Ask St. Mary’s County planners whether the sewer system can carry the growth in the county’s 2050 plan, how many more students it will send to school, or what it will cost taxpayers, and the answers at the Sept. 15 commissioner work session were variations on one theme: nobody has run that number. The plan lays out 282 actions for the next 25 years. Commissioners spent hours on the wording of the draft St. Mary’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan, and the questions below came late in the session, when commissioner after commissioner asked what is missing.
Start with sewer. A commissioner noted that the Maryland Department of Planning had flagged the draft for lacking an analysis of current water and sewer capacity against projected demand. Staff said no such analysis was done, and that the plan relies on a list of planned improvements in the county’s Trends and Projections Report, a list a staff member called “probably a little dated” because it was developed more than a year ago. The staff’s understanding, they said, is that capacity is evaluated project by project. That report puts the Marlay-Taylor Water Reclamation Facility, which serves Lexington Park, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary’s College and the Piney Point area, at a 6.0-million-gallon-a-day design capacity with average flow of about 4.2 million gallons, roughly 70% of design (the percentage is the Chronicle’s arithmetic). It lists an expansion only as preliminary planning, with no capacity figure. Whether that leaves enough room for the growth the plan allows is the question staff said no one has answered.
A commissioner asked the plain version: what happens if sewer capacity hits its limit and further development cannot occur? Staff pointed to the county’s comprehensive zoning ordinance and the public infrastructure that must be in place before the Planning Commission, the county’s land use office and building permits can sign off. Staff also pointed to action 1.1.3, which updates the maps in the water and sewerage plan and calls for a fresh look at whether the three-year and six-year service designations still make sense, a policy discussion staff described as separate from the plan. On whether future amendments could push sewer into protected rural land, staff said the “no plan service” designation is a hard line that “could theoretically be changed” but has held for decades.
The harder problem, several commissioners suggested, is who decides. One said the county has very little control over the Metropolitan Commission, known as MetCom, beyond approving its debt, and cannot tell its board what to do. Another described a confusing handoff the public rarely sees: MetCom may say capacity exists, but the county is the one that issues the equivalent dwelling unit, or EDU, and a denied-access policy can still block a buyer. Staff said they would work with permits, development services and long-range planning on a one-page FAQ. Commissioners had already asked to add the EDU transfer program to the plan’s growth tools.
Schools produced the same kind of answer. Asked for the projected number of additional students by school level through 2050, staff said the county does not project that far and, as far as they know, neither does the Board of Education, whose facilities master plan looks about six years ahead. Asked who pays when development creates the need for a school, staff said the construction excise tax is reviewed annually and, relaying the school system’s explanation, said they believe the state covers roughly half of construction costs, and only when a system lacks capacity overall. They did not give a developer-versus-taxpayer split.
A commissioner argued that the real school problem is location, not countywide space. The commissioner said more than 700 elementary seats are open, with room at the middle and high school levels as well, but that development is concentrated near Leonardtown, straining its schools, and that redistricting is hard. The school system’s 2024 master plan complicates the high school picture: it shows high school enrollment at about 109% of state-rated capacity for fiscal 2025 and 112% by fiscal 2029, while elementary schools sit near 90% (the Chronicle’s calculations from the plan’s table). The county’s own trends report also notes that some schools in Leonardtown and parts of California and Lexington Park are over capacity.
The same commissioner said the county has no say over what the Town of Leonardtown approves. Citing research over the past six years, the commissioner put the town’s growth at 16% to 18% against 1% to 1.5% countywide, said the town expects another 1,200 to 1,500 homes over a decade, and said it is not bound by the county’s adequate public facilities rules or its construction excise tax, which helps pay for schools. The commissioner asked staff to come back with a way to coordinate with the town, particularly when it annexes land the county has zoned for rural preservation. Those figures are the commissioner’s and were not checked against town records.
Then the money. Asked whether any analysis has projected the taxpayer cost of accommodating the growth the plan contemplates, a staff member said simply, “No.” Fiscal studies are normally done project by project, staff said, and a number that looks out 25 years deserves little weight, especially if the state keeps trimming the population forecast behind the plan. Staff framed that as a feature: the implementation approach puts commissioners “in the driver’s seat,” they said, because no action item moves forward unless the board believes it has the resources. The plan’s implementation chapter marks which actions can start in the short, medium or long term and whether departments think they have adequate resources; staff said roughly 2% of the 282 lack projected resources, about half a dozen actions by the Chronicle’s math, and said the figure seemed low and would be rechecked. Developers have long paid for roads and other infrastructure, a commissioner said, though more of them are now national firms than local builders. Commissioners had already softened a proposed audit of older neighborhoods’ public infrastructure after one called it “very expensive.” Staff also said the plan does not project how many deputies growth would require, a gap examined in the Chronicle’s report on deputy staffing.
None of this means the plan is silent on those subjects. It sets policy for sewer, schools and public safety, and staff said they will report back to commissioners at least every three years. But the gaps matter now because the clock is short. The board set its public hearing for 6:30 p.m. Oct. 6, written comments are accepted through 5 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 13, according to a county news release, and the commissioners’ Oct. 20 agenda calls for a decision on the plan. Staff said their agreed changes would be folded into a consolidated draft before the vote. The board also has a joint meeting with the Board of Education on Oct. 27, after that decision. Residents who want sewer capacity, school seats or a cost estimate addressed in the final text have until Tuesday to ask.
