an individual who has advanced or promoted the cause of planning in the public arena.” He was the first individual from Maryland to receive a national award from the nation’s largest planning organization in more than a decade. The award will be presented at APA’s national conference in Los Angeles in April 2012.

1-8

The State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance is the State’s Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to review requests for federal and State financial assistance and direct development projects.

The Clearinghouse coordinated the review of 910 projects. It also expanded the functionality of the Electronic Maryland Intergovernmental Review and Coordination (E-MIRC), a web-based process to receive and transmit the views of public officials on grant applications and proposals for federal and State financial assistance and projects.

The Clearinghouse will upload review documents on the MDP web site to facilitate on-line project reviews and reduce processing time. The staff will also begin outreach activities involving training, webinars and e-mail to help encourage agencies to submit for review all projects as required. The staff is working to create an “E-Grants” system for on-line grant submissions, and a possible interface with Grants.gov, the federal government website for information on more than 1,000 grant programs and access to $400 billion in annual awards.

MDP Divisions

1-9

in

MDP continued to provide training and networking opportunities to members of planning commissions and boards of appeal through the Maryland Planning Commissioners Association (MPCA). The group’s annual conference in November drew more than 100 participants to Easton. During the year, the Western Maryland field office provided support for further development of economic growth related to the Great Allegheny Passage. Thanks to funding from the Progress Fund, MDP staff helped local businesses market to the 60,000-plus people last year who used the trail linking Cumberland with the Pittsburgh region. The Lower Eastern Shore (LES) Regional Office won a grant to help seven municipalities update their “critical area” ordinances - for the first time, in some cases, since the late 1980s. The revisions will better protect wildlife, wetlands, farmland, forest, shorelines and other valuable habitat.

MDP provides direct technical and programmatic assistance to local governments.

MDP’s web site now includes a new reporting tool to help local jurisdictions more easily report the information required by the General Assembly about basic requirements (SB 280, HB 297), adequate facilities (SB 273, HB 294) and smart growth indicators (SB 276, HB 295).

Planning Services

1-10

MDP helped develop planning, marketing and tracking efforts to boost economic development and tourism through improvements to the Greater Allegheny Passage and C&O trails. More than $3.5 million in ARC funds leveraged almost $9.7 million in additional federal, state, local and private dollars toward 30 projects throughout the region, not including funds provided to the state via the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) program. Initiatives ranged from economic development and education to infrastructure and job training.

The ARC program in Maryland will continue to emphasize “self-sustaining economic development and job growth” consistent with the goals and objectives of the annual Appalachian Maryland Strategy Statement and the Appalachian Maryland Development Plan.

ARC is a partnership between the 13 Appalachian states and the federal government. In Maryland, the program is directed through the Governor’s office and coordinated and managed by the deputy secretary of the Department of Planning. The designated Appalachian counties in Maryland are Garrett, Allegany and Washington.

in

1-11

15

Infrastructure Planning

New regulations require that new schools and replacement schools that involve an increase in capacity must be located within Priority Funding Areas unless a waiver is granted. Priority Funding Areas were developed with local and state input as areas to channel growth. MDP works with the Public School Construction Program to encourage neighborhood schools as focal points that promote shared community uses, most effectively use public infrastructure, preserve community identity and landmarks, reduce sprawl and promote healthy, walkable communities.

MDP is a member of the Interagency Committee on School Construction (IAC), an independent agency created to administer the State’s Public School Construction Program (PSCP). MDP’s responsibilities include reviews of the Local Education Facilities Master Plans, project sites, enrollment projections and conformity of proposed projects with State and local planning and growth policies. MDP’s Planning Data Division also develops the annual public school enrollment projections used to help allocate State dollars for school construction and renovations.

1-12

MDP coordinated with MDOT in its development of the annual Consolidated Transportation Program update and participated in more than a dozen major state transportation project studies. The staff provided analysis and research that supported PlanMaryland, the State’s Green House Gas Reduction Plan and Transit-Oriented Development planning. It also contributed to the deliberations of major transportation commissions and councils such as the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding.

This unit works with the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and other state, local, regional and federal agencies to provide policy and technical analysis, reviews and staff support to various transportation committees.

The Transportation Planning unit will focus on coordinating with MDOT and other State, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and local agencies to help align transportation policies, plans and programs in concert with PlanMaryland.

1-13

MALPF and MDP recertified the farmland preservation programs of Harford, Talbot and Washington counties. (Certified counties retain 75 percent of locally generated agricultural land transfer tax, compared to 33 percent retained by uncertified counties, to be used for land preservation. The remainder is remitted to the State to be used for farmland preservation.)

Most of the remaining certified counties will need to apply for recertification this year. The certified counties are Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Harford, Kent, Montgomery, Queen Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Talbot, Washington and Worcester.

MDP holds a seat on the board of the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) and the Rural Legacy Board. MDP and MALPF certify county agricultural land preservation programs.

1-14

MDP began updating its parcel mapping activities by moving to a new ESRI ArcGIS software environment and by working with selected counties on integrating parcel mapping activities. MDP also coordinated the collection and processing of county-based parcel data for the State’s iMAP online mapping and application system. In 2011, the 16th edition of “MdProperty View” was published. MDP’s most robust desktop parcel-based GIS, MDProperty View is intended for use by GIS professionals working with ESRI’s ArcGIS software. More than 300 subscribers are provided one or more of the MdProperty View products. More than 9,500 hard copy tax maps also were plotted from the State’s 2,756 tax maps representing 2,275,897 parcels. During the year, MDP was actively involved in managing a new statewide aerial photography flyover. New aerial photography was flown during spring 2011 in coordination with the Maryland Department of Information Technology (DOIT) and the Emergency

Number Systems Board (ENSB). MDP also established “GrowthPrint” as a companion mapping tool to “AgPrint” and “GreenPrint.” GrowthPrint shows existing areas that have been identified by local governments and targeted for infill and revitalization development efforts through existing State programs. MDP also updated its analysis of the State’s Land Use/Land Cover map, the first extensive update since 2002.

A significant expansion of MDP’s parcel polygon work will include converting six counties and Baltimore City with polygon and point data linked to SDAT‘s Real Property database. iMAP data will for the first time include parcel data for the entire state. MDP is also enhancing software tools for MdProperty View and will develop a new web-based parcel mapping application. The statewide imagery program management will also continue throughout 2012 with new orthophotography data being provided to all counties by June 2012.

The unit’s annual updates to the State’s tax maps and the linkage of parcel records to the maps are essential to MDP’s land analysis.

1-15

Much of the work of the Demographic & Socioeconomic Projections section and the Maryland State Data Center (SDC) during the year provided access to the 2010 decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). Along with making the data available on the SDC website, staff provided technical assistance to data users. Presentations on the 2010 Census and ACS data were given to State and local government agencies and private sector groups. Projections for labor force, employment and personal income for Maryland and its jurisdictions were updated and extended out to the year 2040 for the first time to go along with existing projections for populations and households.

