July 25, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special/workshop session on July 25, 2001, at 10:04 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

DISCUSSION, RE: SCHOOL CAPACITY

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca expressed appreciation to Ed Curry and the School Board for providing the information the Board has before it concerning the status of school capacity. She stated the information provided on pages one through sixteen relates to the facilities overview; the documents show the way the County plans for its facilities and what the facilities currently are; and Mr. Curry is present to respond to the Board's questions. She stated there is information from the student accommodation plan, which is prepared each year as an assessment of the way the School Board will accommodate the new membership expected that year; it is a school-by-school document; and that information is provided to show the Board how the school facilities are expected to be utilized. She stated beginning on page 17, there is information on funding; and the figure given for operation of a school bus should be $500 a school year, not $5,000. She stated the District has an unfunded need of $424 million as described in the five-year work program and educational plant survey; and the information also discusses operating funds, which are generated from a variety of methods, including State funds. She stated staff asked whether the operating funds could be increased; there are two kinds of funds, facilities funds and actual funds that are utilized for the operation for each student; it is done on a per capita basis; and the School Board cannot currently increase the operating funds because it is taxing constituents at the maximum millage allowed by State law. She advised when the School Board gets a new student, funds are identified; however, that cannot be increased. She stated an executive summary has been provided of the School District facilities work program, showing the estimate of total unfunded capital needs of $424 million and the educational plant survey, which described the cost formula for schools based on State guidelines. She stated the two calculations on pages 23 and 24 are for SIT awards, which are a rebate that is shared between the local government and the State in the instances where schools are constructed at a lesser cost per square foot than the State requires; and the County has been very effective in receiving these awards. She stated in the case of Ralph Williams School, an award of approximately $1.5 million was received; and for the construction of Bayside, an award of $5.4 million was received. She stated the large document beginning on page 25, which is the State Funding Formula for Florida Schools, was provided for the Board's information; and Representative Ball described it as a difficult document to understand. She advised on page 58 is information about membership planning; membership is the number of students that are in a school; and membership planning is done annually. She stated page 59 contains an explanation of the planning process; and page 61 shows the accuracy of the District membership projections, which are very accurate. She stated in looking at whether or not new school facilities are needed, the accuracy of estimates on membership is very important. She stated the membership projections, which begin on page 63, were provided by the School District, but not by the Facilities Department; she has been advised that some numbers, especially the column dealing with the number of portables at each school, may be incorrect; and the Board will use the document on page 61 in talking about actual capacity of schools. She stated the projections for the years 2001 through 2005 have been provided.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the satisfactory student stations per school are based on the ratio of students per teacher; and what is the level of service in terms of how many children per teacher in a classroom. Ed Curry, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities, advised a satisfactory student station is a permanent room in a building that is designed for a certain capacity of students; a secondary classroom is designed for 28 students; that is what the room carries in the Florida Inventory of Schoolhouse Database; and it never changes because it was designed for a specific use. Chairman Carlson inquired about school standards for number of children per teacher; with Mr. Curry responding if they want to teach math in a class in a secondary school, they have to go to the State standard that says a math classroom is a certain size and will be designed for a certain number of students. Mr. Curry advised there are three standards, minimum, average, and large; but the accommodation of students stays the same. Chairman Carlson inquired what is the standard for how many children can be put in a math class; with Mr. Curry responding there is no standard for how many children can be put in a math class; but there is a standard that says if a math classroom is designed this big, it will accommodate this many children. Commissioner O'Brien stated the classrooms are small, medium, and large; with Mr. Curry advising Brevard County deals with the average because that is the recommendation of the Department of Education. Chairman Carlson inquired if the sizes are based on recommendations for how many children per class; with Mr. Curry reiterating if the District wants to build a math classroom, it goes to the standard that provides that a math classroom is a certain size in a secondary school; and that size classroom comes with a certain number of permanent student stations. Commissioner Higgs stated the ratio of students per teacher is a goal that is particularly set for elementary schools. Mr. Curry stated there are several proposed goals that deal with elementary and secondary schools, but they are goals, not mandates. Commissioner Higgs inquired how that relates to the size of the classroom; with Mr. Curry responding it does not relate at all. Mr. Curry explained if the State says it would like to have all math classes have 20 children in them, but they are designed for 28, he loses 8 student stations in his inventory of classrooms; and the District is penalized by the formulas of the State because extra student stations are distributed district-wide, and not necessarily where the need is. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the District wanted to have a lower student to teacher ratio, would it be penalized in that way; with Mr. Curry responding that is correct, unless the State in some way compensated the District to go forward with that recommendation. Commissioner Higgs noted at this point the State does not do that; with Mr. Curry advising that is correct.

Ms. Busacca stated on page 67, the Capital Outlay FTD Forecast shows the forecasts in total expected between 2001-02 to 2005-06; and noted the peak apparently occurs in 2003-04, and is expected to decrease from there. She stated in the growth summary the total number of students is shown that is expected to be increasing; and explained how the forecast is done looking at three and four-year olds who are anticipated to go to Pre-K and kindergarten, and following them through their lifespan at the school. She stated the document on page 68 deals with facility capacity; some of the questions from staff were answered by the School Board; and the first was concerning State requirements for timing of school construction. She stated at least every five years the School District is required to prepare an educational plant survey to identify facility needs; each District also prepares a five-year work program; information was also provide between permanent capacity, total capacity, and enrollment; and those definitions are provided. She stated page 69 deals with capacity and utilization; elementary schools are considered to be 100% utilized while middle schools and senior highs have lower utilization factors; and explained that middle and high school classrooms are less utilized because students move around, a teacher may have a planning period, and in that case the classroom is not in use. She stated there was a question about whether there is a difference between the State and County formula for school capacity; and the answer is no, the School District follows the State criteria.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the District has any flexibility in terms of defining classroom size; with Mr. Curry responding the District follows the Florida Statute because it does not know of any flexibility in the law to allow anything different.

Ms. Busacca stated pages 71 through 73 discuss the school capacity and membership summary; the satisfactory student stations for each school includes permanent and relocatable classrooms; the current enrollment is shown for FY 2000-01; and the projections are available for next year. She stated on page 73 the total number of student stations available within the County is shown as 76,184; the membership projection for the year 2001-02 is 69,117; and there is an over-capacity of student stations within Brevard County. She noted the projection for 2003-04, which is expected to be the peak year, is 68,711.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if that number, 76,184, includes the concept that high schools and middle schools are at 90 and 95%; with Mr. Curry responding yes.

Ms. Busacca stated on page 74 the Brevard County School Feeder System is shown; and explained how each elementary school feeds to certain middle schools, and the middle schools feed to certain high schools. She noted the schools that are at over-capacity have been highlighted; and in each feeder chain there are one or more schools at over-capacity. She advised this will have implications later when the Board discusses the possibility of rezoning as it would affect school capacity.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what are the numbers next to those; with Ms. Busacca responding they are the percentages of students that go to the next school; and explained the feeder chain for Cambridge Elementary.

Mr. Curry stated even one student station over is over-capacity; there is no definition for over-capacity; and a lot of schools identified as being at over-capacity may involve just a few student stations while in others the ratio may be close to 20%.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if that includes portables; with Mr. Curry responding no, it is permanent capacity. Mr. Curry advised the District deals with its overcrowding issue with portables today.

Ms. Busacca stated on page 79 is a letter from Dr. DiPatri, dated May 25, 2001, which provides information about a plan to replace relocatable classrooms with permanent buildings; and advised in the example of Cambridge Elementary, the plan is to propose 12 classroom additions. She stated in addition to the plan, a committee has been established to deal with the capacity issue; and she is a member of that committee, which has been charged to look at structural and non-structural ways to deal with facility capacity issues. She stated the third charge is to explore the possibility of moving sixth-grade populations from overcrowded elementary schools to a middle school to relieve temporary overcrowding; the School Board recently moved ninth-graders from middle schools to high schools; and explained the rationale. She stated in Brevard County most schools have sixth grade in elementary school; Space Coast Middle School is an example of a sixth grade within a middle school; and the school is well liked by people in the area. She stated there is documentation that shows that sixth graders can easily be assimilated into a middle school environment; that is an option for relieving elementary school over-capacity; and advised of the ease of the change where an elementary school and middle school are co-located. She stated the committee is dealing with some of the issues concerning school capacity; the recommendations have not yet been made to Dr. DiPatri; and he will decide which of the recommendations will be moved to the School Board.

