Annapolis to Reconsider Major Student Housing Incentive
March 4th, 2007 | by David Daddio | Published in General College Park, Housing, Politics | 8 Comments
Two state government committees are set review a bill early this week that would drastically reduce an incentive to build multi-unit student housing around the university. If the bill succeeds, it would condense (see map above) an existing overlay zone that exempts new student housing from what’s known as a “school facilities impact fee”. This is a one-time fee that applies to all new development in PG county in order to fund local public school construction. A 2002 law was successful in creating a waiver zone (in red on the map) within 1.5 miles of campus under the principle that UMD students shouldn’t have to pay for local public schools since they don’t use them (more details here). Local politicians have been hell bent on reducing the scope of the 2002 law since it went into effect without their consultation.
The fee is significant ($7,671 per unit in 2007) and the waiver has become a major incentive for new student housing in the area. For instance, you may remember our Mazza Grandmarc graduate student housing reporting. The 231-unit complex, if the fee was applied to it, would be slammed with a nearly $1.8 million bill. Because that money is so central to the project’s financing and required profit margin, the developer has been embroiled in a battle with County Councilmen Dernoga since May 2006 to start construction. Consider the University View. If that project were to be built today, its 353 units would be subject to over a $2.7 million fee.
The intention of this new bill is clear – minimize new student housing projects and especially new student housing projects that aren’t directly next to the University. Since the impact fee doesn’t apply to construction on UMD’s campus, the new zone (in yellow on the map) would leave only the Knox Box area and the Northgate area (west side of Route 1 only) waiver zones intact. The former is undergoing property consolidation, but large-scale development is years and years away. The latter is a promising district for student housing, but is already almost completely filled out with proposals for hotels and city-mandated owner occupied units (see development map).
This bill is supported by Senator Rosapepe and the Prince George’s county delegation along with the the College Park City Council. Absolutely no student leaders have been consulted at any point on this issue. The bill implicitly tells the University that it should take up responsibility for student housing, but Annapolis has already virtually stripped the University of that ability.
What’s the net effect of this bill as proposed? Gutting the impact fee waiver and further exacerbating the student housing crunch. It must not go forward.
Track the bills online:
> House Bill 697 (Hearing before the Ways and Means Committee at 1 p.m. Tues. March 6.)
> Senate Bill 582 (Hearing before the Education Health and Environmental Affairs Committee at 1 p.m. Wed. March 7)
March 4th, 2007 at 5:06 pm (#)
It seems to me that the thing to do is to lobby for change in the law that requires student housing to be self-supporting. Then more dorms could be built on campus. The students would not have to drive to campus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 6:45 pm (#)
College Park is interested in using the waiver zone to incentivize student housing to be built in areas near campus to maximize walking/biking and shuttle use and also have convenient access to retail and services, too. That is how College Park can be transformmed into a true college town. I don’t believe that any location where a major student housing project could be construted in College Park, with the exception of the large site east of Route 1 and south of University Blvd (bowling alley/Pizza Hut/CD Depot), is not in the fee waiver zone. The proposed legislation also allows for other locations to be considered for the fee waiver on a case by case basis, subject to County approval. The proposed fee waiver zone does not include surrounding municipalities because they do not want to be included. It was their choice. The proposed fee waiver zone would include the Graduate Gardens area at the University’s request. The University does not object to the revised boundaries. It have been part of the discussion.
The original state bill waiving the school impact fee for the University of Maryland at College Park was the idea of the developer of the new student housing in Hyattsville. Curiously no one from College Park was consulted or even informed about the bill until it was passed in Annapolis. The state bill provides for an exclusion only for the University of Maryland at College Park, not for any other state school housing in Maryland.
The City has a number of bills it proposes or supports in Annapolis and has bills it wants to be amended or defeated. Rather than being “hell-bent” on amending the law, we actually have been remiss in leting other priorities in Annapolis get in the way of trying to amend the bill. 2006 was the first year that a bill was submitted to amend the area.
The existing exclusion zone as shown on the map is only David’s guess where the zone is. The exclusion zone, as it exists now, is really unknown and may be much larger than David shows, because the existing legislation allows for multiple interpretations of the boundary of the exclusion zone.