SDC is an official partner with the U.S. Census Bureau. It monitors development trends, analyzes social, economic and other characteristics and prepares population, housing, employment, labor force and income projections. That analysis provides the baseline for planning for growth and development in the State.

Data on demographics and population changes came out of the 2010 Census

1-16

The SDC will provide training in accessing and using the Census Bureau’s new data retrieval system, “American Fact Finder2.” Plans are underway to present a webinar to the constituents of the Governor’s Grants Office on accessing census data for grant applications. MDP projections will also be updated in 2012 with 2010 as the base year, out to 2040. These will be the first set of projections to incorporate the detailed demographic data from the 2010 Census.

1-17

This unit is responsible for disseminating information about the agency’s work to the public, the media and to federal, State and local government.

The Communications and Education division completed one of the most robust years for outreach for the department, ranging from a dozen hearings across the state to collect public input on Redistricting to a February event with Governor O’Malley at a former lithograph factory in Baltimore to announce the FY2011 recipients of the Sustainable Communities Tax Credit program. The delivery of PlanMaryland followed an effort that included about 30 large public forums, scores of smaller stakeholder meetings, online surveys and creation of a PlanMaryland website, Facebook page and “sim” computer game called “GamePlanMaryland.” Frequent news coverage of PlanMaryland ranged from print and broadcast media throughout the state to national and international outlets such as The Atlantic Cities and UK Independent online. Annual web traffic was up 13 percent to

239,000 unique visitors for MDP’s main website and tripled to 24,000 unique visitors for the PlanMaryland website. The agency’s Twitter sites for MDP, Redistricting, Clearinghouse and State Data Center topped 2,500 followers.

The unit is investigating mobile web applications to provide the public greater access to MDP information.

“SmartGrowthMaryland” blog

1-18

“Since 1973, the population has grown 39 percent, but development has grown 154 percent. That’s just not a sustainable formula. … PlanMaryland would move the state in the proper direction.” - Editorial, October 31, 2011

“The (1997) smart growth laws have certainly not put an end to sprawl … It is time in Maryland to take additional steps. Governor Martin O’Malley and planning Secretary Richard E. Hall real-ize that, and as a result have been mov-ing forward with an ambitious statewide planning process.” - “Switchboard” Blog, September 7, 2011

“A proposal by Maryland’s Governor O’Malley to cut state subsidies for schools, roads and wastewater where counties allow sprawl development could save billions. … Government ac-counting for economic progress needs to start valuing the nature we lose as well as the development that replaces it.” - Tom Horton, November 2, 2011

“A Federal District Court late last month wisely upheld a 2010 Maryland law that counts prison inmates as residents in their home communities for purposes of redistricting, rather than at the prisons where they are incarcerated … This sound ruling should encourage more states to join Maryland, New York, Delaware and California in adopting similar anti-gerrymandering laws.” - Editorial, “Counting Voters Fairly,” January 16, 2012

1-19

s

Startwith . . .

A dash of spice

“Reality Check” LEGO Building Exercise

Develop the message

Refine the plan

Add social media

1-20

s

Governor O’Malley accepts PlanMaryland with former Governors Hughes and Glendening on December 19, 2011

Meet with 3,000 stakeholders

Add a web app

Deliver the plan

“GamePlanMaryland”at Plan.Maryland.gov

1-21

PPMP provides technical and financial assistance to local governments and non-profits to preserve, enhance and interpret archeological sites, historic structures and institutions and to promote heritage tourism.

The division staffed the Working Group on Native American Human Remains. It continued to explore options for an alternative to the current plan for the Interim Appropriate Place of Repose for Native American human remains, which are currently in the care of MHT at the Maryland Archeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum in Calvert County. PPMP also staffed the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority, which entered its 15th year of operation. The Mountain Maryland Gateway to the West Heritage Area in Garrett County became Maryland’s 12th “heritage area.” The authority continued to implement its 10-year strategic plan, “Charting a Sustainable Course for the Next Decade, 2010-2020,” with the local heritage area management entities creating five-year plans to guide local operations through 2018. MHAA awarded 51 grants totaling nearly $2.3 million to projects

across the state to foster economic development through heritage tourism and leverage more than $6 million in non-state support.

Staff intends to acquire and launch a lifecycle grants management software system to streamline the grant application process before the end of the fiscal year.

Maryland Historical Trust

1-22

The Maryland State House continued to be a focus for ORSR staff, working with the Department of General Services and the Maryland State Archives. In 2011, attention shifted from on-going work in the Old Senate Chamber to the final stage of work for the restoration of the Old House Chamber. Re-painting of the State House dome spawned a lively discussion of early historical paint colors for the dome; white prevailed over yellow as a concession to consistency with the evolution of the building. Eighteen nominations to the National Register of Historic Places were forwarded to Washington, D.C. for listing, representing 772 contributing resources. MHT staff also coordinated conservation maintenance and treatment for 21 outdoor bronze and stone sculptural monuments and plaques. Nine historic roadside markers were installed, commemorating topics as diverse as the location of an African-American baseball field in Somerset County, the 1655 Battle of the Severn near Annapolis, and Revolutionary War hero Richard Montgomery, namesake for that county.

Work will begin on a grant awarded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to study the potential impact of sea-level rise on historic and archeological resources. The coming year is also expected to be a productive time for circulating our work to the public. Staff member Thomas Reinhart will star in Maryland Public Television’s forthcoming documentary “The Historic Barns of Maryland.” Senior Archeologist Dennis Curry will publish an article on the Conoy Indians in Maryland Historical Magazine and has submitted the final manuscript for a chapter regarding ossuaries in the Mid-Atlantic region for a book on prehistoric burial practices to be published by the University of Nebraska Press. Orlando Ridout will complete work on a study of agricultural buildings and practices in Maryland for a book titled “The Chesapeake House”, to be published by the University of North Carolina Press.

ORSR directs the statewide survey of architectural and archeological resources, evaluates state resources for significance and integrity, and guides the nomination of selected sites and districts for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

1-23

The Historic Preservation Easement Program is the highest form of protection available for any historic, archeological or cultural resource. It upholds the State’s financial investments and offers private owners the ability to protect their property by ensuring that these resources continue to be cared for and made available to the public in perpetuity. In turn, these resources contribute greatly to the development of the State’s heritage tourism initiatives and to heritage-related educational programs. In 2011, MHT acquired 12 new easements or modifications. The MHT Easement Program now holds 661 easements on more than 800 properties, encompassing about 9,000 acres statewide. MHT and the Maryland Commission on African American History and Culture (MCAAHC) received 27 applications requesting more than $2 million in funding from the FY2012 African American Heritage Preservation Grant Program. Sixteen projects were awarded a total of $1 million.

