March 15, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session with the School Board on March 15, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Brevard County 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, County Manager Tom Jenkins, County Attorney Scott Knox, Chairman of School Board Rich Wilson, School Board Members William Powell, Bea Fowler, Larry Hughes, and Janice Kershaw, School Board Superintendent Dr. Richard A. DiPatri, and School Board Attorney Harold Bistline.

WELCOME

Chairman Sue Carlson welcomed the School Board Members and members introduced themselves, as follows: Chairman of Brevard County School Board Rich Wilson, Bill Powell, District 1 School Board Member; Bea Fowler, District 2 School Board Member; Larry Hughes, District 4 School Board Member; Janice Kershaw, District 5 School Board Member; School Board Superintendent Dr. Richard DiPatri; and School Board Attorney Harold Bistline. Chairman Carlson stated the School Board and County Commission have many issues that cross paths; and today's agenda was developed through the County and School Board staff.

Rich Wilson stated there has been discussion about the School Board and County Commission working together, which is a wonderful idea; when the two Boards work in a cooperative methodology they can get a lot accomplished; and he looks forward to working together with everyone.

Chairman Carlson stated the County Manager's and Superintendent's agenda lists issues they will be discussing on a monthly basis; Item 4, Communications/Coordination includes expanding promotion of the County Employee Youth Mentoring Program; and inquired is the County working with Take Stock in Children, the School Board Foundation's group that is working in the mentoring department for low-income scholarships and mentoring. County Manager Tom Jenkins responded the County has been in contact with School Board staff and is working on a mentoring program; but he is not familiar with the details and will get additional information. Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Jenkins contact Sarah Stern concerning the issue; stated she was at a Take Stock in Children Leadership Council Meeting this morning; the School Board is going to be getting a television channel in October, 2002; and there was discussion of the School Board and County Commission working together concerning a production studio.

Dr. DiPatri stated on February 27, 2001, the School Board discussed a professional development-training center; one element in such center would be a high-tech, state-of-the-art television production facility; and to mutually share it makes sense.

DISCUSSION, RE: ALIGNMENT OF SCHOOL BOARD AND COUNTY COMMISSION
MEMBERS DISTRICTS

Chairman Carlson stated prior to the 2000 Election, the issue came up concerning the School Board District boundary lines and the new changes; the impact evolved into having 12 new precincts; the County Commission had questions regarding it and Attorney Bistline was present to make comments concerning the legal issues, having coincident boundaries, and what the implications to potential Charter changes for the County Commission may be; and requested the County Manager provide the background information.

Mr. Jenkins advised the Charter specifically outlines the process the Board of County Commissioners has to use for redistricting; each Commissioner appoints three citizen members to a committee that will do a redistricting plan; such plan is then submitted to the Board and it has to either accept or reject it; and if the plan is rejected, it would go back to the committee. He stated Attorney Bistline has written a paper in terms of the School Board's perspective on the issue.

School Board Attorney Harold Bistline stated the School Board's statutory method of redistricting is similar to the County's; Brevard County, through its Charter government, has delegated the process to a committee, but the School Board has not; the body itself makes the decision; and they can redistrict any district in any meeting of the School Board or County Commission as long as it is in an even-numbered year. He noted the way the County Commission boundaries are set up, each Commissioner has some beachside, but the School Board does not; the School Board has some other issues that may not be the same as what the County's issues are; the School Board has 12 high schools in the district; and the School Board has an interest in having each School Board member have an equal number of high schools, secondary schools, and elementary schools in his or her district for good reasons. Attorney Bistline stated he understands the consternation the School Board caused for the County the last time it redistricted; the School Board did not do it on purpose and had a good reason to redistrict at that time; it did everything it could to minimize the downside for the Supervisor of Elections; but it had to make its populations as equal as possible. He noted the School Board had not redistricted in quite some time; based on the data it received from the County's demographics staff, the population in the School Board's districts were way off; and such Board felt compelled to do the redistricting. He stated an alternative to the co-terminus proposition is that the School Board work more closely with the County Commission and Supervisor of Elections in the event it redistricts again to try to avoid or eliminate precinct issues that occurred last time.

Chairman Carlson inquired does Attorney Bistline foresee the School Board redistricting again for the census data; with Attorney Bistline responding it would depend on how the data comes out and how close the School Board is to being nearly as equal in population as practicable. Chairman Carlson noted instead of waiting until the census data came out, there were reasons the School Board believed the redistricting needed to be taken care. Attorney Bistline stated the School Board went to single-member districts; some districts had 30 to 40% difference in population; the redistricting was done based on best available numbers of the School Board; so the decision was made to go forward at that time to redistrict.

School Board Member Bea Fowler inquired is the School Board required to redistrict after the census; with Attorney Bistline responding not unless the census would show there is an imbalance in population that would be a reason to redistrict. Ms. Fowler stated one suggestion included a committee for the County Commission and School Board to redraw the district lines; it would be possible to achieve the same purpose with two committees so that neither the County or the School Board would lose their individuality; there could be an advantage to having the district lines the same, which would depend on both Boards; but the Board should be provided with maps in the beginning to show the differences.

Mr. Wilson stated it is his understanding that individual Board members are not allowed to be involved in the redistricting themselves, but only approve or deny any recommendation that comes from a committee; and the Board members are not allowed to sit on the committee to influence. Attorney Bistline noted that is not the School Board's process and may be the County's process developed through its Charter; and under Florida Statutes, the County and School Board are authorized to do that themselves in a public meeting. Mr. Wilson stated it would be well advised, from his perspective, if individual Board members were not involved in districting their own districts; and it would be better served if committees did it for the Boards as opposed to having an individual suggesting that a Board member was doing something for political reasons. Attorney Bistline stated that is how the School Board did it the last time.

Chairman Carlson stated the main reason for bringing the issue up is to be more efficient and save taxpayers' dollars, and try to bring the district lines as close to the same as possible; and it also reduces confusion on the part of the voter.

School Board Member Larry Hughes stated Fred Galey's letter includes three points-cost, voter confusion, and gerrymandering syndrome; Mr. Galey strongly recommends the County Commission and School Board Districts' boundaries are made coincidental; it is possible and good ideas were expressed by Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fowler; there are slightly different requirements for the County Commission and School Board in terms of how they approve the districts, but he sees no reason why a parallel committee could not be appointed, three members from each district, to sit with the County Commission's three members from each district and make a recommendation to co-locate the boundaries and be aligned.

Ms. Fowler stated when the School Board redistricted in 1991, it found it beneficial to hire a consultant to do it; and inquired if that option should be considered.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he sat through the last redistricting; the County Commission was very involved with it; some of it was not pretty; and it was politically oriented.

Commissioner Higgs stated since the County Commission is required by the Charter to name the committee and they may need professional guidance, the suggestion of a parallel group is an excellent idea; it gives the School Board flexibility and moves both Boards forward; and perhaps the County Commission and School Board can jointly share consulting expertise that would bring the information to the table.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the person being left out of the equation is the Supervisor of Elections who wants to give advice and be part of the process; if a committee were to be formed, a lot of time, effort, and taxpayers' money could be saved if the committee was comprised of the Supervisor of Elections, Superintendent of Schools, County Manager, and Attorneys for the County Commission and School Board; and it would be coordinating this gargantuan effort. He noted the shifting of boundary lines by both the County Commission and School Board creates voter confusion and a gerrymandering feeling by the public; and it can be avoided by having people who are outside of that box, but still professional enough to take a good look at it and coordinate the effort.

Commissioner Carlson stated it may be a possible solution, but the County Commission is bound by a 15-member committee with its Charter.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Charter requires the County Commission to appoint a committee that will make a recommendation on the district lines; the County Commission has to approve or disapprove such recommendation; and there is nothing that stops the School Board and County Commission from appointing a consulting team, as suggested by Commissioner O'Brien, or a consultant.

Commissioner Higgs stated the consulting team could outline a process; it pulls everyone together and does what Commissioner O'Brien and Ms. Fowler are talking about; and it moves everybody forward. Ms. Fowler stated the School Board has not decided whether it is going to redistrict or not. Commissioner Higgs stated it may not have to, but in this process it would look at what is, what might be, and make a decision down the road if what would come about would be better; the School Board would not be locked in and be in the same decision-making role; but both Boards move together to see if it would work. Ms. Fowler stated there is a great deal of advantage to the County Commission and School Board Districts being aligned; it is confusing even when one is directly involved in it; as an innocent voter on the sidelines, it can become a real problem; and there is a lot to gain from considering the issue. Chairman Carlson stated the County is in the process of election reform, so maybe it can do a little bit of it itself; the preliminary numbers on the census show that the County is going to be redistricting due to the population growth in certain districts; and perhaps Messrs. Jenkins and DiPatri can discuss the issue and present an outline for both Boards to come up with a solution of mutual interests on how to deal with it.

