Rockville's APFO - PART 2

A proposal has been made to have Rockville switch from the school standards it presently uses in its APFO to those used by the County in its APFO (the weakest, by far, in Maryland). In my previous post on this matter (Rockville’s APFO), I contrasted the three critical differences between the two approaches (capacity limit, cluster averaging, and counting of planned capacity additions).

In this post, I debunk the myths being put forth as supposed rationales for the proposed switch. This issue is complex. It’s important that community members have access to the straight facts.

Debunked APFO Myths

#1: Rockville’s APFO was intended to solve school overcrowding and failed.

This is false. In my previous post regarding Rockville’s APFO, I described how the purpose of Rockville’s APFO was only to keep already overcrowded schools from becoming even more overcrowded as a result of new residential development. To indicate otherwise – by purporting that the promised result would be the end of school overcrowding – is a misrepresentation.

Obviously, school overcrowding can result from turnover of houses from households without children to households with children. Also, parents can decide to switch their children from private schools to public schools. Accommodating associated increases in school attendees may require adding school capacity. In the meantime, Rockville’s APFO keeps schools which have become overcrowded as a result of these causes from becoming even more overcrowded, by limiting new residential development which otherwise would generate even more school children.

#2: The County’s school standards will reduce school overcrowding.

This is false on two counts:

First, it’s simply not logical. If Rockville’s school standards are weakened as proposed, new residential development that’s not currently permitted due to existing school overcrowding would suddenly be allowed. The result would be additional school children. How could that not lead to worsened overcrowding? Any other conclusion defies logic – and credibility.

Second, schools elsewhere in the County are much more likely to be overcrowded, and overcrowded to a far greater degree, than those serving Rockville’s residents. Among the 60 schools in the County above 110% utilization (see table below), only five serve Rockville residents. None of the 13 most overcrowded schools – all of which are over 140% utilization – serve Rockville residents.

The County’s APFO appears to do little, if anything, to prevent overcrowded schools from becoming even more overcrowded. If any jurisdiction is to consider changing the school standards in its APFO, it should be the County to stricter limits, not Rockville to ineffective ones.

Montgomery County Schools Currently Above 110% Utilization
2014-2015 School Year
Source: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP16AppendixC.pdf

Schools highlighted in blue serve Rockville residents.

Rank	School	Type	Enrollment	Capacity	Utilization
1	Barnsley	Elem	687	380	180.8%
2	Wheaton Woods	Elem	536	334	160.5%
3	Arcola	Elem	730	457	159.7%
4	Cedar Grove	Elem	641	405	158.3%
5	Summit Hall	Elem	628	413	152.1%
6	Highland View	Elem	422	278	151.8%
7	Rachel Carson	Elem	1007	667	151.0%
8	Greencastle	Elem	824	547	150.6%
9	Burtonsville	Elem	658	455	144.6%
10	Ashburton	Elem	891	629	141.7%
11	Burnt Mills	Elem	538	381	141.2%
12	Spark Matsunaga	Elem	918	652	140.8%
13	Forest Knolls	Elem	733	523	140.2%
14	Ritchie Park	Elem	542	387	140.1%
15	Kensington-Parkwood	Elem	659	472	139.6%
16	Strawberry Knoll	Elem	595	427	139.3%
17	Diamond	Elem	645	463	139.3%
18	Lake Seneca	Elem	535	385	139.0%
19	Ronald McNair	Elem	847	623	136.0%
20	Woodlin	Elem	626	462	135.5%
21	Bethesda	Elem	520	384	135.4%
22	Wood Acres	Elem	713	527	135.3%
23	North Chevy Chase	Elem	354	266	133.1%
24	Mill Creek Towne	Elem	410	309	132.7%
25	Judith Resnik	Elem	613	465	131.8%
26	Rosemary Hills	Elem	628	478	131.4%
27	Burning Tree	Elem	493	379	130.1%
28	Rolling Terrace	Elem	899	695	129.4%
29	Christa McAuliffe	Elem	629	495	127.1%
30	Beall	Elem	803	638	125.9%
31	College Gardens	Elem	867	694	124.9%
32	Pine Crest	Elem	474	381	124.4%
33	Kemp Mill	Elem	528	425	124.2%
34	South Lake	Elem	853	688	124.0%
35	Stonegate	Elem	489	395	123.8%
36	Fields Road	Elem	487	394	123.6%
37	Brown Station	Elem	507	412	123.1%
38	Meadow Hall	Elem	421	347	121.3%
39	James Daly	Elem	590	488	120.9%
40	Clarksburg	High	1972	1638	120.4%
41	Rock Creek Valley	Elem	443	369	120.1%
42	Bethesda-Chevy Chase	High	1993	1683	118.4%
43	Sargent Shriver	Elem	757	640	118.3%
44	New Hampshire Estates	Elem	522	444	117.6%
45	JoAnn Leleck / Broad Acres	Elem	748	642	116.5%
46	Clopper Mill	Elem	460	396	116.2%
47	Great Seneca Creek	Elem	736	636	115.7%
48	Chevy Chase	Elem	545	473	115.2%
49	Thurgood Marshall	Elem	614	534	115.0%
50	Goshen	Elem	578	503	114.9%
51	William Page	Elem	411	358	114.8%
52	Thomas Pyle	Middle	1479	1289	114.7%
53	Rocky Hill	Middle	1134	995	114.0%
54	Westland	Middle	1250	1097	113.9%
55	Julius West	Middle	1194	1054	113.3%
56	Takoma Park	Elem	657	584	112.5%
57	Potomac	Elem	473	424	111.6%
58	Flower Valley	Elem	477	429	111.2%
59	Bannockburn	Elem	405	365	111.0%
60	Gaithersburg	Elem	812	732	110.9%