OPS consists of three major program areas -- Project Review and Compliance, Historic Preservation Assistance Programs and the Underwater Archeology Research and Survey Program.

For FY2013 funding for the African American Heritage Preservation Grant Program, 24 eligible applications from 15 Counties and Baltimore City were received requesting a total of $1.9 million. A list of projects recommended for funding was forwarded to Department of Budget and Management for inclusion in the FY 2013 capital budget.

Harriet Tubman, African-American abolitionist

1-24

More than 50,000 people visited JPPM during a year in which the readers of Maryland Life magazine selected it as Southern Maryland’s “Finest Day Trip.” With public programs, workshops, tours of the MAC Lab and Patterson House, lectures, camps, volunteer days, group and school visits, JPPM hosted more than 100 events during the year. The Calvert County Board of Commissioners recognized the collaboration between JPPM and the Calvert County Public Schools – specifically the archaeology class at Huntingtown High School – for its “outstanding contributions to the understanding and preservation of Calvert County’s cultural heritage.”

Construction is expected to start on the Riverside Interpretive Trail and Exhibit Structures (RITES) project. In June, the facility will celebrate the silver anniversary of the Patuxent River Wade-In -- an event spearheaded and inspired by state Senator Bernie Fowler 25 years ago. The park will continue to refine the African American Life program in preparation for a major initiative aimed at bringing every fourth-grader in Calvert County to JPPM beginning in the fall of 2012. (Every county sixth-grader already visits JPPM annually as part of the CHESPAX program.) In September, the War of 1812 Bicentennial celebration at JPPM begins in earnest with an all-day reenactment and fair.

JPPM studies, exhibits and interprets the diverse cultures and environments of Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay region through the lens of archeology and history. Located on 560 acres on the Patuxent River in Calvert County, the park and museum encompass more than 70 documented archaeological sites spanning 9,500 years.

Students involved in Center for Talented Youth (CTY) program at JPPM, Summer 2011.

1-25

The lab received 33 new archaeological collections, provided tours to 1,255 individuals, conducted outreach activities in local schools and attracted nearly 300 volunteers who contributed nearly 700 hours excavating and analyzing an 18th-century site through the Public Archaeology Program. The lab also conserved artifacts with both state and national significance from the state collection, Fort Frederick, New York, Everglades National Park, the Walters Museum, the H. L. Hunley submarine, Poplar Forest, Monticello, Valley Forge, Presidio La Bahia, Historic Charleston and the National Park Service.

The lab will add at least four new sections to the Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland webpage, including a projectile point Diagnostic webpage. MAC Lab staff will work with exhibit designers on creating exhibits for the Riverside Interpretive Trail and Exhibit Structures, will complete a technical report for the King’s Reach site and

make significant strides in preparing a report for the Smith St. Leonard site. The lab will also prepare a grant proposal to place archaeological exhibits throughout the state. Popular lab exhibits that were hosted in 2011 at the Lexington Park Public Library in St. Mary’s County and at the Washington County Convention and Visitors Bureau. in Hagerstown are being moved to additional venues within each county.

The MAC Lab houses more than eight million objects collected during the past century.

MAC Lab conservator Gareth McNair at work1-26

Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Report

Local jurisdictions are required to submit a report to MDP every other year to detail whether a local Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) halted development or redevelopment in a Priority Funding Area (PFA). The reporting requirement was approved by the Maryland General Assembly in 2009 (Senate Bill 273/House Bill 294).

If APFOs restrict development in PFAs due to failing roads or insufficient capacity of schools, water and sewer systems, development and redevelopment might go to other areas not intended for growth under local plans. A better understanding of the impact of APFOs on PFAs can help shape policy to foster development and redevelopment in places where they are best accommodated.

2-1

s

Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Report

In this first year that reports on the impact of APFOs were required, roughly half the respondents -- five of 10 counties reporting and two of five municipalities reporting – showed that schools over capacity did impact development in their PFAs during the reporting period of calendar year 2009. The counties reported that they mitigated impacts through capital project improvements, school facility payment fees, phased-in development, new schools and redistricting as well as a developer-designed remediation plan.

With regard to transportation, three of 10 counties reported APFO-related transportation restrictions in PFAs. The impacts were being addressed through capacity improvements, state and county capital projects and developer-funded improvements, they reported. None of the municipalities indicated APFO-related transportation restrictions.

One county (and no municipality) reported APFO restrictions in PFAs due to water. It said the issue was resolved through capacity improvements in 2010.

The next APFO report from county and municipal governments are due in July 2012 for the calendar year 2011 reporting period.

Counties

Anne Arundel Y N N N Y SCHOOLS: There was one unit on the waiting list due to lack of school capacity in the PFA. No other impacts were reported.

Baltimore N Y Y N Y TRANSPORTATION: There were seven intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) F (failing) within the County’s Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL). To address this, the County is embarking on capacity improvements. WATER: There were two areas of deficiency for water found in 2009. These were to be resolved in 2010.

* Y - Yes; N - No; NA - Not Applicable

Jurisdiction School Impacts Reported

Road Impacts Reported

Water and Sewer Impacts Reported

Other Impacts Reported

Actions Taken to Remedy Impacts

Notes/Comments

2-2

s

Charles N N N N Y There were no reported APFO issues in the 2009 Annual Report. For SCHOOLS, if a development is restricted by the limitation of school seats in their receiving schools, the developer may proffer mitigation to pay for the State’s share of school construction on a per lot basis.

Frederick Y Y N N Y SCHOOLS: At the end of CY 2010 there were 12 elementary, three middle, and three high schools whose enrollments were at or over 100 percent of the state rated capacity. Many of these school districts include areas in both the county and a municipality and not all of the municipalities have their own APFO’s.

TRANSPORTATION: Recent amendments to the roads portion of the County’s APFO have generally tightened the thresholds for road adequacy. The one part of the County that is particularly affected is the MD 85 corridor from Interstate 270 south to English Muffin Way. The Maryland State Highway Administration has an active project to widen MD 85 between Guilford Drive and English Muffin Way






Notes/Comments

2-3

s

Harford Y Y N N Y SCHOOLS: Impacts being addressed by a study group looking at capacity and redistricting solutions.

TRANSPORTATION: Some road intersections within the development envelope are operating at LOS E or worse. Some state and county capital projects will help resolve these issues.

Howard Y Y N N Y SCHOOLS: 17 residential subdivisions including 200 housing units were delayed due to allocation limitations in the Elkridge Planning area in 2009. All of these projects are expected to move forward by the end of 2011.