Ms. Fowler inquired when will the census figures be provided; with Chairman Carlson responding April, 2001.

Mr. Wilson inquired is the County Commission bound by a 15-member committee; with Chairman Carlson responding that is what the Charter lays out. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County Commission is bound by a 15-member Charter committee that can and probably would create a subcommittee to provide recommendations.

School Board Member Bill Powell inquired when was the last time the County changed its boundaries; with Mr. Jenkins responding 1991. Mr. Powell stated the School Board also did it in 1991; the only reason it changed the boundaries again was because of single-member districts; the School Board's boundaries may be more correct than the County's boundaries; and the School Board had to look at Florida Statutes as close as possible. He noted because of the population of a high school in one area or another, the School Board adjusted slightly; it also divided up some of the high schools in the southern end; it may be looking at it in a joint venture; and a lot of things the County Commission is doing are driven by its Charter Review Commission (CRC), which the School Board does not fall under.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Powell would feel comfortable if the group Commissioner O'Brien outlined, the two Attorneys, the two administrative heads, and the Supervisor of Elections, worked on outlining a process for both Boards individually to look at and decide if they could mesh the process together, leaving all decisions to the two separate Boards following those processes, but allow both Boards to share information and interact fully. Mr. Powell stated if both Boards can meet together and come up with a consensus for the betterment of Brevard County, he is all for it.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to request the County Attorney, School Board Attorney, County Manager, School Board Superintendent, and Supervisor of Elections to bring back a draft for review by both Boards on how the Districts could be similar and a process that would assist the Boards.

Mr. Hughes inquired if the five-member group is an advisory board; with Commissioner Higgs responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs stated the advisory board would draft a process for the Boards to review; it has nothing to do with the process that may go forward; it is not a committee that has any empowerment to do the redistricting; and it will set out guidelines.

Mr. Jenkins stated there needs to be two separate votes on the motion as there are two different Boards.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Charter says this has to be done in the first odd year following the census; the first odd year is 2001; and there is probably a December 31, 2001 deadline. Chairman Carlson inquired if there needs to be a date attached to the motion; with Commissioner Higgs responding negatively as it is part of the process that has to be recognized. School Board Member Janice Kershaw stated because a process is going to be set up does not necessarily commit the School Board to redistricting at this time as it does not have the census data; when the School Board started redistricting the last time, Ms. Fowler made an excellent point that if it redistricted again the next election year, there are going to be some people who may not have been able to vote in two elections in a row for a school board member; and that needs to be kept in mind when looking at the fairness of the redistricting process this time.

Attorney Bistline stated the School Board advertised today's meeting as a workshop where no official action would be taken by the School Board, but it can have consensus. Mr. Wilson stated the School Board can take action on the items at its next meeting; and requested Dr. DiPatri place the items on the next agenda. He advised there is consensus from the School Board to request the County Attorney, School Board Attorney, County Manager, School Board Superintendent, and Supervisor of Elections to bring back a draft for review by both Boards on how the Districts could be similar and a process that would assist the Boards.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: SCHOOL PLANNING

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated staff placed a concept before the Boards' members, which recently made it into the Governor's Bill, which is embracing some of the recommendations of the Growth Management Study Commission and has been used recently by Orange County; the concept recognizes that proposed increases in residential density will further increase physical enrollment in those very areas; the concept proposes that when the County receives a proposed increase in residential density, either through a rezoning or a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, it would forward the proposal to a pre-selected technical staff person that the School Board has; and the information the County would be seeking from such staff would not be an analysis with regard to the land use action being proposed, but simply an analysis of the school capacity that would be served by that proposed residential increase. He noted the County would then receive the information from technical staff; it could then, under its Home Rule, exercise its ability to look at a number of factors, such as neighborhood compatibility and school capacity; if it came back to the County that the rezoning or Comprehensive Plan amendment that was proposed in the increase in density would be in an area where the school was currently overcrowded, it would take the information and forward to the Board a recommendation of denial for the proposal; and if it were to adopt the process in its entirety that Orange County has used successfully, it would also request the Brevard County School Board staff be present at the public hearing. Mr. Scott advised rezonings are quasi-judicial proceedings; the Board of County Commissioners sits up as a judge in such proceedings; and the County would request that the technical staff that provided the information on the overcrowded condition would also enter into the record its substantial and competent testimony in the same regard.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there are many acres on north Merritt Island zoned RU-4 or RU-8; without having to go for rezoning, a developer could build 100 houses; the rezoning does not come before the School Board; and such Board should be aware of it before ground is broken so it can plan its schools and their locations based on development. Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner O'Brien is looking to concurrency and levels of service, and inquired is it part of the methodology staff is addressing; with Mr. Scott responding negatively. Mr. Scott stated there is an obvious distinction that is being drawn with this concept now; the concept the County is empowered to do at this point does not affect the vested subdivisions and vested rights people have based on current zoning; they are able to go forward with a subdivision with building permit approval; and without an official school concurrency program adopted and recognized by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the County is only left with the concept applying to proposed rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments which it has the ability to approve or deny based on its Home Rule powers. Commissioner Scarborough stated with all currency there is some degree of vesting that occurs; what Commissioner O'Brien wants the County Commission to address is the Comprehensive Plan itself and use school capacity as a matter of concurrency; and inquired is it something the County can look at. Mr. Scott responded it can be reviewed; currently, Florida Statutes allow local governments to adopt a school concurrency program; it was put in Florida Statutes a couple of years ago by the Florida Legislature; and the law, as it stands right now, is cumbersome and complex to the point that it has not yet been used effectively by an local government. He stated it is another issue that is pressing and is also imported into Governor Bush's bill this session, talking about making it easier for local governments to grapple with the concurrency/building permit phenomena of development, not just the few rezoning applications the County sees to propose increased density.

Chairman Carlson inquired has the Orange County methodology been challenged in court; with Mr. Scott responding affirmatively. Mr. Scott stated the Orange County position is that it is not exercising a concurrency program at this point and simply denied a few rezoning requests under Home Rule powers; the other side of the coin is trying to make the argument that it was a school concurrency-based decision and did not have a legal basis; and Brevard County staff does not know how it will play out and is monitoring it.

Commissioner Colon stated in the City of Palm Bay, an apartment complex with approximately 324 units went in; Jupiter Elementary School had children it was not expecting; the School had to try to catch up, which was not fair; and the municipalities also need to partnership. She noted it hurts everyone involved as it affects infrastructure and safety of the children; the children are walking on the streets and not sidewalks; and if there is not the right type of planning, it can be dangerous for the children.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are two parts-the Orange County model where rezoning that would increase density would be reviewed with the data from the School Board indicating the status of the school; she would support it if the School Board will provide the information; the second part is that the Florida Statute is complex, but it is the more important part in her mind of what the County can do; and the school concurrency law has not been used, but it is a Statute that is there and both Boards should move to look at it. She noted it requires that the School Board establish levels of service like the County has on roads, and will require a significant commitment on the School Board's part to help the County write that segment of the Comprehensive Plan; and she would support both of those if the School Board is willing to give the County the information.

Chairman Carlson inquired has the State formalized classroom size; with Mr. Wilson responding not that he is aware of. Ms. Fowler stated there is a recommended size, but the School Board is not bound by it. Chairman Carlson inquired what is the recommended size; with Ms. Fowler responding it depends on the grade. Ms. Fowler stated there are lower recommended class sizes for the lower grades. Dr. DiPatri stated K-3 is primary with the optimum being 22 to 23 children; the decision is made at the local site on the number of teaching units that may be assigned based on the number of pupils; sometimes the principals have to make judgments because the kids do not fall out in those numbers; and grades 4 through 6 run from 23 to 25 children, middle schools run around 24 children, and high schools are running 26 plus children on average. He stated the School Board in the past two years has allocated additional teaching units to bring down the class size at the secondary level; and the County can follow those figures in terms of the School Board providing the necessary data it needs. Mr. Wilson stated when talking classroom sizes, it is not only increased staff, but infrastructure to support it.

