JULY 11, 2006 SPECIAL MEETING
WORKSHOP ON SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
The School Board of St. Lucie County held a special meeting in the School Board
Room on July 11, 2006 which started at 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT: MRS. KATHRYN HENSLEY, Chairman
Member Residing in District No. 4
DR. JOHN CARVELLI, Vice Chairman
Member Residing in District No. 3
DR. SAMUEL S. GAINES
Member Residing in District No. 5
MS. CAROL A. HILSON
Member Residing in District No. 2
DR. JUDI MILLER
Member Residing in District No. 1
ALSO PRESENT: MICHAEL LANNON, Superintendent
Chairman Hensley called the meeting to order and Mr. Marty Sanders, Executive
Director of Growth Management, Land Acquisition & Intergovernmental Affairs, explained the purpose of the workshop was to bring the Board up to date on how the district had and was going to comply with the a new law passed in 2005
(SB360; Amended Chapter 163, Growth Management and Chapter 1013, Educational
Facilities).
Mr. Sanders began by explaining the meaning and context of concurrency. The definition stated it was now required that public facilities (e.g. roadways, potable water, sewer, drainage, solid waste and schools) be available concurrent with any development impacts. Developments will have to have schools concurrent with development orders for residential developments. Each local government was now required to include a public school facilities element in its local comprehensive plan that was consistent with those adopted by other local government within the county that was financially feasible. This meant both cities and the county must adopt a comprehensive plan element that addressed school concurrency that was consistent with each other. The law also mandated developers pay a proportionate-share of mitigation that was satisfactory for projects/agreements entered into regarding the demand for public school facilities. For instance, if you had a development that would create 18 students, the developer could pay for a classroom to fill the public school needs but would not be required to build a complete school. This is would offset the impact created by the project. The district needed to come up with a method to calculate that financial impact on a proportionate share. It was mandatory that this be offered to a developer.

Mr. Lannon commented that the financial impact was more than just the square footage of a classroom and its component parts like desks and chairs. Mr. Sanders indicated the school system was more complex than just classrooms—there were cafeterias, media centers, buses, transportation compounds, maintenance facilities and district headquarters. In the educational impact fee ordinance, there were a whole series of capital components required to support students. As the district doubled in size over the next 20 years, it would need twice as many facilities.
Mr. Sanders stated that, historically, local government’s comprehensive plan had a capital improvement element that did not have to be financially feasible. It could define its needs and have a revenue stream but it did not necessarily provide for all improvements. Now, financial feasibility and capital improvement elements have to be met. The district’s five-year work plan was about $250,000 short of funding all necessary projects. In order for the district to be able to rely on the five-year work plan, everything had to be funded. If not, the unfunded school projects could not be relied upon for capacity. Any schools that were funded could be included as capacity. Mr. Sanders explained that the district’s five-year work plan would need to be refined. Developers and local government would provide input. If the district failed to bring more student stations on line, it could stop development.
Mr. Sanders indicated that the School Board would have to look at how it spends its capital funds. For instance, the renovation of Fort Pierce Central High School would provide very few new student stations. Possibly, local governments or developers may think that that was not as important as a new school. Ms. Hilson asked if a developer would be able to challenge the Board in this regard. Mr. Sanders responded the Board already had prescribed policies to adopt the five year work plan that was subject to public input. Ultimately, however, it would be the Board’s decision. Dr. Carvelli suspected the Board would need to look at its policies to consider renovations that did or did not exceed a certain percentage of new construction cost and new material life cycles. Mr. Sanders stated the Board could always extend the life of a school longer to meet a capacity need. That would require the Board look at renovations and modernizations in a more quantitative method so it could base decisions on adopted policies—it would not be open for discussion. There was a facility analysis available that would help the district in this situation.
By law, all 67 counties in Florida have to adopt concurrency by December 2008.
The deadline for St. Lucie County’s adoption was April 2008. Penalties for failure to adopt include a precluding from adopting comprehensive plan amendments that increase residential density. Consequently, if either the cities or county fail to adopt, the comprehensive plan could not be modified for land use that would create more residential density. For example, everything happening in the western annexation of Port St. Lucie could not happen if after 2008 they did not meet their schedule along with the district. School Board penalties would involve sanctions imposed by an administrative commission that could withhold construction funds
(PECO).
Mr. Sanders reviewed issues where municipalities were exempt from the law if they met criteria resulting in no significant impact on school attendance. St. Lucie
Village qualified for exemption. The Board had already approved this on March 14,
2006.

As discussion continued, Mr. Sanders called the Board’s attention to other important issues that the law required such as:
The need to establish Level of Service Standards (LOS) in conjunction with local governments and community. LOS standards shall be established district wide for each school type. The School Board and local governments have the option to use tiered LOS standards to allow time to achieve desired goals. LOS schools were at 100% of
FISH capacity or 100% of program capacity. Capacity had to be available no later than three years after a final development order was issued. A DRI may have a series of final development orders but the Board would have to consider a phasing-in schedule into the concurrency management system. The Board would need to find out what the community’s standards were for schools. Class-size reduction, No Child Left Behind, and the FISH v. program capacity complicated this process. FISH was designed to provide a uniform funding method for the state of Florida. The State Board of Education modified FISH last year to take class-size reduction into consideration but it did not consider all program needs. Dr. Carvelli suggested placing protective measures into policy/practice in the event development failed to proceed. Mr. Lannon added, as the district approaches 2008, anything happening at that time would not get approved unless the district could show and bring to fruition the schools that were anticipated for a development.
The need to initially apply for school concurrency only on a districtwide basis so that concurrency will be based upon district-wide capacity.
The need to identify a concurrency service area. The School Board and local governments had to demonstrate that utilization of school capacity was maximized to the greatest extent possible, considering transportation costs and court-approved desegregation plans, as well as other factors. If COS was applied on a less than district-wide basis, local government and School Boards would have the burden of demonstrating that school capacity was maximized to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Lannon agreed this was a complex issue. He believed the Board had been using the public’s investment to the maximum by keeping all facilities at full capacity.
The need to obtain appropriate mitigation for compensation. School concurrency had already been in effect somewhat when considering the district’s impact fees. Impact fee analysis looked at the cost of schools, school buses, maintenance facilities, transportation facilities and central office. That was the basis for most of the cost analysis.
This fee paid about two-thirds of all cost. The voluntary contributions approved by the Board to date covered the remaining one-third. Mitigation options included construction, expansion, or payment for land acquisition or construction of public school facilities. The School Board must provide a dollar for dollar impact fee credit based on fair market value. Mrs. Hensley asked that a formula be established for consistency purposes. Mr. Bargeron indicated there was policy that addressed this matter.

The need to obtain public input was discussed. Steering committees composed of members from the Chamber, TCBA, Economic
Development Council, DAC, and the School Board Budget Committee would be formed. Board members were invited to nominate individuals to serve on the committees. A local government and
School Board staff working group would look at technical implications relating to planning and school facilities. The executive council and board attorney could offer guidance. Policy decisions would come from the School Board and local government boards.
Mr. Sanders informed the Board that an Interlocal agreement had to be submitted for final approval to the Department of Community Affairs. Each municipality was required to adopt a comprehensive plan element to also be submitted to DCA.
There was a lot of work to be done by all four agencies.
Discussion ended and Chairman Hensley adjourned the July 11, 2006 workshop at approximately 6:00 p.m.