The School Board of St. Lucie County
Special Meeting – Joint Meeting with City of Port St. Lucie Council
April 7, 2008
The School Board of St. Lucie County met in joint session with the Port St. Lucie City Council
on April 7, 2008 at approximately 3:05 p.m.
PRESENT:
MS. CAROL A. HILSON, Chairman
Member Residing in District No. 2
DR. JUDI MILLER, Vice Chairman
Member Residing in District No. 1
DR. JOHN CARVELLI
Member Residing in District No. 3
MRS. KATHRYN HENSLEY
Member Residing in District No. 4
MR. TROY INGERSOLL
Member Residing in District No. 5
ALSO PRESENT:
MR. MICHAEL J. LANNON, Superintendent
ALSO PRESENT:
MRS. PATRICIA CHRISTENSEN, Mayor
MR. JACK KELLY, Vice Mayor
MS. LINDA BARTZ, Councilwoman
MS. MICHELLE BERGER, Councilwoman
MR. CHRISTOPHER COOPER, Councilman
1. MEETING CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Christensen and Chairman Hilson called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. ROLL CALL
Roll was called. All members were present.
3. BUS STOP/SIDEWALK COMMITTEE UPDATE
Mr. Marty Sanders, SLCSB Executive Director of Growth Management, Land Acquisition &
Intergovernmental Relations, who also chaired the Bus Stop/Sidewalk Committee, presented
highlights of the school district’s Transportation Department Analysis, a written copy of which
had been previously provided for all parties. The major areas that the committee had reviewed
were listed in the report as follows:
Reviewed the Establishment of Stops and Safety
Conducted efficiency analysis of a routing system
Analyzed operations data
Evaluated software
Reviewed organizational structure
Reviewed fleet replacement
Findings of the bus stop safety review revealed the district’s transportation accident rate was
significantly lower than the national average. The department policy was consistent with Florida
law and regulations, and almost all bus stops had been moved to avoid high accident areas.
There were approximately 2,175 stops on collectors and arterials in the city that would cost an
additional $3 million to move into the neighborhoods.
Some recommendations from the Committee included: 1) adopt proposed policy language to
further assure prudence (School Board had already adopted the new language relative to placing
stops outside of arterials and collectors); 2) annually execute a comprehensive public awareness
campaign (just before school starts); 3) continue to identify hazardous intersections, and 4)
minimize buses. Mr. Sanders explained efficiency time utilization and talked about balancing bus
tiers.
Dr. Miller pointed out that there were other problems that come up when transportation
department tries to move bus stops off of arterial roads, e.g., vehicles double parked in the
street, basketball hoops in the street, etc.
Dr. Miller and Mayor Christensen shared information on street lighting districts. It was agreed
that good lighting helped promote safety for students. Unfortunately, city residents were not
voting (to pay) for street lights. The Mayor stated arrangements for lighting through Florida
Power and Light could be arranged by the City for those stops that stay in the same location(s).
Mr. Sanders assured the Mayor that he would continue to work with the engineering
department to locate permanent locations. They would look at the lighting as well.
Chairman Hilson reminded everyone about the county-wide collaborative effort called “Share
the Road” (safety ads) that was created last fall. She hoped that the campaign could be
expanded for next year.
4. STATE BUDGET IMPACT
Superintendent Lannon described the Board’s financial situation to the Council. About 71% of
the taxes raised locally by any school board are those that are imposed by the Florida
Legislature. The Board does not control the millage that is assessed. For that reason, in down
years like this, it becomes especially difficult to be able to plan because the Board is subject to
the final appropriations bill of the Legislature. The target number that the Board was looking at
in terms of reduced revenue, compared to July 1, 2007, was between $7 - $10 million dollars
less in terms of operational dollars. The Board was also prohibited by law from shifting vast
amounts of capital dollars into its operating programs.