Chairman Carlson stated once the portables are hardened, they are no longer portables; and inquired if that changes the design standard for that particular school as far as how many students can go to the school and how overcrowding is dealt with. Mr. Curry responded the plan is to replace as many of the portables as possible in the next three years with permanent building additions; that is the $50 million plan; but there will still be some portables depending on how they manage growth or deal with program issues. He stated the new building code requires that leased portables be non-combustible or Type 4; presently half of the inventory is leased, and the lease expires next year; and if for some reason he wants to lease again, he will have to lease new Type 4 portables at additional cost to the District. He stated the other half of the inventory is portables owned by the District; he can continue using them, if they are safe, until they age out to 20 years or more; and then he will need to do some improvement or replacement with non-combustible units. He stated the District's position is to replace as many as it can; in the future the District will end up having to lease or purchase non-combustible portables in accordance with the new building code; and the size of the portable classroom is the same as a permanent classroom with a certain number of student stations. Chairman Carlson inquired if it would alter the equation in terms of design capacity of the school; with Mr. Curry responding no. Mr. Curry stated when the District reports to the State where children are housed, it advises a certain number are in unsatisfactory portable classrooms, a certain number are in satisfactory portable classrooms, and they add the incremental student station capacity to the permanent capacity, so a school with 700 permanent student stations and 300 in portables can handle 1,000 students.

Ms. Busacca stated the $50 million COP could include approximately $30 million for replacement of portables; and there may be additional money then for some new schools; but the recommendation has not come forward for location of those schools. She stated Frank Duke of Palm Beach County will make a presentation on school concurrency; and inquired if there is additional information the Board would like on capacity.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a capacity for people to elect to go to one school or another school; if there is a particularly strong principal who attracts strong teachers, over the years there could be an anomaly where the school increases in population regardless of the construction around it; and requested staff address that. Mr. Curry stated before a new school is built, the District has to make decisions concerning how many students will sign up at a particular school and whether the school should be bigger because of more membership; and there are seven options, the first being to cap enrollment at the capacity of the school. Commissioner Scarborough requested information on those people who are going to a school by choice as opposed to being in the school district. Mr. Curry stated he will provide that data; but recommended waiting until August.

Commissioner Colon inquired how closely is the School Board working with cities to get better communication as to whether development is coming in. Mr. Curry advised the principal of the school usually has the best data; but the District also receives information from the city and County planners; he looks at the data; and he knows as much about the development of the area as the local municipalities and principals do. Commissioner Colon stated last year an apartment complex was built near Jupiter Elementary; the number of children that were in attendance created a tremendous impact on the school; and inquired how complex is it for the principal, once a subdivision or apartment complex moved in close to the school, and how does the District deal with those students that it was not counting on. Mr. Curry stated they do not deal with this problem until the students arrive; in the short term they would deal with the problem with a portable classroom or redistribution of programs within the building; and the next year they would decide whether they need to change boundaries or cap enrollment. He stated they have to wait until the child arrives at school; they cannot deal with that child from a planning standpoint; and they cannot build buildings anticipating a housing development is going to generate another 1,000 children. He stated seven options are listed on page two; the options do not occur until the second year the child is in the school, so there is a year to plan; and a lot of things are done within schools to move programs around to maximize the space available before moving portables in.

Chairman Carlson inquired what is the reaction time for a scenario such as that suggested by Commissioner Colon; with Mr. Curry responding usually a year. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is an overcrowding situation in the school for one year; with Mr. Curry responding yes, or he provides a portable. Mr. Curry stated in the past he had an inventory of portables; but right now he does not have any that are Code compliant that he can move from school to school; and if he had a problem at Jupiter Elementary, he might go to the next school to see if it had a portable it might not need anymore and move it. He noted there is a lot of negotiation that goes on at that level after the six-day count; the student accommodation plan is the planning tool; and the District starts looking at that in October, so it can bring it back to the Board no later than April what it plans to do with portables and student accommodations for the membership that arrived the previous August. He noted there are many options; and they have to be considered on a school specific basis as there is no one solution. Commissioner Colon stated it obviously creates a hardship for the principal and everyone involved because the District is not able to react until six days into the school year. Mr. Curry advised the students are counted after they have been there for six days; they are counted again in September; and the District bases its planning on the October count because that is when it gives the Department of Education the first count of students for fee development purposes. Chairman Carlson expressed concern about students being in larger classroom settings in an overcrowded situation for a year, which could be detrimental to their school career.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if allocation of permanent stations or even temporary stations parallels the allocation of personnel to teach in the classroom. Mr. Curry responded when a class is created in a room, it has a teacher; the principal schedules all the classes before school starts; and then the principal advises the School Board what has been done at their school. He stated it is a very precise scheduling process. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Curry said he would respond to an influx of children at a particular school by moving a classroom; and inquired if the same thing happens in terms of personnel. Mr. Curry responded the school can use the space anyway it wants to meet the membership and program needs. Commissioner Higgs inquired if 30 more children arrive for second grade, can Mr. Curry put in a portable; with Mr. Curry responding first the principal decides how to accommodate the 30 extra students; the principal will do everything possible to use up the space in the school; they might be put in the media room or library; and if they cannot find space, they will ask for a portable. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the same thing occurs in terms of personnel, and if the children are accommodated physically, is there a ratio of students to teachers that also accommodates that; with Mr. Curry advising he cannot answer that. Chairman Carlson inquired if it is the principal's decision how many students go in a classroom; with Mr. Curry responding affirmatively. Chairman Carlson stated there is no set definition, which is the real issue. Mr. Curry stated if the principal has 35 students and a room big enough for 28, he or she may opt to put in all 35 students because they will fit. Chairman Carlson inquired if there are options the District has in terms of having principal-based management at a school, or can the District make those decisions. Mr. Curry responded the majority of the decisions are school-based decisions by the principal; but the School Board can do anything it wants. Chairman Carlson inquired if the current principal-based management is based on a decision of the School Board; with Mr. Curry responding he would guess that is the case, but that decision was not made in his tenure of six years. Ms. Busacca advised each student comes with some money for operations; and if there were 30 second graders all arriving at the same time, the principal could decide to hire another second-grade teacher. Mr. Curry stated those are school-based decisions.

Commissioner Colon stated the reality is the District has to scramble right after school starts; and that is scary. She inquired if the school realizes it needs another teacher, is there an inventory of teachers to hire. She stated it is a tremendous burden on a principal; and by the time they get organized, half the year is gone. She stated the focus should be on what kind of education each child is getting; and it is scary in an area growing rapidly. She stated the communication is there, but it does not do any good if the school is advised there is a 300-unit subdivision coming, which will have "x" number of children, and nothing is done until the children are there.

Commissioner Higgs noted statistically the District is predicting pretty well. Mr. Curry stated the principal is involved in the estimating process; if there is an apartment complex or development, they factor that into their decision making; and they have been good at estimating. Discussion ensued on when to take public comment; with the Board reaching consensus to hear the speakers at the end of the presentation.