Ms. Fowler stated the big problem is portables; what happens with unexpected students is that at the last minute, the School Board has to frantically add portables; the State is trying to reduce the amount of portables at the schools; and last year the School Board reduced the amount of portables considerably and is looking at reducing them further. She noted that is what growth does to the School Board; the day Ralph M. Williams school opened, portables had to be added; she does not know that much about concurrency, but a developer is not permitted to build if the roads are not there; and perhaps if the school is not there, it should also be considered. Chairman Carlson stated if there is not capacity, then 600 new residential units should not be introduced in an area where it is being serviced by one elementary or middle school.

Mr. Hughes stated there is another bill in draft that would limit school size as opposed to class size to a maximum of 500 children per elementary school, 700 children per middle school, and 900 children per high school; it could be a severe impact, particularly if it is an unfunded mandate from Tallahassee; and what it says is more small neighborhood schools. Chairman Carlson inquired does the Bill also address locational criteria; with Mr. Hughes responding not that he is aware of. Commissioner Higgs stated the Governor's bill may address the issue of school concurrency as mandatory by the year 2003; the County Commission took an initial position on the Orange County model; and if it needs to do it again, it could do so and ask the School Board and its staff to look at the issue of school concurrency to investigate the issues in the current Statute and indicate to the County if it would be interested in Brevard County including it and would work with it on development of it in the Comprehensive Plan.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to request the School Board provide the County Commission information necessary to review school and school overcrowding issues regarding zoning and rezoning issues.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he can support the motion, but there needs to be clarification that Mr. Scott and his staff need a specific person as a point of contact from the School Board staff. Commissioner Higgs stated the County assumes Dr. DiPatri is that person just as Mr. Jenkins is the County's point person.

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

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to request the School Board investigate and report back to the County Commission concerning the use of concurrency concepts currently in Florida Statutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Wilson requested Dr. DiPatri to formulate a recommendation back to the School Board in relationship to the motions by the County Commission to request the School Board provide the County Commission information necessary to review school and school overcrowding issues regarding zoning and zoning issues, and investigate and report back to the County Commission concerning the use of concurrency concepts currently in Florida Statutes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to request the Chairmans of the County Commission and School Board to write joint letters to the mayors of municipalities requesting the cities review the use of concurrency concepts currently in Florida Statutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Wilson requested Dr. DiPatri include the motion by the County Commission requesting the School Board and County Commission to write joint letters to the mayors of municipalities requesting the cities review the use of concurrency concepts currently in Florida Statutes on the School Board's next meeting agenda.

Mr. Powell inquired if the School Board enters into an interlocal agreement concerning concurrency with the County Commission, is the County Commission going to drive the wagon or is it going to be a joint venture. Commissioner Higgs stated she would assume it is an interlocal agreement between the two Boards and a mutual agreement. Mr. Powell inquired will the interlocal agreement be driven somewhat by the CRC; with Attorney Knox responding negatively. Commissioner Higgs stated a concurrency plan would say not only is there a site that there is going to be a building, but there is a plan for it to be there and the capital funding is in place; if it is not, then other things happen in regard to the growth that would go on around the site; and as she understands the Statute, it would be a joint agreement as to how it works out. Attorney Knox advised it is a joint agreement between the School Board, Brevard County, and each municipality.

Ms. Fowler stated whether or not the site or land is available to build the school is a small percentage of the cost of building a school; the real cost of building a school is the building costs; and even if the School Board has the site, it does not mean it has the capital funding to build the school. Commissioner Higgs noted there are operational costs as well. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is going to be a long journey to get all 13 municipalities to sign the interlocal agreement; the School Board members are sincere and do not like portables like anybody else; it wants to deliver a good education in Brevard County; and if the County Commission starts down this road today perhaps it can help the School Board in the future to accomplish that. Chairman Carlson stated it may take a while due to the complexity of it; both Boards need to look at the possibilities of the Orange County model; it circumvents some of the complexity and might be able to get the Boards working in the positive versus the negative a little sooner; and it will be interesting to see what comes back. She noted there are quality of life measurements circulating to all the municipalities and various agencies; Dr. DiPatri provided input on it; a big piece of the quality of life is the classroom size; and if there is any way that the School Board is approaching that in terms of goals and strategy, it might make a big difference in terms of quality of education. Ms. Fowler advised the School Board will be doing its strategic plan; and it will be one of the issues reviewed. Chairman Carlson inquired when is the process starting. Dr. DiPatri responded the School Board will have a draft strategic plan in early May, 2001; he will be recommending to the Board having three or four months of community input; and the plan would be adopted in August or September, 2001.

Ms. Kershaw stated as developments get approved and new homes are built, the School Board also has to try and control the size of the schools, including boundary changes; it is never a pleasant thing to have to do, especially with the number of people who come to the School Board saying they bought their house in a certain area so their children could go to a particular school; and the issue needs to be addressed. Chairman Carlson noted it does not make sense for parents to send their child to school two miles away from their house when they have a school next door to them. Commissioner Colon stated it is an issue that has been difficult for the School Board, Brevard County, and municipalities. Ms. Fowler stated the State has changed the requirements for the size of land to put a school on; and years ago it was smaller.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she served as the Chairman of the School Site Selection Committee; during that process, she had the opportunity to watch the process of
school site selection; there is not much funding available for new schools; however, as the school sites are needed to be selected in the future, Brevard County is responsible for providing the offsite improvements, which can range from a minimum of $70,000 to put in a series of sidewalks and a stoplight, to $500,000, which Brevard County has put out for a crosswalk over I-95. She noted Brevard County is requesting there be additional coordination in the site selection process, should that occur in the future, to give it an opportunity to talk about the impacts; such impacts are not accrued to the School Board, but accrued to the taxpayer; and in some cases, it is possible that information could make a difference to the School Board when it finally decides on a selection. Ms. Busacca stated the site layout may make a difference in the amount of money that is required for offsite impacts; certain facilities may give the County or municipalities opportunities to have joint use where other facilities would not; and the information may be useful to the School Board as well.

Mr. Jenkins stated County staff is looking for some indication from the School Board that it endorses the concept so that those kinds of considerations are part of its decision-making process; Brevard County understands when the School Board selects a school site that it has a number of factors it has to review; and the County requests such concept be one of the major considerations in that process and the School Board adopt it as a policy. Mr. Wilson stated Dr. DiPatri can place the issue in the form of a recommendation on the School Board's agenda; he would also like to review some of the situations with existing structures where the Boards may have to work with municipalities; and the joint letter is a good idea.

Ms. Fowler stated she has been approached for the School Board to talk to Brevard County when it is creating traffic patterns at the schools where there is a bus loop; and the bus loop had to be changed at Audubon School as traffic was backed out onto Banana River Drive. Mr. Wilson stated such issue will be discussed on the School Board's agenda under traffic management during peak hours. Chairman Carlson stated placement of schools on main thoroughfares is a big issue in her District; Long Leaf Elementary School sits on Wickham Road; it is difficult to get in and out during the school hours; and parents are bringing their children to school instead of allowing them to walk. She noted they are also city issues as there is supposed to be a way to get to schools through the back so the children can walk from adjoining communities.

Mr. Wilson stated the School Board recently changed starting times; one of the problems will be middle schools getting out at 4:00 p.m., which is peak traffic time; the School Board will need to work with the County Commission and municipalities to deal with the problem and make sure the children are safe; and it is another topic that needs to be discussed, which is on the agenda under traffic management. Mr. Jenkins stated the County and School Board's staff identified a number of things they felt could be handled at the staff level and agreed they needed to be done; and they will work with the respective staffs to solve them. Mr. Wilson stated the reason he brought up the issue is because the general public is not aware it is on an agenda that will be discussed; and they need to know that.

Chairman Carlson outlined the County Manager and School Board Superintendent's agenda to work on jointly, as follows: (1) Establish a joint staff committee on school site traffic issues, including pedestrian safety, vehicular access and storage, traffic management during peak hours, and adequacy of signage; (2) Authorize School Board and County Commission Information Systems staff to investigate opportunities to share resources, including facilities and infrastructure, and training; (3) Expand joint efforts and cooperation in school construction projects, including investigate County Building Code Compliance Office inspection of new school construction, and review current practices in retrofitting schools as emergency public shelters; (4) Communications/Coordination, including coordinate meeting schedules of two Boards to minimize scheduling conflicts between the two Boards, share information between two agencies on upcoming meeting agenda items of mutual interest, and expand promotion of County Employee Youth Mentoring Program; (5) Investigate use of Space Coast Area Transit to transport high school students to and from school; and (6) Investigate the mutual interest of a studio production area.