Montgomery Y Y N N Y SCHOOLS: If projected school enrollment exceeds 105 percent of projected school capacity, residential development within the affected school cluster will be required to make a School Facility Payment (SFP) to move forward. In 2009/2010, there were nine restricted school districts that required a fee. These districts were primarily within PFAs; some were outside of PFAs. TRANSPORTATION: 16 areas in the County that coincide closely with local PFAs require additional transportation mitigation measures provided by the developer to move forward.






Notes/Comments

2-4

s

Prince George’s N Y N N Y TRANSPORTATION: In 2009, 29 properties in the PFA were affected by APFO transportation restrictions. These restrictions were mitigated by developers providing transportation improvements required as a condition of approval.

St. Mary’s N N N N N No restrictions due to APFO in 2009

Washington Y N N N Y SCHOOLS: One level (ES, MS, HS) of school in every school district in the County, except for Hancock, is over capacity. The County has established mitigation through having developers phase the timing of the development as well as make a financial contribution over and above local excise tax. This mitigation relief has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners in most cases.






Notes/Comments

2-5

s

Municipalities

Aberdeen N NA NA NA N SCHOOLS: No restrictions on development in PFAs in Aberdeen due to school capacity. Their APFO only applies to schools.

Brunswick Y N N N N SCHOOLS: One development project in 2010 that the Planning Commission determined would fail the test for school capacity.

Hagerstown Y N N N Y SCHOOLS: In their Medium Range Growth Area, all ES and HS are over capacity. New schools and redistricting are used to address capacity issues as well as remediation plan by developer to be approved by County. One project of 105 units was held up in 2009 due to limited school capacity. To date, there has been no action on the part of the developer to start the remediation process for this project. Their APFO applies only to schools.

La Plata N NA NA NA Y SCHOOLS: La Plata has only a school APF policy. Their policy is to limit building permits to no more than 100 school seats. No permits have been denied or restricted based on this policy.

Smithsburg No restrictions reported





Actions taken to remedy impacts

Notes/Comments

2-6

SmartGrowth Indicators

Consistent with the O’Malley-Brown Administration’s “Stat” approach, Maryland jurisdictions report on a uniform set of indicators to provide better information to shape planning policy decisions. The 2009 Smart, Green & Growing Legislation required the Maryland Department of Planning to report on “Smart Growth Goals, Measures and Indicators” annually in consultation with the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland at College Park.

The first metric to track Smart Growth progress is the relationship between residential parcel development and acres of new residential development. Since 1997, nearly 70 percent of residential parcel growth has occurred inside the Priority Funding Areas (PFA), designated by local governments as prime areas for state resources to encourage growth. However, this residential parcel growth also accounted for less than 28 percent of the new developed acres during the time period. By contrast, development outside the PFA, while constituting only 22 percent of the state’s parcel growth, accounted for 75 percent of new development by acreage.

3-1

MDP’s Planning Data Services Division created a consistent geospatial database of improved single-family residential parcels of 20 acres or less from 1940 thru 2009 to track residential development trends in Maryland. The database helps analyze residential development trends inside and outside of PFAs across the 69-year span, including before the PFAs were established by law in 1997.

2011 also marked the start of reporting of “Smart Growth Indicators” by local planning commissions and boards under the 2009 law. For this first year of full reporting, 14 of the 23 Counties provided full reports, while six provided partial reports. Also, 12 of the 16 most populous Municipalities (with 10,000-plus residents) produced reports. Overall, 62 of 110 Municipalities produced annual reports, some with assistance from MDP staff.

County reports on the share of residential growth (new lots created) both inside and outside of PFAs showed a mixed picture, perhaps due to the real estate market of recent years. Anne Arundel County reported an 89-percent share of growth in its PFAs, Harford County reported an 83-percent share and Carroll County 72 percent. That compared favorably with the state as a whole, where building inside PFAs has ranged between the mid-60s and 80 percent of total improved single-family residential parcels since the early 1980s. At the other end of the spectrum, Frederick County reported a 54-percent share, Charles County a 50-percent share and Cecil County a 20-percent share of growth in the PFA last year. For all reporting entities, including Municipalities, 12,042 of 13,140 lots were created in PFAs for a rate of about 91 percent. Of 9,856 residential permits reported, 7,119 were inside PFAs for a 71-percent share.

3-2

This graphic illustrates the decline in residential parcels located within PFAs over time. Since the implementation of Smart Growth laws 15 years ago to encourage growth inside PFAs, Maryland has experienced a relatively flat trend in the share of improved residential parcels inside of PFAs. Recent signs do show an uptick, although they are not necessarily indicative of a trend. For 2009, the most recent data year available, the share of improved residential parcels inside PFAs surpassed 71 percent for the first time since 1997. Also in 2009, the share of improved residential parcels outside PFAs fell below 28 percent for the first time since 2001. During the prior decade, there had been no consistent reduction in the percentage of improved residential acres developed outside of PFAs. It should also be noted that the average lot size outside of PFAs increased to 1.95 acres in 2009, up from 1.66 acres in 2008. That was a change from a recent trend of decreasing lot sizes outside PFAs, which is important because larger lots in total create more environmental impact.

3-3

This chart presents the estimated development capacity - that is, Maryland’s land supply - within three different areas: PFAs, PFA Comment Areas and Outside PFAs. It also shows the 2035 projection for Maryland of nearly 500,000 households. Sufficient capacity exists within PFAs to accommodate all of the State’s projected growth to 2035. While it is not realistic to assume that all new growth would go exclusively inside these areas, PFAs could be used more efficiently to accommodate a larger share of future growth. * PFA comment areas are locally designated PFAs that do not meet one or more of the State requirements in State Finance and Procurement Article, §5-7B-02 and §5-7B-03.

3-4

This chart illustrates the comparison of residential parcels and residential acreage in three different areas: Priority Funding Areas, Outside PFAs and PFA Comment Areas. Parcels outside PFAs, though fewer in number than inside PFAs, have consumed triple the acreage of parcels located inside PFAs.

3-5

Maryland Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet FY 2011 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Smart Growth

4-1

s

The Maryland Smart Growth Subcabinet’s FY 2011 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Smart Growth Areas Act is submitted in accordance with the following requirements: SG § 9-1406(h)(3), SB 204/Ch. 566, 2001, SG § 9-1405(b)(10), SB 204/Ch. 566, 2001, SG § 9-1406(h)(1)(v), HB 475/Ch. 487, 2010.

The report summarizes the FY 2011 “growth related” program commitments of the departments of Business and Economic Development (DBED), General Services (DGS), Housing and Community Development (DHCD), Environment (MDE), and Transportation (MDOT) in partial fulfillment of the requirements of The Smart Growth Areas Act (Annotated Code of Maryland, State Government Article §§ 9-1406). The law defines as “growth related” certain capital projects and funding activities of these five state agencies: DBED, DGS, DHCD, MDE, and MDOT.1

There is no statutory requirement that funding of the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) and the Public School Construction (PSC) program be located within Priority Funding Areas (PFAs). These two agencies chose to voluntarily limit programs to the PFAs and expenditures are included separately for informational purposes only.