Over the next 2 months, as data becomes more readily available, Mr. Lannon said the Board
would have to look at many things, including different school starting times and moving bus
routes at an estimated savings of $2.5 million. At the next two school board meetings, Mr.
Lannon stated he would be bringing the Transportation (TRANSPAR) report and proposed bell
time changes to the Board.
All segments of the school system were being turned upside down in terms of what must be put
on the table. The Board was hearing that next year’s state budget may be even worse. In the
last two years, the district had employed over 1,200 “new to St. Lucie County” people who
were mostly teachers—some vastly experienced and some were rookies. On the other hand,
there were many who were retiring/leaving the system, thus through attrition, a large number of
people who worked elsewhere would be moved into different slots according to there
certification. Other areas were also being looked at like athletics. There were no dollars
prescribed by legislators for schools to be able to cover this expense. Many of their dollars
were raised locally. The district receives funding for 25 hours of instruction per week in Florida
and nothing more. It may be necessary to reduce the number of athletic contests in each sport
by one or two over the next couple of years. This ultimately may end up being a major savings
when considering related expensed like utilities, busing, equipment, and salary supplements. The
Board had directed the administration to do everything it could to prevent a large layoff. This
would be counter productive to the economy. Massive layoffs would prohibit the community
from being able to work its way out of a recession. While there will be a great deal of
employee reductions, the administration will be working diligently to prevent layoffs unless the
following budget year is worse or unless this year turns out to be much worse than anticipated.
Mr. Lannon continued, stating that the district’s facilities plan had been slowed down due to
fewer students/families moving into the area and less revenue. The half penny sales tax revenue
for this year was down 50% from last year. Impact fees were down over 60%. Thus, the
funding stream for capital programs was vastly reduced.
The Board is allowed to levy 2 mills of taxation for capital programs. That is a local decision.
That’s where it gets its debt service capacity. Two mills are levied against the value of the
county’s property. The value of the county’s property was decreasing, consequently, there may
be a 10%-15% reduction in revenue for the district. As the public exerts its will for less
government revenue, government renders less service.
At this point, Mr. Lannon chose to dispel a rumor about Lincoln Park Academy’s Middle School
facility. There were no plans to close the school for this year or the next. The facility did need
massive renovation, however, it would be too costly at this time. Tearing down and rebuilding
on site was a decision that was years away.
Following Mr. Lannon’s presentation on the district’s budget, conversation flowed freely
between participants. Some areas/comments of interest are presented as follows.
At this time, there were no definitive plans to shut down any schools for the 2008-09
school year. Lots of review was going on but there were no sacred cows. Everything was
under review.
Was St. Lucie County still a donor county? Was it taking in more money in taxes for
schools but getting less money back from the state? Response: It depended on how the state
actually turned the money around. Mr. Lannon said the state was now paying for 51% of
schooling—it used to pay 65% of schooling. That meant that the local burden had been steadily
growing by state mandate and legislative action for the last ten years. Yes, local people were
paying more for schooling throughout Florida than they did in the past due to state action.
Mr. Lannon was asked if Governor Crist said he would hold School Boards harmless, did
that mean the state would tell the Board it could go to the roll forward rate if there was a devaluation? Were School Boards held harmless? Did the Governor lie? His response was that l
Boards were, in fact, not being held harmless. Citizens and communities needed to get angry
and write their legislators. The Board could only go to the roll forward rate if the state
approved it. As the state moved closer to its final appropriations, it was imperative that citizens
ask that education be held harmless.
Mr. Lannon continued, explaining that many did not understand what being held
harmless actually meant when it came to the fire district, law enforcement, and education. If
they had really understood, then they should have known that the state did not have the
capability at this time to keep their promise. Board members have been trying to give legislators
the benefit of the doubt, however, the state did not have the ability to actually fulfill the
promises that were made. The intent was there but, at this point, nobody was being held
harmless including education and public safety. Everyone was going to feel the cuts.
