La Plata, MD – The issue of school allocations to developments in Charles County is one that will likely be a matter of debate for county leaders for some time to come.

During a follow up briefing by Jason Groth, chief of Resource and Infrastructure Management and John Mudd, resource manager, before the Charles County Commissioners Tuesday, March 17, while the commissioners approved the list for allocations, many more questions remain.

“The process looks fairly complicated,” admitted Mudd. “It’s not necessarily simple.”

Groth said the developer is “paying for seats that don’t really exist that are about to be built. Essentially, what we’re saying is, this system has worked pretty well with the ebbs and flow of the market. The way we do this is the most scrutinizing of any system in Maryland,” he added.

Commissioner Amanda Stewart [D – District 3] thanked Groth and Mudd for returning to the board with more information, something she requested two weeks ago.

“Now, as a commissioner, I can see what you’re asking me to do,” she said.

“It’s so very technical, so very complicated,” said Commissioner Debra Davis [D – District 2] . “You are using a mathematical system that is way over my head.”

Charles County Commissioner President Peter Murphy [D] pointed out that developments that have been given allotments in the past have failed to use them.

“Here you show 37 lots were approved, yet none have been recorded, so do they still have 37?” he asked. “I noticed these were approved back in 2005. It sounds like this has been on the books for 10 years. What is it that prompts the county to go back to this part and consider allocating seats?”

“That’s a very good point,” Mudd conceded.

Planning Director Steve Ball said the county did amend the subdivision code last year.

“We had problems in the sense that developers could just speculate and never build anything,” Ball explained. “Last year, through public outreach we developed a public criteria. It is approved for four years and after four years you get an extension. They can extend it for up to four more years, then they come back one last time. In four years, they have to have at least 25 percent of structures in place. That allows them to continue on. There is no time frame after that.

“The thinking behind it is, if you’re investing that much money, you would get to the point where you would continue on,” he said. “If they were over 12 years they had one opportunity to come forward and request one more renewal. They have one more shot to establish their right.”

“Is there a sense of urgency in having this approved?” Murphy asked.

“The recommendation is for the board to approve it,” Groth said, “for the seats actually available in the buildings for these projects. Given student projections, we feel comfortable.”

“I would feel more comfortable moving forward with this small period if we had a period of time for these developers and if they don’t respond, then they should be going off the list,” Murphy noted. “There’s a certain unfairness when the same project keeps coming back again and again.”

“If they don’t respond in 30 days, we offer it to the next one,” Groth said.

Davis made a motion to approve the allocations, “with the understanding we’re going to improve it next time. The motion would be approved with the understanding that we want follow-up information on all of the locations in the pipeline and that there be a specific timeline as to whether they accept them or not.”

Stewart seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com