By Kenneth C. Rossignol

ST. MARY’S TODAY

ANNAPOLIS ---- In a letter to Senator Roy Dyson (D. St. Mary’s, Charles, Calvert), the Maryland Attorney General’s Office gave a legal opinion on the requirements of the bill, virtually skewering the arguments being made by developers and a Chamber of Commerce agent against the bill at various hearings in Annapolis.

Assistant Attorney General Bonnie Kirkland issued a written ruling this past week asserting to Dyson that his bill’s provisions were lawful in requiring the St. Mary’s Commissioners to certify that St. Mary’s County has adequate schools, fire, police, solid waste disposal, sewer, storm water drainage and health care in place before approving any new subdivisions.

The recent out of control growth fueled by the attraction of the quality of life in the region, the economic activity at the Naval Air Warfare Center at Pax River and the proximity to the Washington area has overwhelmed area schools and left them with too many students, increased violence and drug use and a school board struggling to find ways to fix them.

Kirkland wrote to Dyson: "You have requested advice concerning Senate Bill 705 - St. Mary’s County - Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance - Requirement to Adopt. Specifically, you have asked: 1) whether the proposed adequate public facilities ordinance is a moratorium on all new development; 2) how the adequate public facilities ordinance would affect the county’s eligibility for State funding of public school construction; and 3) whether the adequate public facilities ordinance would negatively impact future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) related growth at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station(Patuxent). These questions and my responses are set out below.

Citing the definition of the word ‘moratorium’ in the Webster’s Dictionary, Attorney General Kirkland told Dyson that while his bill calls for the St. Mary’s Commissioners to provide public facilities for growth before approving any more development, that Dyson’s bill, Senate Bill 705, does not qualify as a moratorium.

"Senate Bill 705, as amended, would require the St. Mary’s Board of County Commissioners to adopt, implement and enforce an adequate public facilities ordinance by October 1, 2005. It requires that the adequacy of essential public services and facilities be determined prior to final subdivision or site plan approval. It further requires the ordinance to address essential public services and facilities, including schools, roads, water, sewer, stormwater drainage, health care, fire, police, solid waste disposal and parks and recreation. SB 705 spells out level of service standards for several public services and facilities.

1)According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, "moratorium" is defined as "a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt," "a waiting period set by an authority," "a suspension of activity." SB 705 imposes an obligation on St. Mary’s County to enact an ordinance, under which the County would be required to make a particular determination before certain development activities may be approved. While this requirement could have the effect of slowing the pace of a particular development project, in my view, it does not amount to a "period of delay," a "waiting period," or "suspension of activity."

2)With regard to public schools, SB 705 provides: (1) (i) Enrollment may not exceed 100% of the local rated capacity in
elementary, middle, and high school districts designated by the St. Mary’s County Board of Education; (ii) The calculation of the local rated capacity may not include relocatable classrooms; and (iii) The St. Mary’s County public schools administration shall perform and certify the calculation of the impact of a proposed development on school capacity in the affected school districts."

"The language above sets out the service level standard to be considered by the St. Mary’s Board of County Commissioners when determining the adequacy of essential public services before final subdivision plan approval or final site plan approval. While the Board’s determination may impact its decision on development within the County, this is entirely different from the State’s decision on funding school construction within the County. The Board’s decision is a local policy decision on development, separate and apart from State funding of public school construction. The State Public School Construction Program does not dictate local development decisions. Decisions on State funding of public school construction projects are made on a project by project basis taking into consideration, among other factors, enrollment projections and capacity at adjacent schools to determine the level of need for additional schools. If the Board approves development that is projected to increase enrollment, that projection will be considered in the State’s decision to fund a school construction project.

"If the State finds that a school construction project is not justified, funding will likely be denied or postponed for future consideration. Thus, it is my view that the ordinance would not directly impact the county’s eligibility for State funding of public school construction.