A question concerning the district’s total budget amount and its percentage of loss came
up. What percentage of the total budget did the loss represent and what parts/categories did it
come from? Mr. Lannon responded that the formula for school funding had over 50 different
variables built into it. The state takes monies into its general revenue fund through all of the ad
valorem property taxes that are raised. Then there are sales tax pieces that come in and it’s all
blended together. The state gives it back to counties for school use according to a formula. St.
Lucie County gets 98.16% of the value of one (1). Thus, St. Lucie County could be considered
to be a “donor” county. If all the money put together came out to $100 for every district, St.
Lucie County School District would get $98.16 back instead of $100. This year, all state
revenues were down considerably by billions of dollars. Originally, legislators said schools
would be held harmless. That meant harmless to services we had this year. However, they sent
$7-$10 million less. This had to be taken out of services that were currently underway this year
because next year, there would have to be cuts in order to make up for the cuts this year. It’s a
combination of the formula and less state revenue. St. Lucie County got a pro-rata share that
will bring in between $7 - $10 million less revenue to run programs this year. Another problem
was the class size reduction. It protects elementary classroom teachers and high school
teachers who teach certain subjects that are specified in the constitutional amendment. All
other teachers are at greater risk. Budget decisions become less and less manageable. A
variety of other things work against the district like recession, no long term philosophical basis
for fiscal development, impact on citrus, hurricanes, tourism, depressed housing and
construction industry, fuel, credit crisis, national recession, and decrease of incoming students, .
In Florida, the Legislature has never defined what quality education is so there is no vision on
what it looks like.
One member pointed out that the board members lobby legislators in Tallahassee but they
don’t just ask for money. They suggest where the money might be found or how to prioritize in
order to meet the state’s needs. In some instances, the policies in federal and state government
may just need a change in language in order to maximize dollars received and get more
flexibility. They attempt to help legislators reach solutions to some of the problems that exist at
the local level.
Chairman Hilson talked about the Early Learning Coalition, Families in Poverty and Voluntary
Pre-K programs. Providers that have VPK programs had not gotten a raise in FTE money for
four years and just now they were being notified that the money would stay the same even
though there are more children. This means less money per pupil. The state is not willing to
fund these programs/children even though it is a constitutional amendment. Less money for
more children seems to be the pattern the state was moving toward.
In response to a School Board members’ question about the status of the City’s budget, it was
explained that their budget picture was also hard to predict since the property tax appraiser had
not given out figures for the coming year. The City lost about $4.5 million due to the additional
$25,000 homestead exemption. Initially, it was estimated the City would lose $1 billion in
property value but now it may be in excess of $2 billion (not including new property that would
be coming on the tax roll).
The City’s first budget year after tax reform was at about a 9% loss. Next year, it was estimated
to be around a 25% loss (total of $3 billion--$1 billion homestead, $2 billion in de-valuation).
Whatever was valued as of January 1, 2008 would fund the 2008-09 budget. It was anticipated
that next year’s loss would be significantly higher for the 2009-2010 budget. Superintendent
Lannon added that the district would suffer right along with the City since the 2 mill money was
based on the same valuation. The district would lose the same percentage as the City. The
Board had other means of assessment, e.g., local discretionary which was established by the
Legislature (currently .510 mills—just over a half a mill) and another that raises $50 per student.
These amounts change in each county based on the value of the land. Consequently, for about
2.5 mills of local funding, the School Board carried the same burden as the City. One difference
was pointed out by Vice Mayor Kelly, namely, the Board did not control its local effort. The
City was in a different situation. It was allowed to set the rate.
5. SRO/SRD SUBCOMMITTEE PDATE
Councilwoman Michelle Berger stated she was seeking information from the newly formed
SRO/SRD Subcommittee. She was not sure if any meetings had taken place yet. Mrs. Kathryn
Hensley, who served as the Board’s representative on the subcommittee, brought everyone up
to date on what had occurred thus far. She explained there were actually two committees.