Chairman Carlson inquired is there any further discussion on school siting and infrastructure needs from the Boards' members. Mr. Wilson stated the School Board would have to supply information to the County Commission as to the type of infrastructure it is looking at and existing structures, along with any new buildings that may be incorporated in the future; and if the County Commission has any recommendations, suggestions, or connections with the municipalities, it could work with the School Board to try to accomplish some of these things. Ms. Kershaw stated Ms. Busacca mentioned there has previously been cooperation with receiving input, but in the final vote of the School Board, the issues were not necessarily taken into consideration; Mr. Jenkins indicated it may be a good idea for the School Board to have a policy that would speak to considering those issues in the final decision; and she would welcome the opportunity to make sure all sides are being looked at. Mr. Wilson stated it will fall under the communication category that Dr. DiPatri would bring to the School Board to discuss or act upon. Chairman Carlson stated the handout Ms. Busacca discussed included the site selection and site selection process, coordination of site selection, coordination of site layout, and coordination of facilities usage; and they will be discussed with the School Superintendent and County Manager.

Mr. Powell stated Ms. Busacca played a big part in the infrastructure and location of the school sites; and she represented the School Board and Brevard County. Ms. Busacca stated some of the consideration of it ultimately did not make the School Board's final decision; it was one of many factors; in some instances, it is a large impact; and the County would appreciate it if it could be moved up on the priority list if it is a substantial impact. Mr. Wilson noted the County is requesting all the information be brought to it to digest.

Mr. Wilson stated the school system is at the mercy of Tallahassee in terms of funding for new schools; the School Board has come up with ideas on how to raise money for infrastructure in

Brevard County for the school system; the latest attempt was at a School Board workshop where, by consensus, it was looking at a one-half cent sales tax; and at the same time the County Commission was looking at a sales tax for its needs, which is another reason why the two Boards should work together in an effort to jointly work something out so they are not going to the voters two or three times for the same thing. He stated if the Boards and voters agree to go to a referendum for something like this, as opposed to impact fees, bond referendums or other fixed long-term commitments that cost money to the taxpayer, this would be a way to serve two needs; if both governmental bodies are in agreement with a direction to go, are strongly committed to it, and go to the public with it, it has a better chance of success; and a cooperative effort on both sides would be beneficial.

Chairman Carlson stated the County Commission has discussed the infrastructure sales tax multiple times; it feels strongly in terms of the quality of life issues that education plays a key part; half of the sales tax goes to the County and half goes to municipalities; and inquired does the School Board know what kind of dollar need it is looking at for infrastructure. Mr. Wilson responded the School Board is in the preliminary stages of discussing it; and somebody mentioned a half-cent sales tax would raise approximately $20 million on an annual basis. Ms. Fowler noted it was based on population figures years ago. Mr. Wilson stated the School Board was preliminarily discussing putting time limits on it; and if funding was needed for the future, it would go back to the taxpayer again once it had proven that it dealt properly with what it had been given up to that point, as opposed to having a half-cent sales tax go on forever.

Ms. Kershaw stated the School Board's five-year work plan shows it needing approximately $510 million over the next five years; expected revenues during that time are about $68 million, leaving approximately $424 million of unfunded needs; and it does not include building new schools. Mr. Wilson stated there are a lot of things the School Board has done in the past that have been beneficial; one of the things is the SIT funds received from Tallahassee based on the economical way the School Board has been building its schools below State average; and it has received approximately $7 or $8 million over a short period of time, which it can put into classroom reduction again for new construction. He noted if the School Board continued that process with new construction, it would increase its capabilities down the road and reduce the $400 million that is needed; the type of message both Boards need to get out to the general public is that they are doing things in a frugal and fiscally-responsible manner, and the money is going into the classroom where it belongs; and that is what the consensus of the School Board was when it was discussing something like a sales tax.

Commissioner Higgs stated the $424 million is capital needs over the next five years and does not include new schools; and inquired if the School Board can estimate the need for new schools.

Ed Curry, representing the School Board, stated planning for new schools is difficult; the School Board is mandated by Tallahassee, Department of Education, on when it can build a school based on its capacity and if State money is provided to build a school, then there are heavy constraints on what can be done; the School Board's problem is there are an adequate number of permanent student stations district-wide to accommodate the future growth of the student population; and they are all over the County and not one large area where there are a lot of portables. He stated he cannot justify a new school in the next five years based on the student projections and existing capacity of the schools; if there is funding through local effort, such as a half-cent sales tax, the State does not tell the School Board it cannot build a new school; it does not restrict that revenue for the School Board, and it can spend it on new schools or anything it wants that the public supports; and reiterated to ask the State for a new school today or in the next five years, the projections do not justify it nor is there a funding source to pay for it.

Chairman Carlson inquired how does the School Board determine the need if there is a school that has 100 portables, and is there a guideline that says when it reaches over-capacity it can build another school. Mr. Curry responded there is a capacity percentage that the State suggests school boards look at; when there is 15% over capacity of permanent student station, they should be thinking about a new school; but it is not mandated in law and is a suggestion. He noted when giving the State the numbers on projections, it calibrates those projections against its projections; and the School Board cannot justify a new school, so it continues to deal with the portable situation the best it can and move them around to meet the demographics of the membership. Mr. Wilson stated every time a new structure is built there are boundary line changes, which is a major impact to the community. Mr. Curry stated the schools' excess capacity is in the wrong end of the County; there are more seats available at the north end of the County and there are needs in the Central and South end; and if the School Board redistricted and filled seats the way the State says, the children would be driven up and down Brevard County to get them into empty seats.

Mr. Jenkins inquired is the surtax infrastructure sales tax the same sales tax that is available to the School Board or does it have a different tax; with Attorney Bistline responding it has the ability to impose a voter-approved sales tax.

Gene Burkett stated with the local government infrastructure tax the County has, there is a provision in Florida Statutes that such tax can be shared with local school districts; the problem with it is that in order to share it with the school district, each municipality would have to sign off and share the half-cent; in a couple of large counties that have passed the one-cent tax, some of the municipalities did not sign off on sharing it, so the school districts did not receive the full one-half cent share; and Legislation was created that would allow school districts to implement a one-half cent local structure sales tax without approval of municipalities or county governments. He noted the School Board has a separate half-cent taxing authority; however, it would have to have it voter-approved; there are two options for the School District to get a half-cent sales-one is to jointly work a project with the County, which would involve the municipalities, or do it on its own and seek voter approval.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the School Board did its own initiative, would it leave the County with one-half cent. Mr. Burkett responded the County Commission would still have the authority to do its one-cent sales tax with municipalities. Mr. Jenkins clarified in order to get municipalities to agree to it, it is 50% plus one; and if the County got three or four of the larger communities to agree to it, it would probably have sufficient population. Mr. Burkett noted the municipality may not agree to share its share; with Mr. Jenkins responding the amount has to be negotiated. Mr. Burkett stated it is difficult to get all of the half-cent sales tax for the school side; with Mr. Jenkins responding the best case scenario would be one-third, one-third, and one-third, depending on what could or could not be negotiated.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the County's sales tax referendum was defeated, it had put a list of items together and people were upset about it; Commissioner O'Brien suggested having a laundry list, such as roads and jails; it gives the public a complete package of a quality community; and it may be well received by the public. He noted the people want to have more options to make major fundamental decisions; it is a wonderful funding tool in other counties; and Brevard County missed the boat as it gets people who do not live here, including winter visitors, who are going to help pay for schools, roads, and other things. Commissioner O'Brien stated 24.2% of revenue generated by sales tax comes from tourism. Commissioner Colon stated the municipalities are also discussing the needs in their community, and thinking about putting things on referendum. Mr. Wilson noted the laundry list is a good idea as it gives the general public the option of saying what they feel their priorities are and where the money should go. Commissioner Colon stated the citizens like to be educated on what they are going to be voting on; and by having the laundry list it allows the community to be educated on what they are voting on. Mr. Hughes stated if the issues are separated, the School Board, County Commission, and municipalities could effectively be going into competition with each other; and the voters may be making a choice whether they want to be taxed for schools, roads, or jails. Chairman Carlson stated if specific projects are divvied up into specific projects, it is fine; but there has to be grass roots effort on each project to educate the public. Commissioner Scarborough stated $75 million in recreational projects was recently passed; the items were broken into component parts; it has to be something the community sees they want to have for Brevard County; and that is what happened with the parks referendum, the community did it. Chairman Carlson stated the parks referendum was locationally driven also, where the other issues are throughout the County and there is the competition issue.