DISCUSSION, RE: SCHOOL CONCURRENCY

Ms. Busacca stated the next issue for discussion is school concurrency; and the information provided for the Board is from the Florida Statutes outlining statutory provisions for school concurrency, and a summary of responses from municipalities.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated there are two points at which the Board participates in the development of communities; and the first is the building permit stage. He stated through the Land Development Regulations, one of them being concurrency, they are able to look at whether or not there is capacity in place before issuing a permit for roads, sewer, and a host of other concurrency items. He stated the second point at which the County participates in the development is at the rezoning stage; at that stage the County is able to review a proposed rezoning; sometimes the rezoning proposes an increase in residential density; and in considering that, the County looks at a host of issues such as neighborhood compatibility as well as looking at concurrency and the ability of the area to handle the proposed increase in residential density. He stated the two communities the Board will be hearing from, Palm Beach County and Orange County, have both chosen to integrate school capacity into those two points in the process. He stated in regard to concurrency, the Board is going to hear from Frank Duke of Palm Beach County, which is the only county in the State of Florida that has adopted a school concurrency program that is consistent with Florida Statutes; and second, it will hear from Orange County, which is integrating school overcrowding and school capacity issues into its rezoning process.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired about doing it the way the State wants it done. Mr. Scott stated the State does not have specific guidelines for integrating rezoning. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Scott said Palm Beach County was the only county; with Mr. Scott advising for concurrency; and Orange County is reviewing school capacity issues at the rezoning process. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the difference. Mr. Scott responded concurrency allows the County prior to issuing a building permit to identify if capacity is available for that development to occur; at the rezoning stage the County also looks at concurrency, but that is not necessarily binding information that must be followed in making a rezoning decision; and staff provides concurrency information when a rezoning is being considered so the Board can see the current relationship between the proposed land use and the facilities in place. He stated many times there is a time lag between when a rezoning occurs and building permits are sought; and a facility being over-capacity at rezoning may not necessarily be grounds for denial if the applicant can demonstrate in the next six months or one years, when he is going to get the building permit, he will be making the improvements to the road or sewer capacity, etc. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Scott makes it sound like someone went in for a building permit and got a green house on a monopoly board, but what he is really referring to is someone getting a building permit and getting 50 houses on the monopoly board. Mr. Scott stated potentially someone could come in for 50 building permits at once or one at a time; and in both instances staff would look at the capacity of facilities and decide if it could issue one permit or 50. Commissioner O'Brien stated if he thought he might be shut down coming in with a project for 25 homes because of concurrency, he would come in and get one permit at a time so he would not be stopped. Commissioner Higgs stated when it hits the concurrency threshold, building would be stopped. Mr. Scott explained if the magic number is 25 and the County cannot accommodate more than 19, development would be allowed for permits one through 19, but when someone came in for number 20, it would be stopped. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what about someone down the road who only wants to build one house on a one-acre lot; with Ms. Busacca advising it is first come, first served. Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants to be sure the Board understands what else can happen as it travels down this road.

Frank Duke, Planning Director for Palm Beach County, advised on June 12, 2001, Palm Beach County became the first in the State to have a school concurrency program determined to be in effect by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, without going through legal challenges. He noted other local governments and counties have tried to undertake such an effort, but have been challenged, primarily by the Florida Association of Homebuilders. He stated they spent three months in negotiations with the Florida Association of Homebuilders to explain the program; and the Association came to the conclusion it satisfied all requirements of State law. He stated Palm Beach County has a full concurrency program, which means the County has the requirement to deny building permits or development orders if school capacity is not available; outlined the points the County looks at; and advised it is a much more stringent level than looking at one point such as the rezoning stage. He stated all the requirements for school concurrency are spelled out in Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code; and information has been provided in the packet. He presented a slide showing a map of Palm Beach County; and stated Palm Beach County is the largest County in the State; it is twice the size of Rhode Island; it has a population of just over one million; and it is the fourth fastest growing county in the country. He stated coming with the rapid growth and the large geographic area are problems addressing all infrastructure, particularly schools; there are some schools in Palm Beach County that are 300% over capacity; and when he looks at Brevard County's schools being 110% to 120% over capacity, he does not think there is an overcrowding problem. He stated in 1995 the Palm Beach Board of County Commissioners began looking at ways to tie schools to the development process; the Legislature put an end to the effort in 1997 by saying if a county was going to have a school concurrency program it had to meet all the requirements of State law, including requirement that every municipality in the county that meets certain requirements has to be brought in to go along with the local government; and for Palm Beach County that meant of the 38 municipalities, 26 had to sign on to school concurrency. He stated the real benefit of going through this program has been the level of communication and coordinated planning that has been achieved; the school concurrency program is not going to guarantee that children will not be in overcrowded schools; but what they have done is figure out how to coordinate capital planning to insure there will be the capital facilities available. He noted that is not a guarantee that the school is going to be able to have all the teachers necessary to avoid overcrowded classrooms; and that is a hard concept for some parents to understand. He stated the other thing that becomes complicated is an issue Brevard County may experience because of its unique configuration; the Statutes provide that concurrency should be applied on a districtwide basis; if the State standard is applied in Palm Beach County, it means if a student is coming in at Boca Raton, which is in the extreme south of the County, and there is capacity in the Glades area, which is an hour and a half drive away, the County has to issue the development order; and they said that makes no sense in a county the size of Palm Beach County to apply concurrency on a districtwide basis, and so they apply it on a less than districtwide basis. He stated they drew up boundaries for 21 concurrency service areas; they are based on land use pattern plus projected growth and the travel times they are willing to have a child sit on a bus; and that meant in the urban areas the concurrency areas are small while in suburban areas, they are larger. He noted Concurrency Area 21 does not have a single person or school as it is an agriculture area; but the boundary still had to be drawn to meet the requirements. He stated they do not want children to be bussed an hour and a half; they should be on a bus no more than 30 to 45 minutes; they are trying to get back to neighborhood schools; and that is the basis for doing the division of the County into 21 concurrency service areas. He stated the next step was to analyze ability to meet demands for projected growth in each of the concurrency service areas; so there are 21 charts in the plan; and displayed a chart. He stated the charts list every school; and they have projected the population, existing enrollment, and capacity of the schools. He stated that gave the ability, working with the School District, to determine where they needed to look for school sites and build schools; and this became the key element of the coordinated effort. He stated the County did the population projections on which this is based; the County got the data from all local governments and municipalities; and the population was distributed across the County based on the land use map and historical growth rates. He state they provide the information to the school district, which turns that into student population based on the demographics of the area; the communication and coordinated planning happens twice a year; and described the process, which results in the approval by the school district of the capital budget. He stated as a result of the coordinated planning with the concurrency program, the projections were only off by three-tenths of one percent this past year, which is a vast improvement from the past. He stated that enabled Palm Beach County to begin looking at where schools needed to be built, looking at all 21 concurrency service areas and the extent to which growth would be exceeding the capacity of the schools; and displayed a map indicating the need for schools. He stated they were able to geographically identify for the school district that there are the places where the district needs to be looking for school sites and building new schools; and as a result the school district was able to begin targeting where new schools would be placed based on the local government projections. He stated the benefit to local government has been that the Board of County Commissioners began to recognize that when there is a neighborhood that says the children are going to an overcrowded school, but it does not want the school built in that neighborhood, it has to say the school is going to be built there based on the locational requirements of Florida law in order to meet the demand for space; and that has happened twice in the past year. He stated the other element that became critical in Palm Beach County is that it could not achieve the level of service all at once; and this was the downfall of Broward County. He stated Broward County was the first to try to implement a school concurrency program; it adopted a level of service it could not meet and could not show a financially feasible plan; when developers came in, they were told they had to pay to catch up plus for additional capacity; and the courts told Broward County it could not do that. He stated with the analysis, Palm Beach County was able to look within every concurrency service area to see the level of service that can be achieved today and how it could afford to build schools to bring the level of service to the goal, which is on average 110% of core capacity. He advised core facilities are not individual classrooms or student stations, but capacity of facilities such as the audio visual room, the media center, the library, and the cafeteria; the goal is not to have children eating lunch at 9:00 a.m.; and if core capacity is addressed, then portables can be used to try to address the total student need. He stated the critical thing is to provide sufficient core capacity to be able to accommodate the students.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is core capacity, does the County also address the overall capacity; with Mr. Duke responding no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is an idea of where the County wants to be with overall student stations; with Mr. Duke responding the goal is to get everything down to no more than 110% of capacity on average, and eventually that rolls into student stations as well. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that rolls into student-teacher ratios; with Mr. Duke responding no, that is an operational issue for the school and not part of the concurrency program. Mr. Duke stated that is why he said this will not ensure there are no overcrowded classrooms although they hope it will. Chairman Carlson inquired about the working relationship with principals; with Mr. Duke responding in Palm Beach County there are a number of magnet schools; the principals have the ability to accept whatever enrollment they want; and it has not been unusual for a principal to call on the first day of enrollment to ask for portables because they have accepted a certain number of children. He stated they have tried working with the school district and School Board members to make them more aware of concurrency requirements to prevent this from happening; but there are still instances where a principal accepts more students than he or she has capacity for; and that becomes a problem. He stated one of the issues that must be met in doing concurrency on a less than districtwide basis, is that the school district has to show how it is maximizing the utilization of total capacity; the service capacity goal is 110%; and described how the financial plan was developed. He stated at times they will not be at 110% of capacity; in some cases they will be up to 300% of capacity; but over a five-year period they have laid out a financially feasible plan for building schools that will get the County down to 110% of capacity. He stated because this is on a less than districtwide basis, they had to find out how to maximize the utilization of capacity; what that means is what is the maximum capacity there will be at any individual school; then they had to look at every single school in the County to determine the highest ratio of membership to capacity; and that became the maximum utilization of capacity. He stated when a principal wants to have more students than would apply to the standard, the school district has to say no; and the school district has begun to cut off enrollments so they do not overwhelm a single school. He advised of the difficulty in making the Homebuilders Association understand how this works as well as making principals understand they cannot accept everyone who comes in and applies if it is going to overwhelm the system. He stated it was also necessary to come up with provisions for how to suspend concurrency as this is a requirement of State law; concurrency gets suspended if the School Board fails to act and does not build schools consistent with its plan; and concurrency is suspended if the school district allows a principal to enroll students such that they overwhelm that school and maximum utilization of capacity is not met. He stated if the School Board does not approve its capital facilities plan in the manner that has been approved by the municipalities and county, and allows one school type to become over-capacity, that suspends concurrency; and the bottom line is if the School Board fails to act and allows schools to become overcrowded, the punishment is that they are going to be allowed to become even more crowded; and that is probably the most bizarre requirement in State law. He noted there are also provisions for how concurrency is reinstated; if the School Board fails to act, the technical advisory group, which is an independent group consisting of a demographer, a realtor, an economist, a business person, and a developer, would review the information from the school district to determine if schools can operate above the 100% level of service threshold. He stated the group meets on a regular basis, as needed, to review information on the schools; it is staffed by the school district; and the membership has to be approved by the School Board, Board of County Commissioners, and the League of Cities. He stated they have the ability to reinstate concurrency if it is suspended, based on remedial actions taken by the school district to get back on schedule with building schools. He stated concurrency can be suspended in a single concurrency area, but there must also be provisions for suspending concurrency on a countywide basis; and commented on the penalty of allowing schools to become more overcrowded. He stated putting the program together was a daunting task; when it started, he and the county attorney told the Palm Beach Board of County Commissioners they did not have staff to do this, and would need to hire a lawyer, planner, demographer, and economist; and the Board only hired one consultant, a surveyor. He stated in reality the surveyor was more critical than any of the technical issues he and the attorney thought were necessary; and the consultant was able to get buy-in of all the parties that had to sign off on the agreement. He stated 28 governmental institutes had to agree on the same provisions; and commented on the length of time it took to get all the interlocal agreements in place, which was well over one year. He stated it was a long process; and outlined the time line shown on the slide. He recommended if the Board decides to go through the process, that it follow the Statute to do the interlocal agreements first; and advised of confirmation of Palm Beach County's public school facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated Palm Beach County did concurrency on a less than districtwide basis with 21 different concurrency service areas; and it adopted a level of service for all schools of each type within each concurrency service area at 100% of core capacity on average with a maximum utilization goal of no more than 120% at any individual school that then has to be phased in consistent with the School Board's financial plan such that the numbers are not achieved until 2004. He stated when he is asked whether he would recommend this for other counties, he advises it is a difficult process, and while it provides for better coordination of planning between municipalities, the county, and the School Board, it does not insure that there will not be overcrowded classrooms. He stated improvements of coordination and planning could be done without going through this whole process, which was labor intensive; and commented on the number of staff hours spent on the process.

