Sec. 14.39.02.29. Priority Funding Area Waiver Criteria

A. In accordance with State Finance and Procurement Article, §5-7B-07, Annotated Code of Maryland, it is the policy of the State to ensure sufficient conditions in existing schools as well as new facilities.

B. Waiver Procedure.

(1) An LEA may request a waiver for approval of planning and funding, or of a site, for a new school or a replacement school that adds capacity located outside of a priority funding area.

(2) On confirmation by the Maryland Department of Planning that the proposed new school or a replacement school that adds capacity, or the site for same, is outside a priority funding area, the designees shall make a recommendation to the IAC.

(3) Based on the recommendation of the IAC designees, the IAC shall consider whether to grant a waiver for approval of planning and funding, or of a site, for a new school or a replacement school that adds capacity outside of a priority funding area.

(4) After considering the criteria for a waiver in §B of this regulation, the IAC may:

(a) Approve planning and funding, or of a site, for the new school or the replacement school that adds capacity;

(b) Approve planning and funding, or of a site, for the new school or the replacement school that adds capacity with conditions; or

(c) Deny planning and funding, or of a site, for the new school or the replacement school that adds capacity.

(5) When considering whether to grant a waiver for a new school or a replacement school that adds capacity outside of a priority funding area, the IAC may consult with the Smart Growth Subcabinet.

C. The IAC shall consider the following factors when determining whether to grant a waiver to the requirement that a site for a new school or for a replacement school that adds capacity, or a new school or a replacement school that adds capacity that is requested for approval of State planning and funding, be located inside a priority funding area:

(1) Evidence of efforts made by the LEA and the local government to secure a site within a priority funding area that is of a size, location, and configuration that can support the proposed educational program and serve an appropriate student body. For each evaluated site, criteria that must be considered include:

(a) Costs of each site, including both quantifiable first costs and life cycle costs analysis (LCCA) inclusive of transportation costs, and non-quantifiable costs such as administrative inefficiencies or lost teaching time, in order to demonstrate that sites within the priority funding area are more costly than those outside the priority funding areas; and

(b) Benefits of each site, including the impact of the proposed site on community life, walkability of students, access to public transportation, and access of students to educational programs and non-curricular activities;

(2) Evidence that if a site outside a priority funding area is selected because of inability to locate a site within a priority funding area that is of a size, location, and configuration that can support the proposed educational program and serve an appropriate student body:

(a) The new site or new school or replacement school that adds capacity is located as proximate to the priority funding area as possible;

(b) The LEA proposes to mitigate potential negative effects of the site on educational delivery and the community; and

(c) The local government tools for control of land use, including the comprehensive plan and zoning, restrict the growth of housing development outside of the priority funding area that may result from the new school or replacement school that adds capacity;

(3) Evidence of efforts made by the LEA and local government to achieve the needed capacity through additions to existing schools inside the priority funding area;

(4) The location of the student body that will be served by the new school or replacement school that adds capacity;

(5) The potential of the new school or replacement school that adds capacity to be permanently connected to existing or proposed municipal or county water and sewer service that is in the 6-year local government capital improvement program;

(6) The effect of the new school or replacement school that adds capacity in relieving an Adequate Public Facilities closure within an existing priority funding area or local growth area;

(7) Opportunities for co-location or joint use that the new school or replacement school that adds capacity may make possible;

(8) Opportunities for reuse of an existing facility;

(9) The increase of capacity for a replacement school is modest;

(10) Other factors.