Mr. Jenkins stated one of the obstacles to overcome is the municipalities' share which is an area where the people in Titusville could be voting on a project in Melbourne or Palm Bay. He stated the County Commission will be discussing the issue again when it has its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) workshop in May, 2001; it will be reviewing what its unfunded needs are; and the School Board may want to deliberate between now and then and provide input to the County Commission. Chairman Carlson inquired can the School Board provide its input to the County Commission for the CIP workshop; with Mr. Wilson responding affirmatively.

Dr. DiPatri stated the School Board has 400 portables and may be down to 350 by the start of the next school year; it is having difficulty getting clarity from the State on what is going to be allowed; it may have a $50 million problem that has to be addressed by July 1, 2002 or July 1, 2003; it is having a regional workshop with State facility planners; and it hopes to get the answer at that time. He noted that would be the only obstacle to making the May, 2001 date.

Mr. Curry stated the School Board does not have a CIP; it had one in 1994, which was the basis for the bond referendum initiative; it had been following that plan as much as possible as funding became available; it empowered a CIP group approximately one year ago to look again at creating a CIP for the district; and it indicated to the School Board that if it did not have any funds, it was wasting their time. He noted the big issue now is portables; it could be anywhere from $25 million to $50 million, depending on what the School Board plans to do; the Legislature is still interpreting the laws it put in place last year relative to portables; and the School Board receives different interpretations each day. He stated the State has placed restrictions on how the School Board can purchase, lease, and use portable buildings; the first restriction is any portable classroom that is leased and is not Code-compliant to the Building Code must be replaced with a new Code-compliant unit when the lease expires; half of the School Board's inventory of portables today are leased; and it needs to be pulling approximately 200 portables off school sites and replacing them with new Code-compliant portables, which cost $40,000 each to purchase. Mr. Curry stated portables are $6,000 each per year to rent over a five-year lease; if the School Board does that and complies with the other issues, it is approximately $25 million over five years; if it wants to rebuild or replace portables with permanent facilities district-wide over five years, the number increases to about $50 million, all of which are presently unfunded; the School Board is still learning about the impact to the district; and the student accommodation plan is ready so it can house the students next year.

DISCUSSION, RE: USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES AFTER HOURS

Dr. DiPatri stated the School Board has a district policy to promote use of school facilities; it communicated with the County Commission and municipalities, and suggested it wants to work closely with municipalities to share facilities; the School Board is looking for its buildings to be used to the maximum and it is its responsibility to promote the usage; and that is what it is planning to do. He noted one of the problems in the past has been that the authority has rested with the principals in many cases; it has been handled appropriately and is cleared up; and it is not a principal's responsibility, but the district's. He stated the problem is the liability issue and how those kinds of problems can be avoided; the School Board wants to promote the use of its facilities; he and Mr. Jenkins want to find ways to share on County parks and recreation; and there are many situations where the County and School Board share the use of fields. Dr. DiPatri stated the decision rests on the School Board checking the risk and liability; and the principals understand the School Board's policy is to promote usage, not discourage it.

Mr. Wilson stated the only requirement the School Board has is that the facilities are on a priority-use basis; functions scheduled for schools and extracurricular activities are filled first; and the School Board is more than willing to share a facility in the available time left over. Ms. Fowler stated the problem was insurance. Dr. DiPatri stated there was a contradiction in the School Board's policy, which has since been eliminated; and there is discretion on the School Board's part that if there is low-risk activity, it will try to break down barriers.

Ms. Kershaw inquired about the County's traveling skateboard park and what the School Board needs to do to enable the use of school grounds for skateboard parks; and stated it is a community asset in a lot of neighborhoods. Chairman Carlson noted the community pays for it.

Commissioner Colon stated she has met with Dr. DiPatri and is excited about some of the ideas he has, including science camps in the summer; the community is going to be excited to hear that the schools are going to be opening; taxpayers were criticizing elected officials because they were not able to use the facilities; and both Boards are moving in the right direction.

Chairman Carlson stated most the schools have a trailer or something on the site where someone lives; and inquired does it reduce the School Board's liability and are the facilities still closed to soccer groups or other groups that want to meet. Dr. DiPatri responded the School Board is suggesting when groups want to use the facilities, they are open to be used; it is trying to say it has this community asset and should take advantage of it with multiple uses; and if it has a gymnasium, it should be accessible.

Mr. Burkett stated Mark Landorff did an extensive review and position paper on skateboard parks; the School Board is concerned about the legislation that exists there as, although it appears to be legislation that protects, it does not; there are a number of issues that he would encourage the Boards to review carefully; and it is extensive risk exposure in the area of skateboard parks and distinguishment between the liabilities that the School District has when it works with an outside group, as opposed to a governmental entity, such as the County. He noted there are things the School Board can do in the agreements it writes with third parties; it is able to implement an indemnification agreement between the third party that indemnifies the School District and puts the liability on their insurance for acts of omission of negligence; and it protects the District. He stated in an agreement with another governmental entity, the District cannot do that; it has had liabilities occur as a result of usage in agreements with Brevard County where an individual is injured and the School Board ended up being liable for parts of it because it could not be indemnified from its relationship; and they are clarified in the agreement. Ms. Kershaw inquired if it was not Brevard County that was running the skateboard park, but a non-profit organization, could the School Board do it then. Mr. Burkett responded if it had adequate insurance, he could protect the School District through agreement, but could not protect himself from using it with the County. Ms. Kershaw inquired is the liability exposure for the School Board much greater than having the children participate in physical education; with

Mr. Burkett responding affirmatively. Ms. Kershaw stated she would like to see if there is a way to get to some solution on how it can be done. Mr. Burkett stated there is a heightened sense of risk with skateboard parks; one of his jobs is to advise the School Board in the exposure of risks; from the risk standpoint, he sees skateboards parks as having higher chances of severe injuries and deaths, with great liability exposure to the School Board; and if it wants to open its facilities to skateboard parks, he can bring potential ways in which it can eliminate that. He noted it might be such things as taking a section of School Board property and deeding it to the County; and it would have no liability exposure. Mr. Wilson inquired could the School Board use hold harmless agreements; with Mr. Burkett responding not with the County. Mr. Burkett stated it is the indemnification agreement portion he was referring to, which he can enter into with an external third party, but cannot enter into with another governmental entity due to State Statutes; and the School Board needs to look carefully at the language Mr. Curry wrote in his position paper. Ms. Kershaw inquired if the School Board could purchase another rider of insurance, could it pass the cost on to the County. Mr. Burkett responded there may be some cost issues, but the liability exposure is large; in the language under skateboard parks, in particular, there are a lot of things in there, including a clause that says if there was a condition that existed that the School Board should have known about or if the individual using the facility did not sign the form, it is liable for negligence. Ms. Kershaw stated if the law was written with the intention of trying to make it easier and if it is not, the School Board needs to go back to its Legislators and ask them to do something about it.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Burkett compare the risk for the School Board for high school football versus the risk it would assume if the County is operating a skateboard park and doing the maximum it can do to take the liability away from the School Board; and inquired which is the greater risk for the School Board, high school football or the skateboard park. Mr. Burkett responded the skateboard park in an agreement with the County is a greater risk because between two governmental entities, there is a different Statute in terms of what the exposure liability is as opposed to what the School Board has with an individual student.