One met with Superintendent Lannon, Chief Skinner and Sheriff Mascara to look at proactive
collaboration efforts. The other “governmental” committee (members included Vice Mayor
Kelly, County Commissioner Smith, Fort Pierce City Commissioner Becht and Mrs. Hensley)
was working together by pursuing grants. At this point, Mrs. Hensley said there was nothing
positive to report but efforts were continuing. The committee was considering all options,
including the possibility of looking at establishing a law enforcement agency within the district
since the Superintendent has the prerogative of getting an FDLE certificate. Mrs. Hensley had
written to committee members about an appropriate intervention concept for schools.
Conversations in other entities were going on to find a way to do what needed to be done.
The level of service may be somewhat diminished but the various agencies were writing letters
and lobbying legislators. The committee(s) would continue its work to find ways to bring in
funds—preferably through multiple year grants.
Due to Vice Mayor Kelly’s scheduling conflicts that occur regularly, he requested that
Councilwoman Linda Bartz be allowed to replace him on the SRO/SRD Subcommittee. There
were no objections and Ms. Bartz agreed to replace Vice Mayor Kelly.
Board members and Council members continued to talk about grant opportunities and/or the
lack of them. It was agreed by everyone that the safety and security of children and schools was
a priority. Superintendent Lannon explained that the current SRO/SRD county-wide program
cost $5 million. This year, the City contributed about $750,000 which was matched by the
School Board. The County contributed $1.8 million and the School Board matched that amount
also. Mr. Lannon then estimated the program would go from a $5 million program to a $2
million program. Mr. Lannon indicated that he and Port St. Lucie City Manager Cooper (who
was absent from the meeting) had previously spoken and committed to each other that both
entities would match contributions. However, Mr. Lannon said that neither the district nor the
City had $2.5 million each.
The County was continuing to update the district about its resources too. Mr. Lannon
confirmed again that the district must have security in schools. However, as indicated by Mrs.
Hensley earlier during the meeting, security may look different in some schools. It was
imperative that the final decisions/commitment of funds be made by the end of April 2008. If
the district had to create a security force using less than fully certified deputies, it would have to
be done at a much lower salary level. The district would not be able to carry these expenses
into the summer as it had last summer. Amending any decisions/commitments in August would
be too late. To do anything less would create crisis. Mr. Lannon thanked the City for its
position which he felt was pretty well established. It had been helpful to work with city
administration early on in the process. Mr. Lannon was confident that staff would continue to
work together administratively to bring back a program that everyone could be proud of even if
it was not equal to the past.
Vice Mayor Kelly stated, in his personal opinion, that anything below the current minimum
safety standards for children and teachers was absolutely unacceptable. The City could use up to
one third of its ad valorem taxes to help keep those minimum standards--they could not be
lowered.
In conjunction with Mr. Kelly’s comments, Chairman Hilson added that Commissioner Joe Smith
had sent a letter to the Governor expressing the need to continue the county’s SRO/SRD
program. He had specifically requested funding for the County’s portion of the program in his
letter. Ms. Hilson agreed that safety and security was a #1 priority and she felt that the School
Board did embrace that. Mayor Christensen said when this was an issue last year, she, Mayor
Benton and Commissioner Craft had also sent letters to the Governor about what was
happening. She had received a call back from the Governor’s Chief of Staff. They did not have a
clue and had no understanding of where the funding came from. They did not appreciate the
negative impact. Mayor Christensen said she had provided them with all information available to
her but she never heard back from them again. Ms. Hilson stressed again that the community
had to provide input and write to members of the Legislature.
Councilwoman Berger appreciated the efforts that had been made to keep the program
successful but she felt that the comment about the program looking different in the future
meant there would be a difference in the level of service. This could even mean it may go away.
She said the City had done its part by making (budget) changes to make sure the program
continued.
Mrs. Hensley said the district had been working on the program for four years or longer.