Commissioner Colon stated in 1996 at a League of Cities meeting, she was warned not to let what happened in Orange County happen in Brevard County; she was on the City Council of Palm Bay, which is the largest and fastest growing city in the County; and she came back with the message to be careful and learn from the mistakes of others. She stated Palm Beach County was at 300% capacity; with Mr. Duke advising that was only at some schools. Commissioner Colon stated the Board is listening to the citizens' requests for accountability; reiterated the warning given to her in 1996; stated it did not pick up momentum then, but it is starting to pick up now; and she hopes the Board can move forward otherwise it is going to be in the same situation as other counties. She stated communication with local government is critical; and inquired how large is the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County. Mr. Duke responded Palm Beach County is mostly unincorporated; two-thirds of the County is in agriculture; and the unincorporated areas accounts for 70 to 75% of the land area, and 50% of the population.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Duke keeps advising the concept is not going to deal with school overcrowding; there was discussion earlier about school personnel; and inquired if anyone is dealing with the issue of class size as concurrency. Mr. Duke stated those are issues the Palm Beach School Board is dealing with; everyone initially thought school concurrency would provide that information; but the way the Statute is laid out only deals with capital facilities, not operating dollars or manpower. She stated school concurrency is not going to get less crowded classrooms; it will mean the overall physical plant is capable of accommodating the student population; but individual classrooms may still be large unless the School Board steps in and addresses that side of the equation.

Commissioner Higgs inquired when Palm Beach County started this process, did it have the same kind of situation as Brevard County, with sufficient stations but not the right allocation. Mr. Duke responded allocation is still a problem; that is another reason they went to less than districtwide basis; and advised some schools are operating at 60% to 70% of capacity, so looking at the entire district, the capacity is okay, but some individual schools are overcrowded. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Duke said to start the way the Statute suggests; and inquired if it was a relief to a number of interest groups that there are criteria for suspending concurrency; with Mr. Duke responding no. Mr. Duke advised it became a point of concern to some groups that the County was doing this to totally shut down development; concurrency affects the timing of development, but does not shut it down; and it affects timing to allow the school district to better accommodate where the growth is going to happen. He stated the Homebuilders Association was easy compared to the cities; the real problem was bringing all the local governments together; and advised of municipalities that would only agree to sign under certain conditions, which were impossible to fulfill, such as building a school in that area or putting in a traffic light. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the suspension understanding did not help the municipalities; with Mr. Duke responding no. Mr. Duke stated the municipalities wanted to deal with the other issues; and advised another issue that was a concern was commitment from the school district to provide additional space in municipalities so it would not slow down redevelopment. He stated they worked with the School Board to get a commitment to refurbish every school in the County on a regular cycle; one out of three construction dollars ends up going into the coastal communities where there is an influx of migration; and advised of the demographic change from retirees to whole families coming from Cuba and Haiti. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the plan eventually dealt with the issue of renewing schools in those areas; with Mr. Duke advising there are commitments to a regular schedule for refurbishing schools; the capital plan was worked out; there was a huge negotiation between the budget people, economists, and planners; money is included specifically for that purpose; and if the school district does not comply, it is a basis for suspension.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in demographics, Palm Beach County had a shift from the retiree to the younger family with children; Brevard County is seeing a movement to the baby boomer retiring and coming in; historically there have been different spurts with the space program and various aerospace firms; and inquired if those things are taken into consideration. Commissioner Scarborough stated just because something is being built does not mean it is going to negatively impact the school system; retirees could come in and pay ad valorem tax, increasing the funds to the school system; and building could be a positive cash flow if the demographics are correct. Mr. Duke stated one of the things they looked at was exempting age restricted communities from the concurrency program; and provisions were included to monitor and track demographic changes. He stated they recognize that no more than 30% to 40% of the new students coming into schools are coming from new construction; the vast majority are coming as a result of demographic shifts in existing housing; and it is necessary to account for that and be able to provide the additional capacity to those schools. He noted the graphic shown previously indicates where schools will be needed; and those are in places where there is not a lot of room for new development; so they are coming as a result of redevelopment and demographic changes.