Mark Landorff stated in the football situation, the School Board can ask the parents to sign a hold harmless agreement in case there is an injury; it cannot do that with another governmental entity; in skateboard park issues, the School Board does not control the actions of the students and the County would if it opened or operated a skateboard park; if an injury were to occur, the exposure for the School District would be that it owned the property and allowed the County to use it; and the issues include should the District have known this exposure was available or did it know. He noted those are issues that are there for the School Board; and there is no way it can transfer that exposure to the County. Commissioner Higgs inquired what if the County gave the School Board the skateboard park and has an agreement to fund it "x" dollars a year to operate it; and stated then the School Board has all the liability and control, does not have a problem with another local government, and the problem is solved. Commissioner Higgs inquired would it minimize the risk to the School Board; with Mr. Landorff responding not necessarily as it would have to offset it against its own sovereign immunity. Commissioner Higgs inquired is it now equal to football; with Mr. Landorff responding affirmatively.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated all the issues laid out by the School Board are represented on the County's own property; the County suffers the same exposure of liability; the question is whether or not the School Board and Brevard County are going to have joint use of facilities by each other as they expose each other to the same level of liability; the County gets more claims on an annual basis from traditional sports, including soccer, football and baseball; and it has never had a claim on skateboarding since it has had the park. He noted the County's risk managers told him all the reasons the County should not do it; but it is a good idea because the program is supported by the tobacco settlement monies, and it is for "Say No To Drugs", "Say No To Tobacco", and "Say No To Alcohol"; and those messages are good to get out. He stated the County is going to be exposed to liability; it tries to minimize it and does the best job it can; and it is going to slip every now and then and get sued, sometimes rightfully so and sometimes it wonders why, but it is going to happen. Mr. Nelson stated the question is whether or not the County wants to provide the service; it has a good program and it is well run; it would like to do more of it and wants to see the School Board continue to use the County's facilities under the same kind of basis; and the County and School Board can scare themselves out of doing good programs if they allow themselves to be so worried. Mr. Nelson stated the County is not in a position to cause the School Board to have additional expenses; it is a recreational service it currently provides and will continue to do so; and it is looking for locations to do it. He noted it is also important to educate the public about what the facilities are and how they are shared; it is more of a benefit in the long run as they receive compliments; the skateboard program is recognized as being a model throughout the State; and he cannot get onto a school site with it, which is an interesting place to be for the County. Mr. Wilson stated it is a wonderful publicity idea to have an example of what two government agencies can do by working together to support education or kids, as opposed to not knowing what the other one is doing; and it can benefit everyone concerned.

Chairman Carlson inquired how does the County deal with the liability issue with the skateboard park. Mr. Nelson responded individuals using the skateboard park sign a hold harmless; but the County is exposed to liability each time it sets up the park and operates it; and it has done it at three locations-private property at the mall and shopping centers, city parks, and County facilities. Chairman Carlson inquired what part do the facilities play. Mr. Nelson responded they provide the space and the County signs the hold harmless that it is going to assume the responsibility and liability, and it conducts the activity.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to request the School Board staff revisit the skateboard issue and provide options to the School Board and County Commission. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Dr. DiPatri stated he and Mr. Jenkins can add the issue on their May 2, 2001 agenda also as they need to try to work out the difficulties; and they will come back to the Boards to address it.

Commissioner Higgs stated the County Commission will do what it can to help the School Board to approve some way of doing it.

The meeting recessed at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened at 6:15 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

Dr. DiPatri stated the partial year tax assessment is a Constitutional issue, is in front of the Supreme Court, and the case was argued on May 11, 2001; and all interested parties are awaiting a decision as to whether it is allowable. He noted for example, he is building a home and will be moving in next month; he will not pay taxes on the property, other than the land tax, for the rest of the year; families moving into newly-built homes are basically taxing the system with children that the School District has to deal with in terms of portables and other needs; but yet the County Commission and School Board are precluded from taxing those homes. He stated if it turns out that the court case results in it being unconstitutional, the School Board and County Commission will see where it leaves them; the other related issue is impact fees; and requested Attorney Bistline brief the Boards concerning the legal issue that has changed recently.

Attorney Bistline stated the County Commission has the ability to levy an impact fee for school funding; there was never a moratorium and nothing in Tallahassee to repose it this year; Pasco County did it approximately three weeks ago and Lee County is considering it; so it is an option. Chairman Carlson inquired has the School Board addressed impact fees; with Attorney Bistline responding it has discussed it in general. Dr. DiPatri stated the School Board originally thought there was a moratorium and it could not be done, so it has not taken a position on it; it did not consider it an option at the December, 2000 meeting when it discussed facilities, just as it did not consider the partial year assessment issue; and it needs to review it. Chairman Carlson inquired when the County did the impact study and if the School Board had any interest in a school impact fee, is that what ended up stopping the County was the moratorium that was thought to be in place but was not. Attorney Bistline responded that is what happened, but there is no impediment or legal reason that it cannot be done. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the School Board is going to discuss it and tell the County Commission if it is interested; with Mr. Wilson responding affirmatively.

Mr. Hughes inquired is it part of voter approval; with Commissioner Higgs responding negatively. Mr. Hughes inquired would it be unilaterally the County Commission deciding to assess an impact fee; with Chairman Carlson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs stated the impact fee would be in the unincorporated areas, unless it was adopted by the cities as well; so the County would only be talking the unincorporated area; the cities have to adopt their own impact fee; and at some point a study has to be done to establish what the dollar figure is, which is sometimes an expensive process. Chairman Carlson noted the County has someone who has done it for other impact fees; and there may be a reason to be able to work with them somehow and get a study like that done for the schools.

Mr. Wilson stated he understands there are a lot of people in Brevard County who rent their homes out, yet still claim their homestead exemption; it can amount to a considerable amount of money to the system; and inquired if it is a County Commission or Value Adjustment Board problem. Mr. Jenkins responded it is the Property Appraiser's responsibility; and if it is not an individual's main residence, they would be in violation in Florida law and could be penalized. Mr. Wilson stated the exemptions are being sent out; the people who are renting the property forward the mail to the owner; and the owner subsequently signs it and sends it back. He stated one suggestion would be to send a registered letter to the home for the homeowner to sign it and send it back, as opposed to mailing them out to the homes; and it would be one way to find out who is there and who is not. Mr. Jenkins stated once someone receives homestead exemption, it is renewed automatically; but there is a burden of proof on them if they get caught fraudulently claiming something; and they can be severely penalized, but there is no annual check. Chairman Carlson stated there was discussion concerning doing it on a yearly basis. Mr. Wilson noted there would be an expense attached and he understands that; but perhaps the Property Appraiser needs to weigh the potential reward as opposed to the initial outlay it would cost to verify it. Commissioner Higgs suggested a joint letter be sent to Mr. Ford presenting the problem and the Boards' collective concerns that revenues may be lost. Ms. Fowler stated there is somebody who does assessments on property; and inquired if that person could check whether the homestead exemption is valid. Chairman Carlson stated she is sure Mr. Ford would be interested in checking it out. Mr. Wilson noted it may be excess funds for Brevard County.

Mr. Powell inquired is there a usage for impact fees collected and a period of time they must be used. Attorney Bistline responded the amount has to be justified based on an impact study and has to be earmarked for ameliorating the impact; it has to be used to pay for the impact that the particular activity is creating, and it has to be a nexus and is for new developments that taxes the system. He stated the School Board would have to justify the amount of money for the impact fee based on what the impact would be and the cost to the District to provide the infrastructure to support the development and students; and the funds would have to be used to pay for that impact. Attorney Knox noted a study is prepared before the impact fee is imposed; and it may be five or 10 years, depending on what the need is.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the problems with impact fees is one is not supposed to pick up a deficiency and do a road repair; therefore, there needs to be enough money to do a major project to handle the impact of a new development; and it is impossible to do it in little pieces and use it as an impact fee. He noted the other problem with an impact fee is it is difficult to bond because it is based upon cyclical building; projecting other revenues and pledging them becomes problematic; and impact fees are an additional source of funds that should not be ignored, but they are not a cure-all for all problems. Chairman Carlson stated impact fees are based on growth, and if an area does not have growth, it does not have impact fees. Commissioner Higgs stated the School Board has not asked the County Commission in the past 10 years to do impact fees; she may have misstated the Countywide versus the city issue; and the County Commission could adopt a Countywide impact fee, with the opt-in/opt-out provision. Mr. Jenkins stated the County Commission, by Charter, can do a Countywide ordinance; and if a municipality did not want to participate, it would opt out. Ms. Fowler inquired does it mean that a city would say it does not want the impact fee on its residents; with Attorney Knox responding it cannot opt out of an impact fee ordinance or Countywide ordinance unless it has an alternative program to substitute in its place. Chairman Carlson noted if a city already has impact fees established it could opt out, even though the impact fees the County Commission would put in place might be higher or lower. Mr. Hughes stated one of the unintended consequences of the impact fees would be that as a developer comes in, they would then have potentially a huge incentive to annex into a city, which is going to lower the County's tax base even less; and he would caution the Boards against getting too enamored with impact fees as it is not a good answer. Commissioner Higgs stated Attorney Knox's answer to opting out is that the cities could not, unless there is an alternative program. Mr. Hughes noted the alternative plan could be 10 cents on the dollar of the County's impact fee; the city could structure it as being significantly lower, which provides an incentive for the developer to annex into the city; and it is great business for the city and bad business for the County. Attorney Knox noted the city would have a difficult time providing a lower amount as schools cost so much; and the impact of each student is going to be the same for the School District, no matter what happens. Chairman Carlson stated since the County has gotten rid of impact fees, municipalities have kept theirs and are up to speed on increasing them, so they are more than the County's.

Mr. Hughes stated on Home Rule Legislation, categorical funding from State and federal governments, one of the problems he perceives with funding schools is that much of the funds the School District receives from Tallahassee is categorical; the funds that come in do not come in to use as the School Board best sees fit to meet its local needs; typically it comes in with strings attached; it may receive $10 million to repair roofs, but the School District may not have roofs that need repairing and will spend the money rather than returning it; and it is not the best way of doing business. He noted one of the things he would like to see the Boards consider is to help convince the Legislature to give them less-constrained funding, and allow them to exercise their local control to use the money to best meet their needs. Mr. Wilson stated it has been a legislative issue for a long time; but it has had little impact on the budget return from the Legislature. Ms. Fowler stated Volusia and Hillsborough Counties became Charter Counties which has less restraints on them from all points of view. Chairman Carlson noted the School Board is not under the County's Charter, although it could be expanded to include it; and it may assist in some of the restraints. Mr. Hughes noted Ms. Fowler is referring to a different charter. Ms. Fowler stated there is the possibility of being a charter school district; and since Volusia County is a Charter School District, it has less regulations and restraints. Mr. Wilson stated it is swapping allegiances to obtain another way to get additional funding for something else; one is still tied into a particular direction they need to take; and the local school boards should have enough capabilities of making decisions in the directions they want to go for their counties, as opposed to having it dictated from Tallahassee based on what they are going to label themselves. Ms. Fowler stated her understanding of a charter school district is that as long as they say they are going to raise student achievement and meet that goal, they are left alone on mostly everything else; the School Board would write a proposal to the Cabinet; and they would either accept or reject it. Attorney Bistline stated the Legislature designated five counties in the State which were eligible to apply to be a charter school county. Chairman Carlson inquired what made the counties eligible to apply for it; with Attorney Bistline responding they were specifically designated by the Legislature.

Commissioner Colon stated if there was an opportunity to do that, it would be now; there are a lot of freshmens in Tallahassee with good ideas; a letter from the Chairs would be wise to do; and Representatives Bob Allen, Mitch Needelman, and Mike Haridopolos are eager to get feedback and would probably support the Boards on this issue. Chairman Carlson stated the school boards under charter counties have more free play in terms of defining what they are about and going to do in the future; it would be interesting to see the differences, and if it is more advantageous to go under the County's Charter or do its own thing under the school district's charter as one might have different restraints than the other. Ms. Fowler stated she would like to see how a school board functions as part of the county charter; with Chairman Carlson responding perhaps both Attorneys can provide the Boards with a report. Mr. Hughes stated it is premature to move forward in terms of a detailed investigation of a charter county for schools; the two counties he is familiar with are both new and in a trial phase; it is going to be some time before they decide if it works; and the good news is that a lot of the constraints for funds were released for Volusia County, but the bad news is that although it was allowed to develop its own paperwork trails as opposed to being under the strict regulation of Department of Education (DOE), it is doing more paperwork now on its own than it was in the past. He noted Volusia County also has significant bond initiatives which boosts its local contribution to the dollars for its schools; so it seems to be working well for it as this point; but it is an entirely different situation than Brevard County has today.

Ms. Fowler advised there are two kinds of charters; one is a charter school district and the other situation would be if the School Board were part of Brevard County's Charter; and it would be interesting to find out how those counties are doing where that exists. Ms. Kershaw stated she does not know that it is a County issue so much as it is a School Board issue; and perhaps the School Board can keep tabs on it. Chairman Carlson stated she had indicated there is an opportunity there; but it may not be to the best advantage of the School Board to pursue it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Commission can put things on referendum to change the Charter; after the Charter Committee disbanded, a group came together which said it was still the Charter Commission; the group sued the County Commission; and it is in Appellate Court. He noted the whole thing has been mind-boggling and a big mess; and cautioned the School Board to think about it.

DISCUSSION, RE: TEACHERS INCENTIVES

Mr. Wilson stated one of the priority issues the School Board has to deal with is teacher retention and attraction of qualified teachers and administrators; the School Board has been searching for ways to do that; one of the ways is taking some of the handles off the funds in Tallahassee to build resources for maintaining the teacher and administrative pools, rather than having them dissipate; and in a couple of years it may be caught in a mess due to the DROP Program. He noted the Legislature may be dealing with that also by allowing the DROP Program members to come back in to help; the DROP Program is for early retirement where people can buy into their retirement early; under the old system, once they do that they cannot come back in for 12 months; but the Legislature may adopt a program to allow individuals to stay out for one month and then come back into the program, which would help the School Board retain some of the people for its needs that are going to come in the future. He noted it is not only a problem for Brevard County, but the entire country; everybody is going to be competing for quality professionals to come to their place of education; a program needs to be developed that is not only incentive-based for employees, but information-based to brag about Brevard County; and both Boards need to start expanding the good things they do in the County. Mr. Wilson stated the core to any people coming to Brevard County is education; businesses look at education first and foremost before they decide where they are going to locate; both Boards need to begin a publicity campaign jointly to attract more people; and the School Board needs to devote resources toward its employees to make sure it shows how much it appreciates them and wants to keep them for future years. He noted a joint effort in communicating positive things in Brevard County would be beneficial toward both Board's direction.

Ms. Kershaw stated other places have been offering some benefits to teachers to move to their area, including waiving utility fees; when individuals move to an area, they have to pay for license plates and deposits on utilities; those are the types of things that can help attract a new teacher out of college who does not have a lot of money to come to Brevard County; and it is not something the School Board can do. She noted perhaps the County Commission can review some things it might be able to do in a minimal way; and she is not saying it would be done for every new teacher. Chairman Carlson inquired what communities are doing things like that. Ms. Kershaw responded she does not have the specifics at this time, but has read articles concerning the issue; and it would be nice to be able to get the teachers Brevard County wants first choice every time.

Commissioner Colon inquired what is being done to attract Brevard County students who are looking at a future in education to become teachers; stated Orange County is calling Brevard County's teachers and trying to recruit them out of Brevard County; and inquired what are Brevard Community College (BCC) and University of Central Florida (UCF) doing. Ms. Fowler stated there is a plan under way to give students, especially minorities, free tuition to college if they promise to be in the teacher program; and she does not know if there is a bill in the Legislature, but there is discussion taking place in Tallahassee. Mr. Wilson stated there was a tuition program; and when the student graduated with their teaching certificate, if they stayed in the State of Florida and taught for three years, their tuition was waived and they were reimbursed. Ms. Fowler stated Joan Tatey had the plan; and she was going to bring it to the Legislature. Dr. DiPatri stated it is in the Governor's Retention and Recruitment Plan which talks about a program to attract high school students into the teaching profession by scholarships; they would have to serve four or five years in the district; and there is a strong possibility it will pass. Ms. Fowler stated it is a win-win situation as it is going to help retain students in the high schools, who are in danger of dropping out, as they know they can go to college; and it also gives Brevard County the teachers it needs. Mr. Wilson stated the other thing that will help is the Professional Development Program that Dr. DiPatri wants to initiate; it is a basis for on-going education and advancement for the School Board's professionals; and it is something to offer them that maybe some other areas do not have. Ms. Fowler inquired what happened to the School Board's tuition refund program; with Mr. Wilson responding it was done by consensus of the School Board and will be brought to it during the budget cycle as a budgeted item. Dr. DiPatri stated the School Board's staff is trying to put all the issues together in the strategic plan; and when it happens and the School Board approves the draft, staff will share it with the County and get its ideas. Ms. Kershaw inquired if the County Commission will consider reviewing the fees it may be able to assist with as it could be an attractive package for someone.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager and staff to prepare a package of ideas and incentives to assist the School Board in attracting teachers to Brevard County.

Chairman Carlson stated the County needs to also bring in some of the private sector. Ms. Kershaw stated it is going to be a mutual benefit to everyone.

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

Chairman Carlson inquired is the issue of salaries the dominating factor in bringing teachers to Brevard County and competing one to one with other communities. Mr. Wilson responded it is a big part of it; the School District moved up considerably from where it was approximately six years ago in terms of average salaries in Brevard County; for the first time in 13 years, the School Board initiated a multi-year contract which is beneficial to the system; so it is aware of the incentive and compensation packages it will be discussing during budget cycle and recommendations from staff based on what the dollar value is; and a lot of it hinges on what the School Board gets from Tallahassee.

