Florida APA Public Policy Workshop Tallahassee, Florida February 3, 2016

 Susan L. Trevarthen, Esq., FAICP, Weiss Serota  Beth Sweeny, Governmental Relations Coordinator for St. Johns County School District  Lorraine Duffy-Suarez, AICP, Planner for Hillsborough County School District  Julie Salvo, AICP, Planner for Orange County School District

 Local experimentation with school concurrency and voluntary mitigation led to extensive legislative activity  Late 90s statutes specifically allowing school concurrency option  2003 mandated ILAs for coordination  2005 statutory mandate for public school concurrency  2011 repeal of the mandate (allows school concurrency to remain in place as local option)  Rise of charter schools - school districts and local governments have limited control over siting and facilities

 Why school concurrency? Operational funding is per student and follows the student. Facilities funding is more challenging, and constantly under pressure.  political and legal challenges with local impact fees and negotiated mitigation  a declining/disappearing state role in funding public school facilities  changes to the student station cost limits for school facilities disadvantaging districts with higher costs of living  lumpiness – need to right size schools to be able to spread the cost of core facilities and administration over the student population and meet cost standards  reduction of the amount of local school tax monies available to be used for facilities  rise of charter schools - taking enrollment and, in recent years, taking state facilities funding

 Ten years after mandatory school concurrency was adopted, what is happening with public school facilities?  Beth Sweeny will explain how the state role in financing school facilities has drastically changed over the past decade.  Julie Salvo and Lorraine Duffy Suarez, school planners from Orange County and Hillsborough County, will present the examples of how their school districts have adapted to this changed environment.  Beth will address some of the key school facilities bills pending this legislative session.

PECO New Construc tion $109.8 m $242.2 m $292.1 m $145.6 m PECO Maintena nce $148.7 m $186.4 m $209.1 m $118.9 m $43.2m$122.2m00 $6m – High Growth $53m$50m PECO Charter Schools $27.7m$53m$54m $55.06 m $56.1m $55.2m $90.6m$75m$50m Capital Outlay Millage Authorit y (.25 shifted to RLE) 1.50 (.25 shifted to DLE) Historic School District Capital Outlay Funding

 Changes since 2008:  Formalized processes – existing and new  Improved communication with local government  District has a “seat at the table” when it comes to growth

 Key Advantages:  Martinez Doctrine in effect since 2001  Local funding sources pay for school capacity and renovations  Challenges:  School siting – traditional vs. charter  Keeping up with growth  Politics

 Key Advantages:  Improved Communications among all local governments  Develop relationships with builders & local governments  Schools have better information to plan capacity  Improved monitoring of capacity by school district

 Challenges:  Redistricting of students to maximize capacity unpopular  Maintaining LOS without using Portables  Joint Use of Facilities limited in light of security concerns  Charter Schools location unknown when planning new capacity needs

 Redistricting of students unpopular  FISH capacity not realistic  COFTE Projections not accurate for planning  Charter Schools make planning difficult  Adjacency Rule for CSA limits ability to “collect” for new growth  Lack of capital funds to maintain facilities to meet LOS  Moratoriums on collecting Impact Fees or reducing fees  Lack of cooperation from some jurisdictions

 Proposes amendment to State Constitution to authorize contiguous area of state, whether a county or a municipality to constitute a school district  Allows a county or municipal governing body to serve as the school board  Provides that school district may be abolished by law  Provides that operation, control, & supervision of public schools, & determination of school district levies, within abolished school district shall be prescribed by law

 Provides that, beginning in the school year, a parent may seek enrollment in, and transport his or her child to, any public school that has not reached capacity in the state. (House and Senate Bills have slight differences in defining capacity)  The bill requires each district school board to annually post on its website the application process required to participate in controlled open enrollment. The process must: - Identify schools that have not reached capacity as defined by the school district. - The determination of capacity considers the specifications, plans, elements, and commitments contained in the school district’s educational facilities plan and long-term work programs. - Provide priority preference for the placement of siblings and students residing in the district. - Ensure that a resident of a district cannot be displaced by a student transferring in from outside the district. - Allow the student to attend the chosen school of enrollment until the student completes the highest grade offered.

 Requires the Department of Education (DOE) to contract with the Center for Applied Economic Analysis at Florida Polytechnic University to determine the portability of the local portion of the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) funds when students are able to apply and enroll in any public school in the state  SB 684 allows immediate athletic eligibility for students transferring under the open enrollment provisions.

 Authorizes the use of impact fees to construct new capital facilities or to improve, alter, or expand existing capital facilities  Authorizes a county or municipality to impose a surcharge on documents taxable under provisions for the purpose of funding certain capital improvements and capital facilities in lieu of imposing impact fees  Restricts the amount of the surcharge to $1 for each $100, or fractional part thereof, of the consideration for the real property interest transferred  Prohibits a county or municipality that imposes a surcharge for an authorized purpose from also imposing an impact fee for the same purpose

 The bill permits an aggrieved charter school to seek injunctive relief in circuit court against a municipality or county if they feel they have been held to more stringent standards than a traditional public school.  In addition, an aggrieved school that receives injunctive relief may collect attorney fees and court costs.