Chairman Carlson inquired with school concurrency in place, was the school district required to find additional funding sources. Mr. Duke stated it was necessary to show there was financial capacity; and the School Board had to make commitments that if it could not get bonds approved, it would go after COP's, which historically it has not done. Chairman Carlson inquired if they went to referendum; with Mr. Duke responding no. Mr. Duke stated the School Board of Palm Beach County went out for a referendum approximately 12 years ago to provide more space; what it did was build a facility for the School Board and not schools; and credibility with the population was low. He stated there are now different School Board members and a different Superintendent; and they are committed to the idea of showing people they are serious about building schools. He stated the concern is if they went out for referendum today, it would not be well received because of past history; and they have committed to using COP's now and in future years as needed. Ms. Busacca inquired what other funding is used for schools; with Mr. Duke responding taxes and impact fees. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much is the school impact fee; with Mr. Duke responding he does not know as he does not collect that fee. Chairman Carlson inquired if the fee was collected prior to the process starting; with Mr. Duke responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough expressed appreciation to Mr. Duke for coming to the Board to make his presentation.

The meeting recessed at 11:35 a.m. and reconvened at 11:50 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: RELATING SCHOOL CAPACITY TO LAND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS

Vivian Monico, Assistant County Attorney of Orange County, conveyed the apology of County Attorney Tom Wilkes; and advised Orange County is in the middle of budget sessions. She stated the action taken by Palm Beach County was not an option for Orange County; the County has tremendous overcrowding problems, and the Chairman instituted a Public School Task Force to look at options; but the Orange County School District is maxed out on funding. She stated there is nowhere else to get funding unless they go for a half-cent sales tax referendum; and advised of the failure of a one-cent referendum a few years ago. She stated she has provided school capacity reports for the Board, including information on sources of funds, what building is being done in the five-year cycle, and what is being planned; and advised with all the building in the five-year cycle, they will have built enough student stations to house the student population of Seattle or Minneapolis, but still they cannot keep up because growth is tremendous. She stated the School District is still $1.3 billion shy for facilities. She stated former County Chairman Mel Martinez asked the planning and legal staff to research Florida law to see if the County could deny land use approvals at some point in the process based on school overcrowding; staff advised the optional school concurrency Statute does not preempt the County's broad home rule powers in land use approvals; and Chairman Martinez directed staff, in cases of Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings that would increase residential densities, to recommend denial if the school would be overcrowded. She stated they get the information from the schools on whether the affected schools would be overcrowded; staff recommends approval or denial based on that portion of it; and the County may deny rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments that would result in increased residential densities, where those increased densities would either cause or exacerbate school overcrowding. She stated they receive the request for residential rezoning or Comprehensive Plan amendment; they then contact the School Board to request a school capacity report; the planning staff advises the School Board of the number of students that would result from the rezoning or amendment; and the School Board provides the report. She noted copies of two reports have been included in the package for the Board; and advised both are in litigation. She stated the school capacity report lists the affected schools, the actual enrollment, and the FISH (Florida Inventory of Schools) capacity, which indicates the number of student stations that will fit in the school; and explained why capacity is overstated. She noted the report also indicates whether any reliever schools are planned for construction, when they would be constructed, and whether the affected schools can serve the additional students; and the report does not make any recommendation of approval or denial. She stated the school capacity report is included in the Commissioners' agenda packages along with the staff report that in the two cases in question recommended denial; the staff report also notes whether the project is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and with Comprehensive Plan policies, goals, and objectives; and this became important in the case of Mann v. Orange County. She stated Orange County has an optional school facilities element that contains goals, policies, and objectives; one of them is to work with the public schools to tie development to the availability of public school facilities; and in the Future Land Use Policy on rezonings, it provides that the County wants public facilities to be there when it rezones. She stated the agenda package, including the school capacity report, becomes part of the Clerk's record; and after the staff presentation, reports can be submitted to the Clerk as exhibits. She stated the applicant makes a presentation; Orange County Public Schools also makes a presentation; often there are principals, PTSA presidents, parents, teachers, and students present to speak; and any of the speakers may enter items into the record. She stated once the public hearing is closed, the Board votes on the request. She stated the County worked with the Orange County Public Schools to develop the template for the school capacity report; the school needs only fill in the information; and outlined what is included in the report. She stated there is a School Capacity Committee that meets weekly where upcoming projects, new information, developers proposals and other items may come up; and attendees include an associate superintendent, planner, and facilities person from the Orange County Public Schools and members of the County staff including the Director of Growth Management, Environmental Resources, a County Attorney, and other legal and planning staff. She stated at one time the Committee was meeting weekly, but now may only meet once a month. She stated their primary authorization is under home rule power; a denial of rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments is a valid exercise of the County's broad constitutional and statutory home rule powers; and under home rule, the County may exercise all powers of self government except those inconsistent with General Law. She stated denial of rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments was consistent with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and explained the importance of this issue in the Circuit Court ruling, a copy of which is included in Appendix C.

Chairman Carlson inquired how Orange County defines a "high quality" education system. Ms. Monico responded there is some law in other states where a high-quality system allows students to obtain a high-quality education; and the courts have found government can force schools to do certain things in terms of funding.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Duke got into the issue of addressing facilities but not class size; that is perplexing because if a child is in a class of 40 students, he may not be getting the same quality as he would in a classroom of 22 students; and inquired if that is addressed in Orange County. Ms. Monico stated the FISH capacity is permanent capacity; if a school has a FISH capacity of 500 but an enrollment of 600, even though the additional 100 students may be housed in portables, the school is still overcrowded by 100 students. She stated classroom size is up to the School Board; and there is a split between facilities and operations. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is the dilemma he heard from Mr. Duke; and there may be a new classroom, but it may have too many children in the room.

Chairman Carlson read aloud, "when enrollment exceeds the capacity of the school, students are at risk, operations are inefficient, programs may fail to meet standards, and the education of the child will be in jeopardy of failing to achieve high quality"; and stated actual design facilities are restricted, and there is only so much that can be stuffed in. Ms. Monico stated one elementary school in East Orange County was growing rapidly; it had practically another whole school in portables taking up its entire playground space; there was no place for children to go at recess; and that lasted for one year until a new school was finished. She stated in talking about development and land use approvals, the County cannot tie that to school operations, but it can be tied into the availability of facilities; and a public school is a public facility. Commissioner Scarborough commented on the problems getting from portables to the library or cafeteria; and inquired what other problems are there with portables from the teacher's perspective and the capacity to communicate with students. Ms. Monico advised she is not familiar with that, and works for the County, not the School Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is ultimately what the constituents will ask. Ms. Monico stated in Orange County, when there are bad thunderstorms, the students' day is disrupted by having to come into the main building; so there is a safety issue. Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Curry indicated some of the older portables in the County are long and narrow; and there is a problem because of the shape. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if all portables are the same, and are there safe portables. He stated sometimes the County opens one school and closes another; and the County needs to define what is bad about portables from a safety and teaching condition because there may be levels of problems. Ms. Monico stated Orange County is looking at a more permanent relocatable that is built of pre-stressed concrete; it is designed to be placed at the site and left there, but can be moved, if needed; and Orange County just does not have enough schools no matter how fast it builds them.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is statistical data on the teacher-student ratio on a Statewide basis; with Ms. Monico responding she does not have those, but they should be available from the Department of Education. Commissioner Scarborough stated his primary goal would be to have more facilities and reduce the student-teacher ratio; and that has to be part of the driving force. Ms. Monico stated facilities are just one part of the puzzle; if there are not enough classrooms for the children that are there, they are going to be overcrowded; but once there is classroom space then it is possible to look at the operational issues.