Introduction

The State of Maryland, through the Smart Growth Subcabinet, is committed to making more efficient and effective investments of taxpayer dollars for costly infrastructure while preserving the State’s rural landscape from being subjected to urban sprawl. Our coordinated actions have reduced development pressures on critical farmland and natural areas and increased the availability of more dollars to spend on roads, schools, and infrastructure to sustain Maryland’s towns, cities and rural areas.

In Fiscal Year 2011, the statutory framework set out by the Maryland General Assembly in the Smart Growth Areas Act was met by the Smart Growth Subcabinet agencies whose programs are subject to PFA restrictions. The Smart Growth Areas Act allows agencies to seek exceptions to the law for individual projects through one of two avenues: the Board of Public Works2 or the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee3 and requires the Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet to report annually on these exemptions.4 In FY 2011, seven projects were granted exceptions by the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Smart Growth Areas Act and did not violate the intent of smart growth. These exemptions are included in Appendix A at the end of this report. There were no exemptions sought by agencies from the Board of Public Works.

The report summarizes the FY 2011 “growth related” program commitments of the departments of Business and Economic Development (DBED), General Services (DGS), Housing and Community Development (DHCD), Environment (MDE), Transportation (MDOT) and selected programs of the Public School Construction Program (PSCP) and The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)

4-2

s

Priority Funding Areas

Recognizing that State investments are the most important tool the State has to influence growth and development, the 1997 Priority Funding Areas Act (the Smart Growth Act) establishes Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) as the State mechanism to direct the use of state funding for roads, water and sewer plants, economic development and other growth-related needs. PFAs are geographic growth areas that are designated and mapped by local jurisdictions for targeting State investment in infrastructure. The criteria for PFAs are defined in the Annotated Code of Maryland, State Finance and Procurement Article (SF&P), §5-7B-02 and §5-7B-03. The law also directs the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) to coordinate the process of updating PFAs by providing technical assistance, review and comment of PFAs and the opportunity for public review (see MDP Publication No. 2009-004, “Priority Funding Areas, How to Revise and Update”).

Priority Funding Areas were established to meet three key goals: (1) To preserve existing communities; (2) To make the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars for infrastructure by targeting State resources to build on past investments; and (3) To reduce development pressure on critical farmland and natural resource areas by encouraging projects in already developed areas.

The Priority Funding Areas and Schools regulation was approved in late 2011 as an amendment to COMAR 23.03.02 Regulations for the Administration of the Public School Construction Program. Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) seeking State funding to construct new schools and replacement schools that increase capacity outside of the PFA must undergo a PFA review. A waiver option is available to LEAs as part of the PFA review process. It should be noted that the new regulations are restricted to school construction projects seeking school site, planning and funding approvals in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2013 and beyond.

FY 2011 Expenditures

FY 2011 “growth related” spending on PFA restricted projects and programs totaled $1,515,868,140, as reported to the Department of Planning by the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Department of General Services, the Department of Business and Economic Development, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Transportation. Of this amount, $390,863,513 (26 percent) of “growth related” spending was devoted to projects and programs within Priority Funding Areas. $692,259,627 (46 percent) was devoted to projects outside of PFAs, and $432,745,000 (28 percent) was devoted to MDOT projects that were Not Place Specific associated with the Maryland Department of Transportation. It should be noted that $685,589,000 (99 percent) of the $692 million spent outside of PFAs was associated with state projects that were exempt from the PFA requirements or met the legal criteria set out for granting exceptions to the law, as reported by MDOT. Most of the money spent

4-3

s

outside the PFA (93 percent) of the $692 million total of out of PFA spending was to complete the Inter-County Connector project between Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. The remaining $6,519,627 (1 percent) spent outside PFAs was devoted to MDE projects that do not increase capacity and or make any additional development possible. $5,810,500 (89 percent) of the $6,519,627 MDE encumbered for projects outside the PFA in FY 2011 was for projects that repaired or improved existing systems without expansion of capacity. These projects generally benefit existing residences and businesses, a large portion of which are located in PFAs.

FY 2011 Expenditures by Agency for “Growth Related” Programs

Program TotalFunding PFA Funding Funding Outside PFA Not Place-Specific

Funding

FY 2011

DHCD $37,094, 808 $37,094, 808 $0 $0

DGS $30,351,897 $30,351,897 $0 $0

DBED $16,820,921 $16,820,921 $0 $0

MDE $54,202,514 $47,682,887 $6,519,627 $0

MDOT $1,377,398,000 $258,913,000 $685,740,000 $432,745,000

Total $1,515,868,140 $390,863,513(26%)

$692,259,627(46%)

$432,745,000(28%)

FY 2011 State Agency “Growth Related” Expenditures within Priority Funding Areas

Figure 1 FY 2011 State PFA FundingDHCD 10%

DGS 8%

DBED 4%

MDE 12%MDOT 66%

4-4

s

Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)

The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) programs defined as “growth related” and thus limited to PFAs are: • The “construction or purchase of newly constructed single family homes” by the Community

Development Administration’s (CDA) Maryland Mortgage Program (MMP), which provides low interest mortgages to qualified first time homebuyers.

• The “acquisition or construction of newly constructed multifamily rental housing” (NMRH) by CDA.

• “State funded neighborhood revitalization projects,” which include funding from Community Legacy (CL), Community Investment Tax Credit (CITC), Maryland Capital Access Program (MCAP) and Neighborhood Business Works (NBW).

It should also be noted that, although it is not required by the Smart Growth Areas Act, DHCD also requires that Community Development Block Grants be limited to PFAs. The program is not covered by this act because it consists solely of federal funds and the law covers only state-funded projects.

Department of Housing and Community DevelopmentFY 2011 Expenditures by “Growth Related” Program

Program TotalProjects

TotalFunding

Projectsin PFA PFA Funding

ProjectsOutsidePFA5

FundingOutsidePFA

FY 2011

MMP 80 $20,884,632 80 $20,884,632 0 $0

NMRH 4 $7,725,000 4 $7,725,000 0 $0

CL 51 $4,375,000 51 $4,375,000 0 $0

CITC 43 $1,035,000 43 $1,035,000 0 $0

MCAP 1 $3,000 1 $3,000 0 $0

NBW 17 $3,072,176 17 $3,072,176 0 $0

Total 196 $37,094,808 196 $37,094,808 0 $0

4-5

s

Department of General Services (DGS)

While it has no capital budget itself, the Department of General Services is responsible for acquiring, leasing and maintaining most of the State’s facilities. Thus it is responsible for ensuring that the State’s “growth related funding” is limited to PFAs for the leases of property by the State and land acquisition. However, the law explicitly exempts projects for “maintenance, repair, additions, or renovations to existing facilities, acquisition of land for telecommunications towers, parks, conservation and open space, and acquisition of agricultural, conservation, and historic easements.”