Federal dollars had helped put the program in place, however, Homeland Security dollars did
not come back to the county. That’s why there were efforts to make a federal case about this
issue. Safety and security of children was on everyone’s list but some would say it was not
classified as the district’s mission. Educators would just have to be more innovative and creative
about finding a way to do it
Discussion continued about the roles, responsibilities, and efforts of both entities to keep the
SRO/SRD program in schools. Everyone greed they believed in the SRO/SRD program,
however, there was a difference of opinion about who should pay for it. As Councilman
Cooper stated, it was an operating cost for the School Board and it was something the Board
should budget for. It was part of the district’s day-to-day operation. The City did not pay for
security at other governmental buildings. The district should have its own security for people in
its buildings. Mr. Cooper continued, saying the City would love to be part of it. It had been
done in the past. The City could put the officers in the schools but the Board would have to
write the check for it. The City Council budgets for the program and so should the Board.
Mr. Cooper then talked about a comment Mr. Lannon had made earlier which pertained to a
discussion and mutual agreement with the city manager, Don Cooper. Mr. Cooper and Mayor
Christensen confirmed that no plan had been presented to the Council by their administration.
For the record, Assistant City Manager Gregory Orvec stated, “A lot of people here had put
words into Mr. Cooper’s mouth and I don’t think that’s fair. He doesn’t make policy. I haven’t
seen him make policy. He makes staff recommendations which are presented to you. And to
say that he’s done something or hasn’t done something on behalf of the City, unilaterally,
without bringing it to you, I think is disingenuous to him. Okay? I want to say that for the
record.” On the other hand, Mr. Orvec said he had an idea about what Mr. Cooper had actually
said. Mr. Orvec said Mr. Cooper had advised him that staff felt that high schools could not be
abandoned. Staff felt that the money should come from other places but in the final analysis,
they were of the opinion that high schools still had to be served. Mr. Orvec maintained that no
one on City staff had made unilateral representation on behalf of the City.
Superintendent Lannon clarified his previous comments about conversations he had with Mr.
Cooper. He agreed with Mr. Orvec’s comments about high schools and confirmed that was
exactly what Mr. Cooper had said in his capacity as an administrator. Mr. Lannon had told Mr.
Cooper that he was aware that there was still a process to go through. Mr. Lannon felt Mr.
Cooper had been heroic by being able to acknowledge that the decision had to be made early
and it had to be from a multitude of agencies “bread baskets”. Mr. Lannon stressed that no
aspersions to Mr. Cooper should be taken, implied or otherwise, because that was just not the
case.
In response to Councilman Cooper’s comments, Dr. Judi Miller stated the Board does budget
for the program. It pays for half of the program for 180 days out of a 365 day year. The other
days that officers are not working for the school district, they are working back in the
city/county. It was important to remember that the program was a mutual benefit. If it was
eliminated, the City’s police officers would still have to service those campuses because of the
law. They would have to go onto campuses for arrests, etc. so it would not totally eliminate the
impact that the police department would have. Chief Skinner shared that 180 days was
equivalent to 69% of the officers’ time if one calculated 8 times 180. In addition, officers were
required to take annual training that equated to another 5%-10% of their time. In essence, Chief
Skinner said the SROs were working on some type of function with school children throughout
the year, including basketball games, etc. Bottom line, Chief Skinner estimated that the City’s 17
SROs spent %80 - %85 of their time working for the school system.
Conversation about revenue, expenses, in-house law enforcement options and who’s
responsible for the SRO/SRD program continued. In conclusion, all of the elected officials—
members of the School Board and members of the City Council--stated they understood and
were committed to paying half of the current SRO program via annual agreement (50% of funding
from both parties; a dollar for dollar match).
Chairman Hilson thanked the City Council for hosting the meeting and assured Mayor
Christensen that the School Board and its staff would continue working and communicating
together.
6. ADJOURN
Discussion ended and the April 7, 2008 joint meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:28 p.m.