Commissioner Higgs stated State law divides those budgetary issues for the School Board so there is logic to defend the position in court. Ms. Monico stated the funding is separate; and even if there was a huge increase in operational funding and it was not all needed, it could not be used for facilities. She stated it is not possible to get State funding for facilities until the students are actually there; and even if there is a 1,000 unit subdivision going in, the School Board cannot build the school until the students are there to fill the school.

Chairman Carlson stated that is the big problem; and inquired if the Orange County School Board ever addressed any issues concerning maximum number of portables any school can have; with Ms. Monico responding no. Chairman Carlson inquired if student-teacher ratios have been addressed; with Ms. Monico responding Pre-K through 3 programs are subject to State and local objectives to keep class sizes below 21 students; and this is why schools with FISH capacity may not have capacity as they have classrooms designed for 28 students with only 21 students.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Orange County is in the Court of Appeals in the Fifth District and has it been heard; with Ms. Monico responding no, the petition was filed a month ago, but they have not received an order to show cause yet. Ms. Monico stated there is a motion to strike pending both from the County and the School Board; and that will have to be addressed before the order to show cause because if the motion is granted to strike, the petitioner will have to do a new petition. She advised the Florida Association of Counties agreed to join Orange County in an amicus brief as has the City of Melbourne; the Florida School Board Association is looking at it now; and a letter was sent to the Florida League of Cities requesting they consider joining in an amicus brief.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there are many ways to measure quality such as the FCAT scores or other national tests; and if scores go down when more portables are added, it is an indicator that quality is slipping.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Orange County looked at how other states that have better quality education systems are doing things; with Ms. Monico responding no. Ms. Monico stated the County was not involved in that part of it; and they looked outside the State in terms of case law and whether the denials of rezonings based on school overcrowding could be upheld.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in other states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, every municipality has its own school board. Chairman Carlson stated all states are set up differently. Ms. Monico stated one of the difficulties in Florida is that school districts are by county; in the larger counties it is more difficult to get a handle on things because they are dealing with so much area and such a high population; and it might be easier to have school districts by municipalities as there are in other areas. Commissioner O'Brien stated in the municipalities, if the citizens wanted a higher standard, they would elect a school board with that in mind; the school board would then make those moves or charge the taxes to give the citizens what they want; and he personally feels smaller is better. Ms. Monico stated that works up to a point in Orange County; but it would not matter who was elected because Orange County is maxed out on its funding, and there is no way to get more unless the voters could be convinced to go for a half-cent referendum; and the School Board is discussing that.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a scenario of excess stations in the district; with Ms. Monico responding not for some time; in the last ten years the schools have been barely keeping up with growth in terms of new stations; and they were already at a deficit. Ms. Monico stated the problem is they had to build so much to keep up with growth that some existing schools are in terrible shape; a lot of the $1.3 billion deficit is in existing schools that need to be renovated or replaced; and there are some modular schools that are at the end of their useful life and need replacement.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Orange County uses the feeder chain as its criteria in the zoning issue. Ms. Monico stated they look at the three or four schools, the current enrollment, the FISH capacity, whether there are going to be any reliever schools built, and if rezoning can take care of the problem. She stated Appendix B-1 is the most important part of the report; and commented on the Glenridge Middle and Cheney Elementary Schools. She stated there is a list of all school construction for 1997-2002, a list of new school construction as well as pre-construction, expansion, and replacement of obsolete schools; and commented on lack of money to correct problems at Cheney Elementary. She stated the other situation is the Morgran planned development in East Orange County, which is a large planned development; the School Board cannot keep up with all the growth in that area; and they are building five new elementary schools and it is still not going to be enough. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the school impact fee in Orange County; with Ms. Monico responding she does not remember, but it is the second highest in the State, and still does not cover the cost of the actual impact. She stated some developers and builders have come to the School Board asking a way to mitigate; and one mitigation has been approved although there are a lot of others that may be close. She stated the one that was approved was a developer who came in on a fairly small subdivision in Northwest Orange County; the School Board said if he prepaid his impact fees and paid an additional $1,200 and $1,500 per home, and capacity could be increased, it could work; a committee looked at it, but it was not going to create any capacity at the school; and the original developer joined with another developer in the area and created enough capacity in the media center at the elementary school to make it work. She stated there are some large DRI's that are also working with the School Board to find different ways of mitigation; and it is causing the community to come up with different ideas and ways to solve the problem. She stated that is only a stop-gap measure, and only stops Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings; anything already zoned residential is not affected; and there is plenty of land in Orange County that is already zoned residential.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how does Orange County handle students going out of the district to go to stronger schools. Ms. Monico responded Orange County public schools cap enrollment at those schools, like certain magnet schools; the students in the attendance zone go there; and the number of students coming from outside the attendance zone is capped. Commissioner Scarborough stated if there is a strong principal, who attracts a good faculty, the numbers can start going up; and all of a sudden, there is an imbalance. Commissioner O'Brien stated Dr. DiPatri is from New Jersey, and knows each school has its own school board; and if someone goes to school in Jersey City, and wishes to transfer to Newark, his parents have to pay tuition. Ms. Monico stated they cap enrollment at those schools in Orange County. Chairman Carlson inquired who makes the call on capping a school's enrollment; with Ms. Monico responding the School Board. Chairman Carlson inquired if the principal has the authority to do that; with Orange County Planner responding no. Chairman Carlson stated the principal could indicate his or her school works best at a certain level and the principal does not wish to be deluged by additional students; and inquired if principals could ask the School Board to cap their school; with Ms. Monico responding she supposes they could. Chairman Carlson inquired how much control the principal has; with Ms. Monico responding it depends on the school district; and in Brevard County, principals may have a greater degree of control than principals in Orange County. Ms. Monico advised the Orange County School Board says for a science magnet school, the enrollment cannot go beyond a certain level, whether the principal would prefer the enrollment to be more or not; and students go to school within their attendance zones.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Curry is going to give us information after the six-day count; with Ms. Busacca responding Mr. Curry can explain the process as far as capping enrollment. Commissioner Scarborough stated what is driving it is not whether there is a portable or lunch is at a certain time, but the educational experience the child is getting; and that is the key element. He stated it is going to be difficult for the County to get it out of the zoning issue; and if it cannot be equated to quality education, the conversation is going to break down rapidly. Ms. Monico stated that is why Orange County asks the public schools whether they can handle additional students in a certain area; the School Board advises the County whether it can or cannot; and the greatest problems are in the elementary schools in terms of capacity. She stated the School Board is better able to determine how many additional students can be handled without affecting the quality of education at the school.

Commissioner Colon stated there seems to be more momentum for counties and municipalities to work closely with school boards; and inquired how serious are the municipalities concerning this issue. She advised the County has no jurisdiction in the incorporated areas, but they affect the decisions the Board makes; and either everyone works as a team or nothing is done. Ms. Monico responded none of the municipalities in Orange County is following what the County is doing. Chairman Carlson inquired if they do not agree with the philosophy; with Ms. Monico responding she does not know, as she has not spoken to a lot of people in the municipalities. Ms. Monico advised some of the municipalities that are built out do not have the problem; Ocoee is doing some things, including sponsoring a charter school; and other municipalities are doing other things to try and deal with the problem. She stated as far as following the approach the County has taken, some municipalities are waiting to see what happens in court. Ms. Strickland advised 67% of Orange County is unincorporated. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if growth is occurring primarily in the unincorporated areas; with Ms. Monico responding yes. Ms. Monico advised of the high growth rates in east and west Orange County; and stated the population of the County has increased 32.3% between 1990 and 2000, but the K-12 enrollment in public schools has increased 47.9% in the same period. Commissioner Higgs inquired how Brevard County compare; with Mr. Scott responding he cannot address school enrollment, but the population increased 25% in the last decade.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to do some measuring with Orange County, particularly east Orange County; and commented on the number of people moving to Brevard County who work in Orange County, as opposed to people from Orange County driving to the Space Center.