Given that we have lived with the expanded exclusion zone for three years and no student housing project has been discussed (that I am aware of) in the area that would be “lost”, I know that any interest I had to reduce the zone is waning because it may not even matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 9:08 pm (#)
For good measure, I’ll respond to the issues Mr. Catlin has brought up here. First, I’d like to thank him for being the only person (to my knowledge) that has spoken to any student (me) about this issue. Student government was not consulted during the drafting of this bill. Unfortunately I couldn’t hit on every single point in the original post since this is such a complex and info-packed issue. Here are my responses to the issues:
1)”incentivize student housing to be built in areas near campus to maximize walking/biking and shuttle use and also have convenient access to retail and services”
–> This is all well and good, but perhaps we should look at the bus ridership from University Town Center in Hyattsville – concentrating student housing leads to increased bus ridership because the cost of buying two parking permits (one at the development and one on campus) is absolutely huge. Do we prefer that students commute via the Beltway and/or Route 1 definitely by car from Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Columbia or from just around campus by bus, bike, or even car? If the vision of the Route 1 sector plan is realized, all housing on the roadway will be convenient to retail and all student housing will be required to have meaningful pedestrian connections to campus and mandatory Shuttle-UM service (as stipulated in the 2002 fee waiver bill).
2)”I don’t believe that any location where a major student housing project could be constructed in College Park”
–> Then why is the delegation bothering to pursue this bill?
3) “The proposed fee waiver zone does not include surrounding municipalities because they do not want to be included”
–>Ok, then where will student housing go and why not incentivise in north of 193 and all of College Park? Would anyone prefer that University Town Center not have been built and CP single family homes continue to get ravaged by permanent rentals and absentee landlords?
4) “he exclusion zone, as it exists now, is really unknown and may be much larger than David shows”
–>Precisely why I based the zone off of a “narrow definition” of campus. If the delegation would prefer to pursue a bill that clarifies the zone as I have, then that bill would be much preferable. Instead the delegation has proposed a definition that has the effect of nearly eliminating the fee waiver all together.
5)”no student housing project has been discussed (that I am aware of) in the area that would be “lost””
–> Past development activity is no indication of future development activity and the waiver zone as currently proposed provides almost no developable land (except possibly in front of University View and in the way distant future something for the Knox Box area).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 11:00 pm (#)
Thanks David for the quick response. With respect to the process, the City Council discussed this item both last year and this year in public session. Our Student Liasons were present on these occasions, I believe. I suspect that Diamondback reporters were there, too. The item showed up on our printed agendas prior to our meetings. While we handle our matters in a way that are usually far more open than the way that the University handles things that impact the City, we do have room for improvement. Certainly their was no attempt to slip anything past anyone. I am always open to discussing my reasons for the way I vote, especially with people who may disagree with me. I have no problem discussing upcoming and pending matters coming before the City Council either. While at least a few people are watching us, I often find it surprising that some of the items we tackle generate little or no comment or controversy.
On the House side of the General Assembly, the bill’s sponsor represents Hyattsville/Riverdale Park, not College Park. I like the bill because it will not incentivize developers to build projects in isolated locations like where University Courtyards is situated. I can’t control the fact that Hyattsville and other local officials may be wary of student housing projects. The bill does allow for student housing in some other locations on a case by case basis.
Like David I am frustrated and surprised that more student housing projects have not come forward. My preference would be to look for ways to bring more student housing to College Park within our fee waiver zone. West Lakeland is also part of the zone, too. The next student housing project should begin construction there later this year or in 2008.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 11:28 pm (#)
Your continued openess in highly appreciated. I am also surprised that the diamondback didn’t pick this up, but I can see that it is a relatively complex issue and rather difficult to explain/understand without some background in urban planning. Indeed, when I mentioned the waiver in a Diamondback column last semester, the copy editor reworded my sentence to read that the waiver disallowed housing outside the zone.
There is certainly a fine line between distant locations and raw need for student housing. Had University Town Center and the Courtyards not been built, I’m not sure where we would be today. That is the kind of mindset I work on here. It’s impossible to have the raw numbers, but my gut feeling is that a larger and larger percentage of students are and will be moving to the area as the school transitions from a commuter school. One time I estimated that roughly 15,000-20,000 undergrads and grads are still commuting from outside the area immediately surrounding campus. This trend will only intensify once CP becomes a more desirable and lively place to be.
A particularly controversial (necessarily controversial in my view) column about this issue will appear in the Diamondback this week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm (#)
Why do Hyattsville and Riverdale Park want out of the waiver zone? Doesn’t the school impact fee go directly to the county anyway?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 11:50 pm (#)
Thanks for your blog. While I seldom reverse positions because of information that is presented to me late in the game (because I have, I believe, already adequately considered the pros and cons before forming my position) all information and opinions are appreciated and certainly work to mold my final position on an issue.
This issue teaches me that I should become more proactive in the blog and raise issues more often to generate feedback rather than just adding information to others’ subjects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 4th, 2007 at 11:54 pm (#)
With respect to Eric’s recent comment, I don’t really know why. I suspect it has something to do with University Town Center. I know it has become a larger headache than they expected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0