School Adequate Public Facilities Program and Funding ... · Issue 7: County Funding Sources...

School Adequate Public Facilities

Program and Funding Review

Committee

Briefing to the County Commissioners

May 13, 2014

School APF Committee Report

The Committee shall evaluate the County’s approach to ensuring

adequate public facilities for schools in the development approval

process to determine if the current policy is achieving the stated

goals. The Committee should also develop solutions for

addressing the timing of providing adequate school facilities to

match the planned growth in the County. The Committee should

work with designated staff to explore the feasibility and make

recommendations on the best method to work through the issues

related to school redistricting, school capacity allocation, and the

timing and methods of school funding and construction.

Committee Charge

Committee Composition

Slide 3 School APF Committee Report

Representatives from:

• County Commissioners

• Board of Education

• Education Association of Charles County

• Local Real Estate Professionals

• Development Professionals

• Parents

Meetings


• Committee met from March 2013 through January 2014

• Public Forum to gather input from all interested parties

• Held 21 Meetings in total

• Developed 9 Primary Issues to evaluate & address

• Resulted in a Final Report with Recommendations

Committee Approach


• Refined Work Program (as presented to

County Commissioner May 2013)

• General Fact Finding

• Issues Identification

• Alternatives Identification

• Alternative Evaluation and Selection

• Final Report

Acronym References


Definition of Acronyms in this presentation:

• APF – Adequate Public Facilities

• APFO – Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance

• BOE - Board of Education

• SRC – State Rated Capacity (of the school)

• DRRA – Development Rights & Responsibilities

Agreement

• CIP - Capital Improvement Program

• WURC – Waldorf Urban Redevelopment Corridor

• PUD – Planned Unit Development

General Fact Finding


1. Community Outreach Meeting

2. Reviewed Laws & Regulations governing

School APF

3. Reviewed status of schools over capacity

4. Reviewed projects in the “pipeline”

5. Looked at projected need

6. Reviewed other County APF Programs

Issues Identification


Main Categories:

1. School Adequate Public Facilities Program

Evaluation

2. School Construction Funding

3. School Construction Program

Results = 9 Primary Issues Identified

Alternatives Evaluation &

Recommendations


Issue 1: Timing of adequate school facilities to match planned growth

Findings - Certain areas of the County are experiencing higher growth,

thus producing overcrowding in some schools.

Recommended Strategies – (All of the following):

A. Increase the number of schools by forward funding schools.

B. Expand critical elements of schools (classrooms, cafeteria, etc.)

C. Build new schools on the same site, where feasible.

D. Target school capacity to areas of demand (current/projected).

E. Consider developer built schools or additions/renovations.

F. Consider Temporary reassignments of new projects not yet built

to schools with projected capacity (Similar to 2009 Redistricting).


Recommendations


Issue 2: Treatment of Minor Subdivisions

Findings – Minor Subdivision Lots should be treated the same as Major

Subdivisions for School Allocations.

Recommended Strategies:

A. Minor Plats must wait on the eligibility list if no capacity is available.

(This would mean that the number of bulk allocations set aside could be

substantially reduced.)


Recommendations


Issue 3: School Capacity Measurement

Findings – Flexibility in the APF program capacity measurement will help

meet projected student enrollments to qualify for State School

Construction funding.


A. Allow school mitigation payments through DRRAs when the SRC is

exceeded to a maximum cap set at a point halfway between SRC

and the “local measurement of capacity with relocatables as

determined by the Board of Education”

B. Allow a 90 day grace period for developers to propose a DRRA to

address the school capacity deficiencies without the specified cap.


Recommendations


Issue 4: DRRA School Allocations

Findings –DRRA contributions are a viable revenue source to be used for

school capacity with specific limitations being employed (capacity limits).


A. Allow school mitigation payments through DRRAs when the SRC is

exceeded but less than a maximum cap set at a point halfway

between SRC and the “local measurement of capacity with

relocatables as determined by the Board of Education”

B. Allow a 90-day grace period for developers to propose a DRRA to

address the school capacity deficiencies without the specified cap.


Recommendations


Issue 5: Adequacy of Countywide Student Yield Factors

Findings – There is some difference in Student Yield in rural vs. suburban

areas of the County.


A. Don’t change allocation calculations at this time.

B. Apply when projecting student growth for school construction &

redistricting.

Region Elem. Student Yield Middle Student Yield High Student Yield

Rural 0.19 0.09 0.14

Development Dist. 0.24 0.12 0.18

County-wide 0.21 0.11 0.16


Recommendations


Issue 6: State Funding Sources

Findings – State funding for school construction has been static in recent

years at the $8-9 million per year regardless of BOE requests.


A. Using forward funding strategies that insure maximum funding.

B. Develop a CIP that reflects all school capacity needs in the County.

C. The projects need to be submitted to the State as soon as possible.


Recommendations


Issue 7: County Funding Sources

Findings –

1. State funding sources do not keep pace with the identified

construction needs

2. One time start-up costs not included in the Capital Budget

3. Operating costs for staffing and transportation not in Capital Budget


A. Targeted Revenues for Capacity Expansion and Start-Up Costs

1. Increased DRRA contributions

2. Increased Excise Tax (Requires amendment to State law)

B. Revenues Targeted for Renovations, Start-up Costs for New

Schools, and Long term Operating Costs

1. Income Tax Increase

2. Enact Utility Taxes (requires State enabling legislation)

3. Transfer tax (up to 0.5 %)


Recommendations


Issue 8: Pacing school construction with projected enrollment and capacity

Findings – County-wide need may not reflect the regional need for schools.

May be a need to accelerate school construction ahead of CIP to meet area

needs, when re-districting is not a viable option.


1. Expedite school construction by forward funding schools

2. Add capacity to schools with renovations concurrently

3. Use Public-Private-Partnerships to deliver schools faster

4. Future Planning Considerations

a. WURC Build out

b. St. Charles Planned Build out


Recommendations


Issue 9: Procurement of School Sites

Findings – Procuring school sites serves as an impediment to timely school

construction outside the St. Charles PUD.


1. Build new schools on the same site, where feasible.

2. Encourage school sites and facilities expansion through DRRAs

Next Steps


1. County Commissioners should consider

recommendations for implementation

2. Meet with the Board of Education on various

strategies as appropriate

3. Determine any/all strategies to implement

4. Direct Staff to propose Amendments to APFO

1. Zoning Ordinance (APFO Regulations)

2. APFO Manual

5. Apply to State Legislature for any State Law

Additions or Amendments

6. Develop Fiscal Plan (County Govt. & BOE)

Presented by:

With Support From:

Charles County Board of Education

Dept. of Planning & Construction

www.ccboe.com

Charles County Government

Dept. of Planning & Growth Management

www.charlescountymd.gov

Mission Statement

The mission of Charles County Government is

to provide our citizens the highest quality

service possible in a timely, efficient, and

courteous manner. To achieve this goal, our

government must be operated in an open and

accessible atmosphere, be based on

comprehensive long- and short-term planning,

and have an appropriate managerial

organization tempered by fiscal responsibility.

Vision Statement

Charles County is a place where all people

thrive and businesses grow and prosper;

where the preservation of our heritage and

environment is paramount, where government

services to its citizens are provided at the

highest level of excellence; and where the

quality of life is the best in the nation.

School Adequate Public Facilities Program

and Funding Review Committee

School APF Committee Report Slide 19

http://www.ccboe.com/

http://www.charlescountymd.gov/

School Adequate Public Facilities Program and Funding ... · Issue 7: County Funding Sources...

Documents

Transcript of School Adequate Public Facilities Program and Funding ... · Issue 7: County Funding Sources...