Commissioner O'Brien stated someone mentioned the population of the County increased 100% in the past 20 years; and inquired if the County expanded 50% in ten years and 50% in he next ten years or 80% across ten years with a dramatic slowdown. Mr. Scott advised the County is growing approximately 1.9% a year; but as the base number grows, the percentage number lowers, with the total number of people coming to the County continuing at a high rate. Commissioner Colon stated the key word is they are "coming" from somewhere else into the County. Ms. Busacca stated using rough numbers, there was a 25% increase between 1991 and 2000 in school population. Commissioner Higgs stated that parallels the population. Commissioner Scarborough stated in Orange County there is a much greater increase in school enrollment. Ms. Monico stated that is due to the demographics.

Discussion ensued on movement of Hispanic population from South Florida to Central Florida, watching what other counties are doing, anticipating what will happen, increase in immigrant population in Orange County, tourism service industry, demographics, and population figures for Brevard County.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the initiative came from Mel Martinez or from the School Board. Ms. Monico responded the initiative came from Chairman Martinez; he and the Commissioners had expressed frustration about what could be done about this issue; Chairman Martinez asked the County Attorney about concurrency; and that could not be done in Orange County due to lack of funds. Commissioner Scarborough inquired at what juncture does the dialogue need to shift to the School Board; with Ms. Monico responding a lot of the cooperative work took place between the County staff and the School Board staff; and commented on the success of the School Siting Committee in getting sites, but lack of money to build schools on them. She recommended the Board get involved with the School Board right away.

Mr. Scott stated the Orange County Land Use Plan is much different from Brevard County's Plan; Orange County is experiencing pressures to increase residential density; and heir pasture lands do not have the density assigned that some of the areas in Brevard County have. He stated in a typical year, the County processes 150 to 200 rezoning applications; only a small percentage of those would be requesting a significant increase in residential density; and he wanted to put into perspective the opportunities that would exist in Brevard County to use this tool for rezoning applications. Commissioner Higgs stated the future land use map did not adequately define urban and rural areas the first time out, leaving too much density in rural areas. Mr. Scott agreed it was very generous in its assignment of density. Mr. Scott stated former Chairman Mel Martinez appointed a Public Schools Task Force one year prior to issuance of his memorandum directing staff to submit a recommendation of denial to certain rezonings; and advised of the coordination and communication with the Homebuilders Association of Mid-Florida, the Orange County PTA, the Board of Realtors, and the Orange County Homeowners Association, through their evaluation of concurrency, in deciding it did not want to go that route. He noted this methodology is being used in Brevard County.

Chairman Carlson inquired how interaction with the School Board in Palm Beach was started; with Mr. Duke responding it began because Palm Beach County put a policy in its Comprehensive Plan that it would not approve land use changes or rezonings that exceeded the natural or manmade constraints on the area. Mr. Duke stated the County began by asking the School Board to comment on every petition for rezoning or land use change, and to indicate whether there would be overcrowding; it began getting into the mode of the County and School Board talking together; and as that progressed, the County made the decision to go to the next step of concurrency. He stated the Board of County Commissioners, the League of Cities, and the School District began meeting on a regular basis to discuss what would need to be done; that began in 1994; and by 1996, they had a conceptual agreement as to the process.

Melissa Hoagland stated she has three children enrolled in Suntree Elementary and one who will be going there in the future; and advised the numbers that have been given are statistically flawed because making projections on school membership based on the births in a County does not take into account the influx of new development. She commented on student stations exceeding number of students, inability to parcel students to available stations without regard for students' residences, school capacity numbers being by school rather than by District, and schools over design capacity. She stated she is pleased to hear the Brevard County School District is attempting to address the schools that are overcrowded, but the proposals that have been offered using the $50 million in COP's are addressing the 2001-2002 projected numbers only. She advised the School District cannot plan for students from a development until the development is built; and in the Suntree/Viera area over 2,500 additional homes are not included in the projections although they have already been approved for development or are under debate now. She stated the student influx on the near horizon needs to be taken into consideration if the community planning is going to take place in an intelligent fashion; and commented on the experience of Palm Beach County in focusing on core capacity. She stated addressing the problem of portables by building more permanent classrooms only leads to permanent overtaxing of the schools for capacity; and advised of students having to go to lunch at 9:45 a.m. She commented on portables being moved if population changes, permanent additions cementing overcrowding, the County legally empowered to act on this issue, and cooperation with the School Board. She requested the County stop further residential development in areas where overcrowding exists exceeding building design capacities and Comprehensive Plan standards until the problem is addressed with participation of the School Board; stated the public will closely follow the District's progress in addressing the situation; and emphasized they are not calling for construction to be ceased in the County. She stated if there are 7,000 extra student stations in the County, then there must be areas where residential construction can occur without causing or exacerbating school overcrowding; and this is not a moratorium, but the first steps in intelligent community planning.

Franck Kaiser, representing the Homebuilders and Contractors Association, stated better planning and communication can solve the problems; the School Board is doing a good job; and a concurrency plan is not needed to accomplish the goals. He stated concurrency would be disruptive to quality development; it takes seven years from the time a development starts, until the final house is built; in that time, a lot of changes take place; and the rules need to be changed to be more responsive. He commented on schools opening at over-capacity, changing the rules, more responsive student projections, Palm Beach plan being too expensive and cumbersome for Brevard County, and difference in the demographics of Orange and Brevard Counties. He stated as the impact of the baby boom generation has peaked, requirements for school population will be declining; the County does not want to overbuild capacity; and relocatable classrooms make a lot of sense. He stated funding for schools needs to be identified; the concern is crowding of the classrooms and school capacity, which are not addressed by concurrency; and shifting and aging populations need to be recognized. He commented on a study commissioned by the Florida Homebuilders Association, which shows that 65% to 70% of overcrowding comes from existing population and only 30% is from new people moving into the area, and the need to look at the shifting of population. He stated the growth rate in Brevard County has not been that of Palm Beach or Orange Counties; and better planning and communication between County leadership and the School Board would be wise. He stated it is not necessary to stop development.

Mark Ryan, City Manager of City of West Melbourne, stated the City has worked well with the School Board in the past with the siting of several schools; there are three public schools in the City as well as a private school; West Melbourne has doubled in population since 1980; and more will come. He advised of relocation of Meadowlane Elementary adjoining 1,500 acres of vacant land, development of the vacant land into four residential developments, and State law not allowing the School Board to build based upon projected growth. He recommended lobbying the Legislature to solve the problem of not being able to build on projected growth; and commented on impact fees for schools in Lake County. He stated if Brevard County had a $1,200 impact fee last year, West Melbourne alone would have given the School Board $180,000 in impact fees to solve school problems. He stated there has been talk about infrastructure sales tax for many years; when presented to the voters, it has failed; but if that was in place, who knows what kind of revenue would be available.