It should also be noted that DGS sends every lease and project to the Maryland Department of Planning’s State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance to ensure that it complies with the Smart Growth Areas Act.

Department of General Services FY 2011 Expenditures by “Growth Related” Program


TotalFunding

ProjectsIn PFA

PFAFunding

ProjectsOutsidePFA

Funding Outside PFA

FY 2011

Leases of Property 73 $30,351,897 73 $30,351,897 0 $ 0

Land Acquisition 0 $0 0 $0 0 $ 0

Total 73 $30,351,897 73 $30,351,897 0 $ 0

4-6

s

Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED)

The DBED programs defined by the Smart Growth Areas Act as “growth-related” have all subsequently been renamed and/or consolidated. Currently the programs subject to the law’s restrictions are:

• The Maryland Small Business Development Financing Authority (MSBDFA), which provides financing for small businesses that are not able to qualify for financing from private lending institutions or owned by socially and economically disadvantaged persons.

• The Maryland Economic Development Assistance Authority and Fund (MEDAAF), which provides both loans and grants to businesses and local jurisdictions.

• The Economic Development Opportunities Fund (Sunny Day Fund), which promotes Maryland’s participation in extraordinary economic development opportunities that provide significant returns to the State through creating and retaining employment as well as the creation of significant capital investments in Priority Funding Areas.

• The Maryland Economic Adjustment Fund (MEAF), which assists business entities in the state with modernization of manufacturing operations, the development of commercial applications for technology, and exploring and entering new markets.

Department of Business and Economic Development FY 2011 Expenditures by “Growth Related” Program


TotalFunding

ProjectsIn PFA

PFAFunding

ProjectsOutsidePFA

Funding outside PFA

FY 2011

MSBDFA 20 $8,488,820 20 $8,488,820 0 $ 0

MEDAAF 20 $8,332,101 20 $8,332,101 0 $ 0

SDF 0 $600,000 0 $600,000 0 $ 0

MEAF 0 $689,384 0 $689,384 0 $ 0

Total 40 $16,820,921 40 $16,820,921 0 $ 0

4-7

s

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)

The following MDE Programs are subject to PFA restrictions:

• The Maryland Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund (MWQRLF), which provides financial assistance to public entities and local governments for wastewater treatment plant upgrades and other water quality and public health improvement projects, and to public or private entities for nonpoint source pollution prevention projects.

• The Drinking Water Supply Financial Assistance Program (DWSFAP), which provides financial assistance to local government entities for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of publicly owned water supply facilities throughout the State.

• The Supplemental Assistance Program (SAP), which provides grants to local governments for planning, design, and construction of needed wastewater facilities.

• The Maryland Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund (MDWRLF), which provides financial assistance to publicly and privately owned community water systems and non-profit, non-community water system for projects that address public health, public safety, environmental or regulatory issues.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act infused significant amounts of money into MDE’s Water Quality and Drinking Water Revolving Funds in FY 2010, but not in FY 2011. As a result, MDE funded fewer projects (31 vs. 132) and encumbered fewer dollars ($54,202,514 vs. $236,650,325) in FY 2011 compared with FY 2010. A PFA exception is required if any part of the project or the area served by the project is outside the PFA. Approximately 26 percent of the projects funded in FY 2011 needed PFA exceptions, and accounted for approximately 12 percent of the total funding. Both were higher percentages than in recent years. Of the $6,519,627 encumbered for projects outside the PFA in 2011, $5,810,500 (89 percent) was for projects that repaired or improved existing systems without expansion of capacity. Because there is no increase in capacity, funding these projects does not make any additional development possible, and generally benefits existing residences and businesses, a large portion of which are located in PFAs.

4-8

s

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)FY 2011 Expenditures by “Growth Related” Program


TotalFunding

ProjectsIn PFA

PFAFunding

ProjectsOutsidePFA

Funding Outside PFA

FY 2011

MWQRLF 12 $40,223,000 9 $36,157,000 3 $4,066,000

DWSFAP 6 $2,343,791 5 $1,843,791 1 $500,000

SAP 10 $4,185,723 8 $3,682, 096 2 $503,627

MDWRLF 3 $7,450,000 1 $6,000,000 2 $1,450,000

Total 31 $54,202,514 23 $47,682,887 8 $6,519,627

4-9

s

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT)

For the Maryland Department of Transportation, ”growth related” projects include all major capital projects, defined as “any new, expanded, or significantly improved facility or service that involves planning, environmental studies, design, right-of-way, construction, or purchase of essential equipment related to the facility or service.”6 MDOT lists such projects in its Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) as “Major Projects” and details the PFA status of each project as part of that report. The modal administrations of MDOT for which major capital projects are subject to PFA Restrictions include: The State Highway Administration (SHA); The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA); The Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA); The Maryland Port Administration (MPA); The Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA); The Secretary’s Office (TSO); and payments to the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA). Transportation projects that are explicitly excluded from the Smart Growth Areas Act include: existing Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) facilities projects, project planning, “minor capital projects”,7 projects for the preservation and rehabilitation of existing facilities or services that do not increase capacity.8 It should also be noted that a number of MDOT’s capital projects are not location-specific, meaning that they involve system-wide improvements, such as local transit assistance programs and transit vehicle acquisition by MTA, and facility management system improvements by MVA.

Twenty-eight of the 142 major capital projects in the Maryland Department of Transportation’s Capital program for 2011 were considered to be outside the Priority Funding Area (PFA). Of these, 10 had begun before the Smart Growth Areas Act was enacted and were thus exempt (grandfathered). This included a Maryland Port Administration (MPA) project for dredge disposal at Hart Miller Island and a Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) project for MARC service extension to the City of Frederick.

Of the remaining 18 (non-exempt) projects, 16 either did not add significant capacity or had previously been granted an exception. This category includes projects related to the Inter-County Connector (ICC) which comprised roughly 94 percent of funding outside the PFA, 2 projects related to MD 32, 1 project related to replacement of the South Mountain Visitor’s Center, and 1 project related to a new interchange study for US 301 at MD 304. The remaining projects entailed the replacement of bridges that did not add significant highway capacity.

Although the Smart Growth Areas Act applies to only State funding, project totals include all funding budgeted (including federal and local funds where applicable). In FY 2011, no MDOT projects were granted an exception either by the Board of Public Works or the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee.

4-10

s

FY 2011 MDOT Major Transportation Projects9

Program Total TotalFunding

ProjectsIn PFA

PFAFunding

ProjectsOutsidePFA

Funding Outside PFA

Not Place-SpecificProjects

Not Place-SpecificFunding

FY 2011

SHA 73 $165,449,000 46 $110,539,000 25 $36,010,000 2 $18,900,000

MdTA/SHA 1 $644,607,000 0 $ 0 1 $644,607,000 0 $ 0

MTA 39 $227,832,000 16 $74,228,000 1 $2,110,000 22 $151,494,000

MAA 10 $61,224,000 10 $61,224,000 0 $ 0 0 $ 0

MPA 9 $44,869,000 5 $12,922,000 1 $3,013,000 3 $28,934,000

MVA 3 $3,806,000 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 3 $3,806,000

TSO 1 $4,909,000 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1 $4,909,000

WMATA 6 $224,702,000 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 6 $224,702,000

Total10 142 $1,377,398,000 77 $258,913,000 28 $685,740,000 37 $432,745,000

4-11

s

Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) Programs voluntarily restricted to PFAs

While they are not required to do so by the Smart Growth Areas Act or any other law, the Maryland Historical Trust, a division of the Maryland Department of Planning, voluntarily limits certain of its programs to the Priority Funding Areas to further the aims of smart growth. MHT requires that recipients of Capital Historic Preservation (HP) grants be located inside PFAs, and has a formal exemption process for applicants that do not. The program assists nonprofit organizations, local governments, businesses and individuals in the acquisition, rehabilitation or restoration of historic property in Maryland. MHT gives preference to commercial applicants for the Sustainable Communities Tax Credit (SCTC), formerly known as the Maryland Heritage Structure Tax Credit, whose projects are located within PFAs. The program provides Maryland income tax credits equal to 20 percent of the qualified capital costs expended in the rehabilitation of a “certified heritage structure.” Beginning in FY 2011, projects involving “certified historic structures” that are high-performance commercial buildings became eligible to receive a 25 percent credit.

Maryland Historical Trust FY 2011 Expenditures


TotalFunding

ProjectsIn PFA

PFAFunding

ProjectsOutsidePFA

Funding Outside PFA

FY 2011

Capital HP Grants 11 0 $0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0

SCTC Residential12 165 $1,699,736 158 $1,642,466 7 $57,270

SCTC Commercial 7 $9,680,000 7 $9,680,000 0 $ 0

Total 172 $11,379,736 165 $11,322,466 7 $57,270

4-12

s

Public School Construction Program (PSCP) While Maryland public schools are not required by statute to be located within Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), it is informative to know what level of funding secondary school construction is occurring inside and outside of PFAs. Established in 1971 as an independent agency, the Public School Construction Program (PSCP) provides assistance to local boards of education to maintain facilities by achieving design and performance standards that support an environment conducive to achieving academic excellence. Public School Construction funds are administered statewide for building replacements, renovations, additions, new construction, systemic renovations, and other improvements. While the cost to design and equip public schools is a local responsibility, the State and local governments continue to share public school construction cost. A few of the factors considered during the evaluation of PSCP Capital Improvement Projects are whether the projects align with local board of educational programs, State construction procedures and procurement practices, and State and local planning growth policies. Additionally, school site approval is a prerequisite for planning approval and is valid for five years. Planning approval is required prior to funding approval for most major projects. Of the $263,723,968 made available for capital school construction in FY2011, 70 percent of the total funding was allocated towards major projects. In FY2012, $264,083,000 was made available for capital school construction; of that amount, 63 percent of the total funding was allocated to major projects.

Information on expenditures for public school construction for major construction projects for FY 2011 through FY 2012 is shown on the following chart and excludes funding for limited renovation, science, open space enclosures, and Kindergarten/Pre-Kindergarten addition projects. Generally, the amount of major construction expenditures in PFAs is far greater than outside PFAs. From FY2011 to FY2012, 85 percent of the total funds for major construction projects were spent within PFAs. It should be noted that funding in one year often is a result of decisions in prior years. In the last two fiscal years, the Board of Public Works (BPW) has approved the School construction dollars that are focused on additions and renovations to existing schools, rather than new school facilities outside of PFAs. However existing schools outside PFAs must be supported as well. For instance in FY 2012, 10 percent of the funds spent outside PFAs were spent for renovations or replacements of existing schools. It should be noted that the number of requests for projects in and out of PFAs varies widely from year to year and funding decisions are based on a wide variety of criteria.

4-13

s

Public School Construction Program FY 2011 & FY 2012 Expenditures by Project Type

PSC FY 2011 – FY 2012 Projects

Total MajorConstructionFunding13

Project Types PFA Funding FundingOutside PFA

FY 2011

$201,513,432

New $13,732,208 $3,443,172

Replacement/Renovations with newclassroom capacity $108,570,235 $5,950,482

Other Renovation/Replacements $47,715,057 $4,767,061

Total $170,017,500 $14,160,715

FY 2012

$181,853,394

New $13,058,000

Replacement/Renovations with newclassroom capacity $77,986,240 $13,000,000

Other Renovation/Replacements $51,274,283 $4,500,000

Total $142,318,523 $17,500,000

Additional funds held in FY 12reserve $6,861,000

Total AvailableFunding14 $142,318,523 $24,361,000

4-14

s

Maryland Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet

Secretary Richard E. Hall, Department of Planning (Chair)

Secretary Earl F. (Buddy) Hance, Department of Agriculture

Secretary T. Eloise Foster, Department of Budget and Management

Secretary Christian S. Johansson, Department of Business and Economic Development

Secretary Robert Summers, Department of the Environment

Secretary Alvin Collins, Department of General Services

Secretary Raymond Skinner, Department of Housing and Community Development

Secretary John Griffin, Department of Natural Resources

Secretary Beverley Swaim-Staley, Department of Transportation

Interim Secretary Danette Gerald Howard, Higher Education Commission

David Lever, Director, Inter-Agency Committee for Public School Construction

Gerrit Knapp, Director, National Center for Smart Growth (Ex Officio)

4-15

s

APPENDIX A Exceptions to the PFA Law approved by the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee in Fiscal Year 2011

The Smart Growth Act allows for “growth related” projects located outside the Priority Funding Areas to receive state funding if: “it is required to protect public health or safety”; the project involves federal funds and “compliance with [the Smart Growth Areas Act] would conflict or be inconsistent with federal law”; or it is a “growth related project related to a commercial or industrial activity, which, due to its operational or physical characteristics, shall be located away from other development.”15 The Smart Growth Coordinating Committee, the staff level working group of the Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet, is tasked with approving exceptions based on these criteria.

In FY 2011, the Coordinating Committee approved 7 PFA Exceptions, six of which were requested by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and one that was requested by the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED). PFA exception approval alone, however, does not assure that projects will be funded.