Mr. Hughes stated salaries are always significant; but a significant issue is the amount of esteem by which they are held with the community; and that is one of the reasons why the extra incentives, that do not cost a great deal, show the teachers that Brevard County does indeed hold them in high esteem within the communities; and it is important for the Boards to work together to try to develop these non-monetary ways of compensating and aiding teachers as it will boost the esteem factor.

Commissioner Colon stated she hopes the School Board will co-lobby with the League of Cities; the County may have to lead by example with a package that is feasible and approved by the County Commission; the municipalities could chip in; and the quality of life in Brevard County is totally different than in Orange County and other adjoining counties. She noted the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is working closely in putting a package together; Brevard Job Link is in it as the teachers need their husbands or wives to find a job; and that is also a critical part of teachers being able to come in.

Mr. Powell stated incentives have been out there for the past two years; they are a good idea; but there has been a delay in implementing some of them. Mr. Wilson stated the problem in collaboration with incentives is the incentive dealing with compensation; it is a contractual issue and has to be negotiated; the other side of the incentive coin is what Ms. Kershaw mentioned which is what else can be done to show teachers they are respected, Brevard County wants them, they are going to be treated professionally, and the School Board and County Commission are going to do a little extra than they would normally do for somebody else to come to the County; and it could be done in a manner that they do not ignore the existing professional already here. He noted the package needs to be for all the employees in the teacher ranks to make sure everybody understands they are going to be treated fairly in Brevard County, whether they have been here for six months or 60 years. Ms. Kershaw stated she is not sure she agrees with it; it could scare the County Commission away from looking at it; but she is looking at the critical shortage areas as those people getting the extra bonus; and there are some situations where if it is a high-need area, something else needs to be done to attract them. Mr. Wilson stated he understand that, but it is a separate segment of the entire package; there are going to be shortages in teacher areas in all areas, not just the critical need area; that is taking place now and the School Board is trying to develop areas to help that; but in the future, the shortages are going to be all over; and inquired if special incentives are given to science teachers to move to Brevard County, what is going to prevent science teachers that are here from taking incentives to go to another county. He stated if the School Board provides incentives for teachers coming here and offers those same type of incentives, it is showing it wants to be fair and equitable to everybody concerned and not only the new teachers coming in. Chairman Carlson stated the incentives are short-term; inquired what prevents the teacher from going to the next county due to a higher salary; and the long-term needs to be figured out. She noted the School Board needs to be able to look at increasing the salaries while it is giving incentives so it is competitive in Brevard County. Chairman Carlson stated the County's Tax Abatement Program is based on percentage tax abated and for how many years; and if the School Board can devise something like that where it can work with the private sector, it may be beneficial.

DISCUSSION, RE: SCHEDULING ANNUAL JOINT MEETINGS

Chairman Carlson inquired would the Boards like to meet on a periodic basis. Mr. Wilson responded the minimum should be twice a year as some of the issues they are going to be dealing with will have to be revisited; and annually is too far apart. Chairman Carlson stated if the Boards can time it right, it can do things legislatively together as well; the County Commission is trying to get its legislative packets in earlier; and if there are issues the School Board has that it can piggyback on the County or vice versa, it would be productive.

Mr. Hughes stated he is not sure that waiting six months for another meeting is the right thing to do, particularly with the deadline for redistricting; and he would like to see the Boards set up a quarterly meeting in 90 days. Mr. Wilson stated the redistricting issue could be addressed at that meeting; and the six-month meetings can take care of general items discussed earlier.

Chairman Carlson inquired when is the School Board's budget cycle; with Ms. Fowler responding June, 2001 is the workshop, the budget meeting is in July 2001, and the final budget is in September, 2001. Chairman Carlson stated a July, 2001 joint meeting could be potentially scheduled between the County Commission and School Board.

Mr. Jenkins stated it is the County's intention to get its redistricting issue moving quickly due to time constraints; and by the end of May, 2001, staff may be ready to discuss it. Commissioner Higgs stated both Boards are going to be looking at recommendations; and it may not be a joint discussion until later in the Fall. Ms. Fowler suggested the Boards wait to see when a joint meeting is needed. Chairman Carlson stated it would be a good idea to convene again; she does not have any problem with meeting in July, 2001, if there is enough information to meet; if not, the meeting could be later; but there is a December, 2001 deadline in terms of the redistricting issue. Mr. Wilson stated if the Boards set a meeting date, chances are the tasks will be accomplished as there will be a goal to reach such date; and both Boards are going to look at the redistricting issue to see if it is feasible for redistricting to be combined. Chairman Carlson noted Ms. Fowler wanted to see a map of both Districts to see how they overlay.

Mr. Wilson stated the information could be gathered collectively; the School Board could discuss whether it wants to pursue the redistricting based on the information; the Boards could meet in July, 2001 to discuss the ramifications; but if the School Board prior to that time decides it is not going to work for it, based on conversations between Mr. Jenkins and Dr. DiPatri, there would be no reason for the meeting in July, 2001, and the Boards could have the six-month meeting.

Chairman Carlson stated the Boards have the potential of more issues to discuss once Messrs. Jenkins and DiPatri discuss their laundry list of things.

Mr. Powell stated the redistricting should be easy with the information on overlays and population.

Mr. Wilson suggested the Boards plan on having a joint meeting in July, 2001.

DISCUSSION, RE: OTHER ISSUES

Ms. Fowler stated there is a conflict in meeting times for the County Commission and School Boards' meetings; people sometimes are torn because they want to come to School Board meetings, and the County Commission meetings also; for many years, the County Commission met during the day and the School Board met at night; and it did not matter that both Boards had the same meeting day. She noted when the County Commission switched to its meeting at night, it was meeting at the same time the School Board was meeting; and inquired if anything can be done to solve the meeting conflict.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a disservice to the community to have the two Boards meeting at the same time; and requested the County Manager and School Board Superintendent work out the conflicts with the Board of County Commissioners' and School Boards' meetings held on the same days and times to allow the public to attend both agencies' meetings.

Ms. Kershaw stated concerning employers' supported parent involvement in schools, one of the main issues in schools affecting students' performance is parent involvement; the Governor's Mentoring Initiative looks at allowing a State employee one hour a week to mentor; and something similar to that needs to be reviewed for people to parent in the schools. She noted the schools need the parents to work with their own kids, not just people working with organizations to mentor other people's kids; it could be for such things as parent conferences or to attend parenting training; the State allows up to five hours a month; and requested the issue be reviewed as a community. She noted the private sector has to adjust to family needs in the work place and allow job sharing and flex time; and government agencies should be flexible in the same ways, and look at how can they not only meet the need of the employees, but also do something good for the children as well.

Chairman Carlson inquired has Ms. Kershaw addressed the EDC to see if it can provide any feedback in terms of employers in the community; with Ms. Kershaw responding negatively. Ms. Kershaw advised she has information from Workforce 2020. Mr. Jenkins noted information may also be available from the Chambers of Commerce. Chairman Carlson stated she sits on the EDC Board and will be happy to discuss the issue with the Executive Committee. Commissioner Higgs noted Ms. Kershaw is also talking about the County's employees in particular; with Ms. Kershaw responding affirmatively. Ms. Kershaw stated there are other family needs out there that communities need to start addressing also, including some of the family needs on the other side such as older parents who need to be cared for and taken to the doctor sometimes; the policies should include those situations flexible on both sides; and family involvement might be a better term than parent involvement.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the County Commission funds approximately $100,000 a year to the Child Care Association of Brevard County; Brevard County employees have access to substantially reduced rates for child care and other services; and he does not know if the School Board is aware of how much money the County funds. Ms. Kershaw stated she is talking about programs that are putting the parents and the children together. Commissioner Colon stated the 211 system is effective in May, 2001; if the information can be brought through the school system to the children to bring home to their parents, it would be wonderful; it is a number they are able to call and find out about all the services available in the community; it is not just a matter about teaching reading and math anymore, it gets deeper than that; and perhaps the Boards can discuss in another joint meeting how they can become a partnership of the things in Brevard County to be able to bring to the schools. Chairman Carlson stated such topic can be placed on the joint meeting agenda next time for discussion.

Chairman Carlson stated the meeting today was productive; and she is excited about the two Boards meeting again and keeping the conversation continuing.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)