Sue Sawyer advised she has a daughter in tenth grade and another in middle school; and advised of her background in Orange County and Brevard County as a PTO member, SAC member, room mother, and classroom tutor. She advised of problems with portables including air quality problems, limited bathroom facilities, uncovered walkways from the portables to the permanent structures, narrow classrooms making teaching difficult, air conditioning breakdowns, storm evacuations, limited storage, no phones, and children with severe health problems being at some distance from school nurse. She stated permanent structures are not going to necessarily improve a lot of things; they will set in motion permanently overcrowded lunchrooms; and commented on developments being built, which are targeted at young families. She recommended the Board be careful in planning; stated she moved from Orange County to Brevard County to get away from the overcrowding; and there are a number of people in the community willing to help in any way to make sure the planning for the community goes the way it should.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like staff to delineate a cooperative effort between the Board and the School Board to work to change the State laws that are impediments; and they should work with Guy Spearman and the School Board's lobbyist. He stated staff should come back to the Board with all the recommendations made at today's workshop, and specify what the changes should be and which parts of the laws should be changed. He advised when people appear before the Board saying they do not like something about an ordinance and specifically say how it should read, 90% of the time the Board makes the change. He stated he would like staff to show good solutions; there are too many impediments now; and staff should offer the Board specific directions and recommendations on the creation of a plan to get from point A to point Q so it has a map in front of it to get from here to there. He stated it was said this will cause no growth; and that is totally erroneous because this is not a no-growth plan. He stated this is a plan that says there will be growth and the County has to be ready for it. He stated if there is going to be construction, the County will have to partner with the School Board to make sure the school is in place or there is at least a good projection of when it is going to happen so the School Board can budget appropriately; and the County will have to provide the infrastructure needs for the school. He advised of the Task Force in Orange County; and stated he would like to see something similar in the County's plan. He stated in the future when the School Board plans schools, the County should be a partner in that decision so it can make sure the road to the school does not cost more than the school. He noted building a road costs $1.4 million a mile; and if the School Board plans to put a school out eight miles, and the County has to build the road, it should discuss this with the School Board. He stated the demographics in the census note the County has changed to an older population; but that change can also reverse itself; and next year there may be a different change with more young families. He stated if the County plans now, it will not be in Palm Beach County's position with schools 300% over capacity; but if it waits until the problem starts, it will be having a lot of children who will not be going to college, but will be working in service jobs in Orlando instead. He stated the Board needs to prepare now for quality schools; he has always been a proponent for quality schools, and will do anything to see the County raise its standard; and he would like to see the County have the highest standard in the State. He stated in terms of studies about the aging of Brevard County, when he was Chairman of the Brevard County Water Board, they pulled out seven different studies on water problems in the County going back 15 years; and all of them were flushed as the projections were wrong. He stated the studies were based upon population explosions and projections that never occurred; and some of the numbers mentioned earlier may turn out to be the opposite. He commented on construction in Suntree and Merritt Island, lack of elementary schools in the Merritt Island area, and the School Board possibly being unaware of planned construction. He stated the Board cannot stop growth; it can make sure the growth conforms with the infrastructure needs; and development with an aging population may be driven by the overcrowded schools if young families do not want to move to the area due to the overcrowding. He stated senior citizens also have their share of problems; and it will be a whole different expense. He stated growth will go in a different way, but it will continue to grow. He stated some people confuse the role of the Board with that of the School Board; the Board must remind people it is not the School Board and does not make those decisions about overcrowding of schools and portables; and the discussion today was about concurrency or considering the overcrowding when dealing with zoning issues. He stated he does not want to get 15 telephone calls about portables; that is not his job; and all the Board can do is prevent growth from overriding to the point that entire playgrounds are full of portables. He stated the Board knows growth is coming; and requested direction from staff on the first step for the Board to work with the School Board.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is meeting with the School Board again; with Chairman Carlson advising the Board was supposed to meet in the summer. Ms. Busacca stated the Board had asked to meet in the August timeframe; however at this point, there have not been agenda items identified; and staff felt after this meeting, the Board may have items it wished to discuss. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is talking about sales tax and so is the School Board; the County tries to attract people into the community with higher paying jobs; and if there is going to be high tech industry, there must be quality education. He stated if the Board spends money on tax abatements and different things to attract business but is not willing to talk about having quality schools, there is a problem; the School Board is part of economic development; and the School Board and County need to work together.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board needs to schedule a meeting in August with the School Board, if that can be worked out, to talk about these kinds of issues. She stated the Board is much better educated than it was and needs to ask some fundamental questions of the School Board; and hopefully, the School Board has also discussed these issues and can provide some perspective.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to request from staff the same report that Orange County is getting for its rezonings that increase density; there are some zonings coming out in the next few weeks; and that is the date the Board needs.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to provide, through cooperation with the School Board, information inclusive of all that the Orange County Board is getting, and any other data that can be provided.

Chairman Carlson stated staff can assist the Board in making any decisions regarding zoning or anything like that.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated she assumes the changes are going to be brought back at some other workshop; and Commissioner O'Brien mentioned changes to the law and discussions today concerning concurrency and schools at the zoning level and in terms of the Comprehensive Plan concurrency, could move forward. She stated there will be a meeting with the School Board, which should include discussion about the issue of concurrency. She stated some municipalities have stepped forward to engage in the discussion; and there should be specific discussion about changing State law. She stated the Board should be very specific in making recommendations to the Legislative Delegation on how school concurrency could work; and the Board and School Board should work together on how that concurrency could be shaped to be meaningful. She stated there is a tremendous amount to be gained by moving forward on concurrency and having those discussions with the School Board.

Commissioner Colon stated she would like to go one step further and set up a meeting at the end of October; at this time the Board, School Board and municipalities are all working on their budgets; and at the end of October, it could schedule a meeting, possibly hosted by Brevard Community College, with the Florida League of Cities, School Board, and Board of County Commissioners to hear presentations by Mr. Duke and Ms. Monico. She stated that will allow questions from the municipalities and the School Board; and it will be possible to have a dialogue. She stated it would be very beneficial to get a sense of where the community wants to go from here; the end of October would be a good time because everyone will be finished with the budgets; and it will be good to get an idea whether there is desire to move this forward or stay where we are.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to set up a meeting at the end of October 2001 with the Florida League of Cities, Brevard County School Board, and Board of County Commissioners to have a presentation by Frank Duke of Palm Beach County and Vivian Monico of Orange County.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if this would be instead of the other meeting; with Commissioner Colon responding no, it would be in addition. Commissioner Higgs stated it would bring everybody together to talk about these issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to get some definition from the School Board as to the sales tax; and the Board needs to use the time wisely because some of the people can only meet a certain number of times. Chairman Carlson stated some of these things can be clarified at the August meeting. Commissioner Higgs stated the School Board needs to decide about the sales tax and advise the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Scarborough stated the municipalities are involved; and inquired if that is the same meeting or a separate meeting; with Commissioner Higgs responding separate. Commissioner Higgs stated that is a discussion they need to have and inform the Board of County Commissioners.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct the staff and the County Attorney's office to work with the School Board staff to identify specific changes that should be made in the State laws and rules to benefit the people of Brevard County in terms of eliminating the impediments to planning schools in conjunction with development rather than waiting until development is complete.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has not read the law; and the School Board may indicate that is not the biggest problem. Commissioner O'Brien stated some changes to the law will be prepared for the Board; and if it does not like them, it will not pass them. Chairman Carlson inquired if that is something that could be brought in front of the joint meeting, to get the language together and discuss it. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County's staff is working with the School Board staff; the School Board would have a lot more specificity as to what changes are needed; and when the idea comes back from the School Board, the Board can advise Mr. Spearman and the Delegation of the problems and how it can be changed.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson stated Commissioner Higgs brought up the future land use map densities potentially being too high in some of the rural areas; and inquired if the Board should be looking at some of those areas and reassessing the densities so Brevard County does not have the kind of problem Orange County has. Ms. Busacca stated staff will be bringing that back as part of the urban boundary discussion for which the Board requested a report.

Commissioner Scarborough stated yesterday the Board voted to talk about a moratorium in the 25-year floodplain, and heard the problems of Deer Run; that will all be keyed into the urban boundary discussion; there is some relationship as to where and how things should be built; and it is more than just road capacity, but also water, livability, and a number of things.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: LETTERS OF APPRECIATION

Commissioner Scarborough suggested writing letters of appreciation to the Chairmen of the Palm Beach County and Orange County Boards of County Commissioners as well as to Mr. Curry and Superintendent DiPatri.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Chairman to send letters to the County Commissions of Palm Beach and Orange Counties and to the Brevard Superintendent of Schools expressing appreciation for their generous cooperation.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 1:32 p.m.

___________________________________
ATTEST: SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )