Rockville’s APFO

Unfortunately, on July 1, 2015, the Rockville City Council voted 3-2 to switch Rockville to Montgomery County’s much weaker APFO standards. Councilmembers Moore, Palakovich-Carr and Onley voted for the switch. Mayor Newton and Councilmember Feinberg voted against.

See also: Rockville’s APFO – PART 2, which dispelled the purported reasons for the switch.

One of the great things about living in the City of Rockville is that the City government has land use authority, meaning that the City government has complete control over what gets built in the City and, ultimately, how growth and new development impact our quality of life. In most of the rest of Montgomery County, the County government’s laws and regulations apply.

In 2005, while I was Mayor of Rockville, the City Council and I adopted Rockville’s first adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO). The purpose of Rockville’s APFO was to limit new growth when schools, roads or other public facilities/services are overcapacity.

As part of this effort, we analyzed how other Maryland jurisdictions, including Montgomery County, approached the issue of school capacity. We intentionally chose not to use Montgomery County’s approach. It is very permissive and does little, if anything, to limit new growth when schools are already overcrowded. That’s not what we wanted for Rockville.

Now, several members of the Rockville City Council have proposed changing Rockville’s APFO in regard to school capacity by replacing the City’s current approach with the County’s. To inform the debate, I thought it might be useful to directly compare/contrast the two approaches (see below).

The only argument I have heard from the City Council members wanting to replace the City’s current approach with the County’s is “Rockville’s APFO hasn’t solved the school overcrowding problem.” In fact, the APFO was never intended to solve the problem, only keep it from getting worse as a result of new development – which will happen if the APFO is changed as proposed. Why propose to loosen controls which keep the problem from getting worse, if you purport to care about the problem?

Comparison of Approaches
APFO & School Capacity: Rockville versus Montgomery County

Component	Rockville’s Current Approach	County’s Approach (now proposed for Rockville)
Capacity limit	110% of capacity By 110% of capacity, schools begin to exhibit marked symptoms of overcrowding such as numerous portable classrooms, larger class sizes, and compressed lunch periods which begin mid-morning.	120% of capacity Above 110% of capacity, the learning experience for students is arguably compromised. Among Maryland counties with an APFO, Montgomery clearly has the highest capacity limit (see table at bottom).
Averaging within clusters	No averaging Each school is considered individually. If a school is above the capacity limit, no new residential development that would feed into that school would be allowed. This approach stops new residential development if a school which it would feed into is already over the capacity limit.	Averaging within clusters If the schools in a cluster, averaged as a group, are above the capacity limit, no new residential development that would feed into that cluster would be allowed. A hypothetical example reveals the shortcoming of this approach: Assume a cluster with four elementary schools, with three at 90% of capacity and the fourth at 150%. The average would be 105%. This would mean all new residential development would be allowed, including new residential development that would feed into the school at 150% of capacity.
Counting planned capacity additions	Future school capacity additions planned within the next two years are included in the calculation of school capacity. If a school addition or new school is planned to be completed within the next two years, it’s a safe bet that it will get built. If it’s not already under construction, contracts likely have already been signed.	Future school capacity additions planned within the next five years are included in the calculation of school capacity. If a school addition or new school is “planned” for the “out years” (three or more years in the future), there’s no commitment or assurance whatsoever that it will actually get built when it is slated for, if ever. It is not unusual for the County government, in its annual budgeting, to repeatedly push the same projects further and further into the future or eliminate them.

Component

Rockville’s Current Approach

County’s Approach
(now proposed for Rockville)

Capacity limit

110% of capacity

By 110% of capacity, schools begin to exhibit marked symptoms of overcrowding such as numerous portable classrooms, larger class sizes, and compressed lunch periods which begin mid-morning.

120% of capacity

Above 110% of capacity, the learning experience for students is arguably compromised. Among Maryland counties with an APFO, Montgomery clearly has the highest capacity limit (see table at bottom).

Averaging within clusters

No averaging
Each school is considered individually. If a school is above the capacity limit, no new residential development that would feed into that school would be allowed.

This approach stops new residential development if a school which it would feed into is already over the capacity limit.

Averaging within clusters
If the schools in a cluster, averaged as a group, are above the capacity limit, no new residential development that would feed into that cluster would be allowed.

A hypothetical example reveals the shortcoming of this approach: Assume a cluster with four elementary schools, with three at 90% of capacity and the fourth at 150%. The average would be 105%. This would mean all new residential development would be allowed, including new residential development that would feed into the school at 150% of capacity.

Counting planned capacity additions

Future school capacity additions planned within the next two years are included in the calculation of school capacity.

If a school addition or new school is planned to be completed within the next two years, it’s a safe bet that it will get built. If it’s not already under construction, contracts likely have already been signed.

Future school capacity additions planned within the next five years are included in the calculation of school capacity.

If a school addition or new school is “planned” for the “out years” (three or more years in the future), there’s no commitment or assurance whatsoever that it will actually get built when it is slated for, if ever. It is not unusual for the County government, in its annual budgeting, to repeatedly push the same projects further and further into the future or eliminate them.

Comparison of School Capacity Limits
Maryland County Governments with APFOs
Source: Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission, 2013

Counties above 115%

County	Limit	Remarks
Montgomery	120%	Portables not counted in capacity.

Counties between 115% and 100%

County	Limit	Remarks
Baltimore	115%
Carroll	109%
Harford	110%
Howard	100%/115%	Limits at 100%; no development at 115%
Prince George’s	105%
St. Mary’s	107%/109%/116%	Elem: 107%; middle: 109%; high: 116%

Counties with 100% or less

County	Limit	Remarks
Anne Arundel	100%	Portables not counted in capacity.
Calvert	100%
Caroline	100%
Charles	100%
Frederick	100%
Queen Anne’s	100%	Portables not counted in capacity.
Washington	90%/100%	Elem: 90%; middle & high: 100%

Rockville’s APFO

Share This Post...