July 2010 – Bio-solids Utilization and Treatment Facility (Talbot County)The project is to upgrade the existing Bio-Solids Utilization and Treatment facility, increase the tankage and construct a grease dewatering operation. The facility will land-apply the treated septage on adjacent fields and transport the grease to a waste-to-energy facility to recover the BTU value. Agency Submitting Request: MDEGrounds for exception: Public health or safety, as well as a growth related project Funding: MDE SRF Loan, $3,000,000; applicant, $75,000

July 2010 – Renewable Energy Project for pump stations (Talbot County)

The project is to install solar panels and vertical axis wind turbines to provide electricity to three existing pump stations.Agency Submitting Request: MDEGrounds for exception: Growth related project Funding: MDE SRF Loan, $48,750 and SRF Grant, $341,250

October 2010 – Madison-Woolford Sewer Extension Project (Dorchester County)

The project is to extend sewer service to five previously omitted parcels located outside of the PFA with failed or failing septic systems, which have very high water table and poorly drained silt loam soils. Agency Submitting Request: MDEConditions of Approval: Subject to the Denied Access Service Area PolicyGrounds for exception: Public health and safetyFunding: No additional funding required

4-16

s

October 2010 – Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission’s Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant at Germantown (Montgomery County)

The project is to expand the capacity of the plant from 20 million gallons per day (mgd) to 26 mgd, and will greatly reduce nutrient discharges to Great Seneca Creek and the Chesapeake Bay by upgrading to Enhanced Nutrient Removal.Agency Submitting Request: MDEGrounds for exception: Growth related project

Funding: MDE SRF and Local Match, $35,650,000 and BRF Grant, $6,850,000 (Loan of $2.44 million being offered for FY 2011)

March 2011 – Oliver Drive Sewer (St. Mary’s County) - Project resubmitted w/amendments - original submission dated 10/2008

The project is to provide sewer service to six existing houses with failing septic systems along Oliver Drive. Agency Submitting Request: MDEGrounds for exception: Public health and safetyFunding: MDE Supplemental Assistance Program Grant, $597,000

March 2011 – Patuxent Well(s) - Bryans Road Water System Project (Charles County)The project is to correct a significant sanitary deficiency in the Jenkins Lane water system by connecting it to the Bryans Road Water System.

Agency Submitting Request: MDEGrounds for exception: Public health and safetyFunding: MDE Water Supply Assistance Program, $1,000,000

June 2011 – Patuxent Keyser’s Ridge Business Park Project (Garrett County)

The project is to construct a water storage facility. The primary purpose of the water facility is to provide potable water and fire suppression support to the Keyser’s Ridge Business Park located just off Exit 14B on Interstate 68.16

Agency Submitting Request: DBEDGrounds for exception: Growth related projectFunding: MEDAFF Grant, $1,000,000

4-17

APPENDIX B

Exceptions to the PFA Law Approved by the Board of Public Works in Fiscal Year 2011

In FY 2011, the Board of Public Works did not approve any exceptions to the Smart Growth Areas Act.

The Board of Public Works may grant an exemption if it determines that an: “extraordinary circumstance” exists, i.e., “the failure to fund the project in question creates an extreme inequity, hardship, or disadvantage that clearly outweighs the benefits from locating a project in a Priority Funding Area”; or it is a transportation project that either maintains the existing system, serves to connect two PFAs, has as its sole purpose of providing control of access on an existing highway, or “due to its operational or physical characteristics, must be located away from other development.” 17

4-18

Endnotes

1 Maryland Annotated Code, State Finance and Procurement, §5-7B-01.

2 Maryland Annotated Code, State Finance and Procurement, §5-7B-05.

3 The law calls for a process to be “established jointly by the applicable State agency and the Department of Planning,” Maryland Annotated Code, State Finance and Procurement Article, §5-7B-06. (See MDP publication No. 2010-009, “Priority Funding Area Exception and Extraordinary Circumstances Process” for more).

4 Maryland Annotated Code, State Government, §9-1406(H)(3).

5 This analysis was done using a statewide PFA boundary file DHCD received from MDP on 10/05/2011. These numbers could differ depending on the version of the PFA boundary. Some projects may have multiple addresses, or may not have a specific address. However all projects are entirely within the PFA.

6 Maryland Annotated Code, Transportation, §§2-103.1(A)(4).

7 Maryland Annotated Code, Transportation, §§2-103.1(A)(5).8 Maryland Annotated Code, State Finance and Procurement, §§5-7B-01(D)(1)(I).

9 Reported figures reflect committed funding as set out in MDOT’s Consolidated Transportation Programs. Actual expenditures on given projects may vary.

10 Project funding totals include state, federal, and local sources.

11 These figures represent FY2012 Capital Historic Preservation Grant awards.

12 Commercial and residential SCTC figures represent Part 2 approvals for FY2011.

13 PSC figures listed do not reflect Total FY 2011 & FY 2012 PSC spending. The figures represent the FY 2011 & FY 2012 allocation for major construction projects. In addition, the figures exclude funding for limited renovation, science, open space enclosures, and Kindergarten/Pre Kindergarten addition projects.

14 PSC figures listed do not reflect Total FY 2011 & FY 2012 PSC spending. The figures represent the FY 2011 & FY 2012 allocation for major construction projects. In addition, the figures exclude funding for limited renovation, science, open space enclosures, and Kindergarten/Pre Kindergarten addition projects.

15 Maryland Annotated Code, State Finance and Procurement, §5-7B-06(A).

16 State funding for this project was committed in FY 2005. However, the project parameters changed over the years and the work on the project that is outside the PFA has only begun this past year.

17 Maryland Annotated Code, State Finance and Procurement, §5-7B-06(A).

4-19

s

4-20

1. At PlanMaryland Open House at Frostburg State University2. JPPM maintenance staff with Model A3. Exhibiting at Maryland Association of Counties

conference4. Deputy Secretary Matthew J. Power5. Krug & Son Easement Property Loan Award/MHT6. Ship timbers found at the New York WTC construction

site repacked at MACLab after being cleaned and analyzed

7. At Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum8. Biking the Great Allegheny Passage Trail 9. At PlanMaryland presentation in Governor’s

Reception Room10. MDP at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum11. Excavating at the Smith St. Leonard site12. Inspecting the repainting of State House dome13. At PlanMaryland Open House in Columbia14. At Sustainable Communities Tax Credit event at Hoen

Lithograph site with Governor O’Malley

1

2

4

6

3

5

7

8

1110

9

12

13

14

Richard Eberhart Hall, AICP, SecretaryMatthew J. Power, Deputy Secretary

410.767.4500 Toll Free: 1.877.767.6272TTY users: Maryland Relay

Green.Maryland.govMartin O’Malley, Governor

Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor

The Maryland Department of Planning helps advance Governor Martin O’Malley’s “Smart, Green & Growing” initiative to restore the Chesapeake Bay, revitalize communities, create green jobs, improve public transit,

conserve energy and address climate change.

MDP Annual Reports and other information available at:Planning.Maryland.gov

mdp yearbook 2012/2011

Documents