#3: The County will not invest in new school capacity for Rockville residents unless Rockville switches to the County’s school standards.

This is false. As a result of years of concerted effort by the Rockville community working with the County government, the County is presently in the process of adding two major capacity additions to schools serving Rockville residents (see descriptions below). These capacity additions could resolve the overcrowding at four of the five schools which serve Rockville residents and that are presently above Rockville’s 110% limit. Clearly, Rockville switching to the County’s school standards is not a precondition for the County adding school capacity in Rockville.

It would be unfortunate to have newly unfettered residential development resulting from the proposed weakening of Rockville’s APFO negate what’s been a long time coming – the actual resolution of much of the overcrowding affecting Rockville schools.

Richard Montgomery High School Cluster – Capacity Additions
Source: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP16CH4_MontgomeryR.pdf

Julius West Middle School
- Capital project: A large addition to increase school capacity by 391. This will resolve present overcrowding and keep the school’s utilization rate below 97% through 2029.
- Completion date: August 2016
New elementary school
- Capital project: A new fifth elementary school (with capacity of 602) added to the cluster, which as a result of elementary school service area changes within the cluster could completely resolve overcrowding at Beall ES, College Gardens ES, and Ritchie Park ES. Combined, these three schools are presently 493 students above 100% utilization.
- Completion date: August 2017

#4: By switching to the County’s school standards, developers in Rockville would begin contributing to the cost of building new schools to serve Rockville residents.

This is false on two counts:

First, state law prohibits municipal governments from levying “development impact taxes” on developers to help fund school construction. County governments are allowed to do this, but not municipal governments. There have been significant efforts in the past to try to get the state legislature to allow municipal governments to do this, but the Maryland Association of Counties (MACO) and the Montgomery County government both vociferously oppose the change.

Second, the County government has, for a long time, publicly maintained the position that any money contributed by Rockville for schools would be spent on whichever schools anywhere in the County the County chose to spend it. There would be no assurance, or even likelihood, that money collected and/or contributed by Rockville would go toward schools serving Rockville residents.

#5: Weakening Rockville’s APFO is necessary in order to allow potentially desirable redevelopment in town center or close to Metro.

This is false. If the rationale for weakening Rockville’s school standards is to allow for potentially desirable residential development in specific locations when schools are overcrowded, why not instead offer a possible limited waiver of the school standards for those specific locations – rather than gut the school standards that apply to all of Rockville? Rockville could even go a further step by requiring developers to provide additional public amenities/benefits, such as more green space, beyond what is normally required in order to qualify for such a waiver.

As a hypothetical example, if the goal were to foster mixed-use redevelopment with a residential component in town center in the block north of Beall Avenue (see maps below), a limited waiver possible only in that block could be specified. The same approach could similarly be applied to the handful of other very limited areas in which mixed-use redevelopment with a residential component might appropriately be deemed a priority at this time.

To be clear, I am not necessarily endorsing this approach. If it were pursued, it would be essential – from legal and public policy standpoints – to be initiated by the Rockville Planning Commission. They would, via the City’s Master Plan, define a) the specific locations where waivers could be granted, b) the limited extent of, and criteria for granting, possible waivers, and c) the additional requirements developers must fulfill to qualify for a waiver. The Planning Commission would need to do this in the context of a well-defined overall strategy to keep growth and infrastructure aligned across time.

In short, fostering “smart growth” or “transit-oriented development” in no way requires the wholesale weakening of the school standards which apply to Rockville as a whole, as has been proposed.

Hypothetical Example:
A Specific Area in Which Limited Waivers Could Be Granted
(as compared to all of the City of Rockville)

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.

Larry Giammo
Associate Broker & Realtor
Expert, Caring Service. Great Results.

Rockville’s APFO – PART 2