Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Rockville Town Center is adding 710 units in the near future. 18 of which are for the disabled. That 692 new units coming online in the next few years. They will all be assigned to Beall/JW/RM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re talking about the projections the County makes before the apartments/condos are built.

The argument made is that the apartments/condos will not be inhabited by families and kids. It will be mostly DINKs or elderly people. So the developers are not held accountable for building the corresponding schools.

Right. The county explicitly takes into account the actual addresses given by actual students in MCPS. See here, for example:

http://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180621AnnualSchoolTestPBPres.pdf

And as far as I know, nobody in the county says that apartments/condos are not inhabited by families and kids. If you have heard somebody say otherwise, please tell us who, where, and when.

yes they know children live in apartments and condos..but the number expected is less than it would be for a SFH. I have seem the numbers but not recently. MCPS is known for under estimating the number of kids in multi-family dwellings though.

Consider the possibility that this is because it actually is less.

The current county, county-wide student generation rates for K-12 are:

single-family detached: 0.465 (1,000 single-family detached houses generate 465 K-12 students)
single-family attached: 0.491 (1,000 single-family attached houses generate 491 K-12 students)
multi-family low/medium-rise: 0.408 (1,000 apartments/condos in low/medium-rise buildings generate 408 K-12 students)
multi-family high-rise: 0.139 (1,000 apartments/condos in high-rise buildings generate 139 K-12 students)

http://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180621AnnualSchoolTestPBPres.pdf

The City of Rockville may have its own generation rates; I don't know.

I did not indicate they were wrong about it..a PP said they assume none.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re talking about the projections the County makes before the apartments/condos are built.

The argument made is that the apartments/condos will not be inhabited by families and kids. It will be mostly DINKs or elderly people. So the developers are not held accountable for building the corresponding schools.

Right. The county explicitly takes into account the actual addresses given by actual students in MCPS. See here, for example:

http://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180621AnnualSchoolTestPBPres.pdf

And as far as I know, nobody in the county says that apartments/condos are not inhabited by families and kids. If you have heard somebody say otherwise, please tell us who, where, and when.

yes they know children live in apartments and condos..but the number expected is less than it would be for a SFH. I have seem the numbers but not recently. MCPS is known for under estimating the number of kids in multi-family dwellings though.

Consider the possibility that this is because it actually is less.

The current county, county-wide student generation rates for K-12 are:

single-family detached: 0.465 (1,000 single-family detached houses generate 465 K-12 students)
single-family attached: 0.491 (1,000 single-family attached houses generate 491 K-12 students)
multi-family low/medium-rise: 0.408 (1,000 apartments/condos in low/medium-rise buildings generate 408 K-12 students)
multi-family high-rise: 0.139 (1,000 apartments/condos in high-rise buildings generate 139 K-12 students)

http://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180621AnnualSchoolTestPBPres.pdf

The City of Rockville may have its own generation rates; I don't know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a look at the Rockville City planning website and found this information:

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/2023/50-Monroe-Place
This adds 70 units.

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2031/220-East-Middle-Lane
This adds 240 units.

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/1318/198-East-Montgomery-Avenue
This adds 400 units (this is the remaining portion of the parking lot in front of the Regal).

So three buildings already in the works are going to add 710 units of multi-family housing. Who knows how many of those will have children that attend school but they'll all be assigned to Beall/JW/RM since they're all in the town center area.

More information about this development: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/news/rockville-project-with-inclusive-community-for-disabled-adults-could-break-ground-in-fall-2018/

A local couple is gearing up to start construction on a Rockville apartment complex that would offer adults with developmental disabilities the opportunity to live independently.

The project, called Main Street, won approval last month from the city’s planning commission, and Jillian Copeland said she and her husband hope to break ground in fall of 2018.

The planning commission’s decision marked a major step forward in the Copelands’ mission to create affordable housing and energetic gathering spaces for disabled adults.

It sounds like a great project.

That's wonderful, but the majority of the development around the area is not for disabled adults, so this is still an issue in regards to RM cluster overcrowding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re talking about the projections the County makes before the apartments/condos are built.

The argument made is that the apartments/condos will not be inhabited by families and kids. It will be mostly DINKs or elderly people. So the developers are not held accountable for building the corresponding schools.

Right. The county explicitly takes into account the actual addresses given by actual students in MCPS. See here, for example:

http://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180621AnnualSchoolTestPBPres.pdf

And as far as I know, nobody in the county says that apartments/condos are not inhabited by families and kids. If you have heard somebody say otherwise, please tell us who, where, and when.

yes they know children live in apartments and condos..but the number expected is less than it would be for a SFH. I have seem the numbers but not recently. MCPS is known for under estimating the number of kids in multi-family dwellings though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a look at the Rockville City planning website and found this information:

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/2023/50-Monroe-Place
This adds 70 units.

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2031/220-East-Middle-Lane
This adds 240 units.

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/1318/198-East-Montgomery-Avenue
This adds 400 units (this is the remaining portion of the parking lot in front of the Regal).

So three buildings already in the works are going to add 710 units of multi-family housing. Who knows how many of those will have children that attend school but they'll all be assigned to Beall/JW/RM since they're all in the town center area.

More information about this development: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/news/rockville-project-with-inclusive-community-for-disabled-adults-could-break-ground-in-fall-2018/

A local couple is gearing up to start construction on a Rockville apartment complex that would offer adults with developmental disabilities the opportunity to live independently.

The project, called Main Street, won approval last month from the city’s planning commission, and Jillian Copeland said she and her husband hope to break ground in fall of 2018.

The planning commission’s decision marked a major step forward in the Copelands’ mission to create affordable housing and energetic gathering spaces for disabled adults.

It sounds like a great project.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re talking about the projections the County makes before the apartments/condos are built.

The argument made is that the apartments/condos will not be inhabited by families and kids. It will be mostly DINKs or elderly people. So the developers are not held accountable for building the corresponding schools.

Right. The county explicitly takes into account the actual addresses given by actual students in MCPS. See here, for example:

http://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180621AnnualSchoolTestPBPres.pdf

And as far as I know, nobody in the county says that apartments/condos are not inhabited by families and kids. If you have heard somebody say otherwise, please tell us who, where, and when.

Anonymous wrote:I took a look at the Rockville City planning website and found this information:

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/2023/50-Monroe-Place
This adds 70 units.

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2031/220-East-Middle-Lane
This adds 240 units.

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/1318/198-East-Montgomery-Avenue
This adds 400 units (this is the remaining portion of the parking lot in front of the Regal).

So three buildings already in the works are going to add 710 units of multi-family housing. Who knows how many of those will have children that attend school but they'll all be assigned to Beall/JW/RM since they're all in the town center area.

Anonymous wrote:We’re talking about the projections the County makes before the apartments/condos are built.

The argument made is that the apartments/condos will not be inhabited by families and kids. It will be mostly DINKs or elderly people. So the developers are not held accountable for building the corresponding schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, RMHS is very overcrowded. Two main contributors - all the recent development projected singles or married/no kids for a lot of this apartments, but there are more children living there than projected. RM was also slated for an addition (as were many other high schools) but that was scrapped in favor of two new high schools. It's a better fiscal solution, but pushes out the timeline for a fix. Meanwhile, RM has been adding portables and there have been internal construction projects to revamp underutilized spaces into classrooms and additional offices for counseling.

The rapid pace of development in the past 15 years has vastly outstripped the ability of the school system to respond, and the money the county council is willing to provide for capital improvements. In on of the recent BOE meeting discussing the new process for projections a comment was made to the effect that newly approved development can start producing students in two years. But with the school system's longer capital improvements process it takes 4-6 years minimum for new spaces to be built. Factor in the existing backlog, and there's a huge problem.

This is absolutely a huge issue. This is an expensive area, so may families with kids do live in these high density apartment units/condos. Definitely kids in townhouses. Yet, MCPS doesn't account for them when it makes projections.

Also, people have an elderly relative living in one of these units, and the family/child lives elsewhere. They use the relative's address. My co-worker lives in Frederick County, but works in Montgomery County. She uses her MILs apartment address for her two kids to attend MCPS. The projections that MCPS makes simply don't account for this kind of thing.

MCPS does account for them.

And if your co-worker gives her MIL's apartment address for her two kids to attend MCPS, then MCPS accounts for them too -- it's the address on the MCPS record for the kids.

But the issue is when predicting the student population in advance, they use age based demographics. They do not assume many grandparent age people will have kids in school. Of course some grandparents have custody of small children and some people give a fraudulent address..but it is harder for MCPS to guess how many people will lie about their address.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, RMHS is very overcrowded. Two main contributors - all the recent development projected singles or married/no kids for a lot of this apartments, but there are more children living there than projected. RM was also slated for an addition (as were many other high schools) but that was scrapped in favor of two new high schools. It's a better fiscal solution, but pushes out the timeline for a fix. Meanwhile, RM has been adding portables and there have been internal construction projects to revamp underutilized spaces into classrooms and additional offices for counseling.

The rapid pace of development in the past 15 years has vastly outstripped the ability of the school system to respond, and the money the county council is willing to provide for capital improvements. In on of the recent BOE meeting discussing the new process for projections a comment was made to the effect that newly approved development can start producing students in two years. But with the school system's longer capital improvements process it takes 4-6 years minimum for new spaces to be built. Factor in the existing backlog, and there's a huge problem.

This is absolutely a huge issue. This is an expensive area, so may families with kids do live in these high density apartment units/condos. Definitely kids in townhouses. Yet, MCPS doesn't account for them when it makes projections.

Also, people have an elderly relative living in one of these units, and the family/child lives elsewhere. They use the relative's address. My co-worker lives in Frederick County, but works in Montgomery County. She uses her MILs apartment address for her two kids to attend MCPS. The projections that MCPS makes simply don't account for this kind of thing.

MCPS does account for them.

And if your co-worker gives her MIL's apartment address for her two kids to attend MCPS, then MCPS accounts for them too -- it's the address on the MCPS record for the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, RMHS is very overcrowded. Two main contributors - all the recent development projected singles or married/no kids for a lot of this apartments, but there are more children living there than projected. RM was also slated for an addition (as were many other high schools) but that was scrapped in favor of two new high schools. It's a better fiscal solution, but pushes out the timeline for a fix. Meanwhile, RM has been adding portables and there have been internal construction projects to revamp underutilized spaces into classrooms and additional offices for counseling.

The rapid pace of development in the past 15 years has vastly outstripped the ability of the school system to respond, and the money the county council is willing to provide for capital improvements. In on of the recent BOE meeting discussing the new process for projections a comment was made to the effect that newly approved development can start producing students in two years. But with the school system's longer capital improvements process it takes 4-6 years minimum for new spaces to be built. Factor in the existing backlog, and there's a huge problem.

This is absolutely a huge issue. This is an expensive area, so may families with kids do live in these high density apartment units/condos. Definitely kids in townhouses. Yet, MCPS doesn't account for them when it makes projections.

Also, people have an elderly relative living in one of these units, and the family/child lives elsewhere. They use the relative's address. My co-worker lives in Frederick County, but works in Montgomery County. She uses her MILs apartment address for her two kids to attend MCPS. The projections that MCPS makes simply don't account for this kind of thing.