The Baltimore County Council is considering long-awaited legislation designed to control overcrowding in the public schools by creating restrictions on development.
The legislation was introduced Monday night and has the support of a majority of the County Council.
“When a home buyer is looking at a new home, they’re going to be looking at the quality of the schools,” said Republican Councilman David Marks. “By improving these schools by reducing school overcrowding, ultimately we’re going to make Baltimore County a more attractive place for people to live.”
A key part of the legislation would change what is considered an overcrowded school. Currently under the county’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), a school at 115% capacity is considered acceptable. The bill would gradually lower that over five years to 100%.
Council Chairman Izzy Patoka says it’s “bad math” to allow 115 students in 100 seats in a school.
“You can never be over 100% except in Baltimore County,” Patoka said.
The legislation also would create an Interdepartmental Committee on School Overcrowding that would examine a proposed development’s impact on a nearby school. The 11-member committee would be made up of appointees from the county council, the county executive, the school superintendent and the school.
A proposed development would have to receive a school capacity approval certificate from the committee in order to go forward. However, a development could go forward without the certificate after waiting five years.
Yara Cheikh, who served on a task force that studied the adequate public facilities ordinance, said the five years gives the county time to prepare for a possible overcrowding issue.
“We don’t want to punish the developers if the county doesn’t do their part,” said Cheikh
Chairman Patoka added they want to better manage when and where more students are entering the school system.
“One of the reasons we have schools on the east side of the county at 140% capacity is because we didn’t look at timing with a sharp eye,” Patoka said.
The legislation would have the committee consider the impact a development will have on a school when building permits are issued, which indicates construction is imminent. Currently, it happens earlier in the process.
Another crucial change would be getting rid of the “adjacency loophole.”
This has allowed developers to build in an overcrowded school district as long as there is a nearby school that is below capacity. The idea is that students could then be shifted from one school to the other to relieve overcrowding but there is no guarantee that will happen.
Cheikh said it was critical to get rid of the adjacency clause.
“That was de facto approval in the immediate future for schools to not only go over capacity, but maintain very high levels of overcapacity in particular districts where there was going to be development,” Cheikh said.
The legislation mirrors a report from the task force that studied the county’s adequate public facilities law. It issued a report in December 2020 and it has been sitting on the shelf until now.
Councilman Marks said action was delayed in part by the COVID-19 pandemic, but he added the current council is open minded to reform.
“When you have a willingness to get things done, you can see results,” Marks said.
Lily Rowe, a former member of the Baltimore County School Board and a longtime critic of the current Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, said she supports the proposed changes.
“I just hope that in the editing process, that the county council keeps all of the APFO task force recommendations and that this just doesn’t get watered down.”
In a statement Erica Palmisano, County Executive Johnny Olszewski’s press secretary said, “Baltimore County must take thoughtful steps to support smart growth, economic revitalization, and the creation of attainable housing options while ensuring students and educators have the space and resources they need to be successful. The administration continues to review the recently introduced legislation.”
There will be county council hearings on the legislation at its meetings on April 30 and May 14. A vote is scheduled for May 23.
