Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Informal Workshop Packet 04-07-2009 J) • ~ AGENDA Tuesday, April 7, 2009 9:30 P.M. INFORMAL WORKSHOP 1. CALL TO ORDER -COMMISSIONER LEWIS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2. DISCUSSION ON SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS 3. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 4. ADJOURNMENT CONFERENCE ROOM #3 ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982 NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (772) 462-1777 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. . ~ Board Members Excellence in Education Dr. Judi Miller, Chairman o~ ~ Troy Ingersoll, Vice Chairman The School Board of St. Lucie County Dr. John Carvelli ~ ~ Kathryn Hensley St. Lucie county 4204 Okeechobee Road Carol A. Nilson Public Schools Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 • (772) 429-3600 Superintendent Michael J. Lannon March 11, 2009 The Honorable Paula A. Lewis Chairman, Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: School Resource Officer (SRO) Programs in St. Lucie County Dear Chairman Lewis: The School Board of St. Lucie County has authorized me to request guidance and assistance from the Boazd of County Commissioners in preserving the School Resource Officer, or SRO, Programs that serve our community. As I am sure you and other Com- missioners are aware, through a series of cooperative agreements with each of our local law enforcement agencies, the School Board has secured certified officers to provide law enforcement and related services to our public schools. The SRO Programs have become an important adjunct to the core educational mission of our public school system. Equally import, however, these programs include valuable services beyond our school campuses. The SRO Programs provide law enforcement with access to vital infor- mation about the community, greatly facilitating both crime prevention and criminal inves- tigations off campus and within the community. In addition, because the programs bridge jurisdictional boundaries, they serve as a catalyst for coordination and information shazing among all of the local law enforcement agencies. In addition to supplies, office space, and related support fer the SRO Programs, the School Board historically has also provided funding equivalent to one-half of the personnel and operating expenses for officers and supervisors assigned by the participating law en- forcement agencies. In fiscal year 2008-2009, the School Board's direct funding to law enforcement agencies for all SRO Programs will be approximately $2,724,000. The Problem. All Florida School Boards have experienced drastic funding reduc- tions in recent years while expenses continue to rise: In St. Lucie County, currently recognized revenue losses from FY 2007- 2008 to FY 2008-2009 are equivalent to a per pupil decrease of more than 2.8 percent in total funding, and a drop of $23 million in state revenues, with additional revenue c ~cted by the end of the year. RECEIVED ~ sEAt. of " b os BEST . ~ ~ MAR 16 2009 ~ YANAGEYEIIT b' PRACTICES-,'?' CO. ADMINISTRATION ACCREDITED SYSTEM-WIDE BY THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS The School Board of St. Lucie County is an Equal Opportunity Agency The Honorable Paula A. Lewis March 11, 2009 Page 2 During the same period, annual operating expenses have increased substan- tially asthe result of opening a new school and escalations in health insur- ance and utility costs, although the School Board has been able to offset large portions of these cost increases with conservation measures and salary and hiring freezes. The total revenue reduction to public schools in St. Lucie County from FY 2007-2008 to FY 2009-2010 is now projected to be $53 million, or a cumu- lative per pupil funding loss of nearly 14 percent. Moreover, unlike the general purpose governments, the School Boazd does not have direct access to revenue sources outside its narrowly circumscribed authority to levy ad valorem taxes (at rates that in essence aze prescribed the Legislature) and its participation in the Florida Education Finance Program (which funding is experiencing the reductions de- scribed above). An example of this revenue restriction is educational facilities impact fees: the School Board may not levy or assess directly, but must seek and obtain the cooperation of the County and the municipalities, in enacting and collecting such fees. In the face of such steep revenue losses and cost increases, the School Boazd is gravely concerned that it may be unable to provide funding to law enforcement agencies for SRO Programs in fiscal yeaz 2009-2010, or at least not at the level committed for 2008- 2009. At the same time, the School Board recognizes that the SRO Programs are simply too valuable to the entire community to allow their lapse. A comprehensive, recurring funding source, or collection of sources, must be identified to assure continuation of these important law enforcement functions in fiscal year 2009-2010 and beyond. Because of the lead time necessary for all local governments to plan for the coming budget year, the School Board is bringing its concerns forward prior to making a final decision on the level of funding, if any, that it will be able to commit to the SRO Programs in 2009-2010. Potential Solutions. Simply identifying a problem to sister agencies without re- viewing alternative responses would not reflect conscientious governance. For that reason, the School Board has examined and identified a number of possibilities for covering the anticipated funding shortfall for the SRO Programs that may be worthy of consideration: The general purpose governments could each absorb larger portions of the personnel and operating costs of the SRO Programs in the budget processes established (by the County) for the Sheriff and (by the municipalities) for the participating police departments. This alternative, however, would sim- The Honorable Paula A. Lewis March 11, 2009 Page 3 ply shift a funding burden without identifying any corresponding offsetting revenue. The County and the municipalities could raise additional fees, fines, sur- charges, or costs on traffic infractions, or assess additional court costs and surcharges, to cover SRO Program costs. Statutory limitations on the levels of and uses for such fees, surcharges, and assessments, however, may pre- vent this alternative from being a viable solution. The County (together with the Sheriff) and the municipalities could direct that portions of the remaining proceeds of forfeited properties deposited in- to their respective special law enforcement trust funds be used for SRO Programs. To the extent not previously designated for other authorized ex- penditures, these funds likely are limited in amount and unpredictable as a recurring revenue source. The County could establish a municipal services taxing unit to fund all or portions of the SRO Programs, subject to each of the municipalities enact- ing enabling ordinances, thereby allowing levy on all properties not only in the unincorporated areas but also within the municipalities of County. This alternative has an extensive "critical path" for implementation, and if it were to be considered for fiscal year 2009-2010, that process would need to begin very soon. The County and the municipalities could implement some combination of the alternatives listed above. The Board of County Commissioners and its staff undoubtedly will be able to identify other alternatives for consideration. Again, because any SRO Program funding solution must be in place no later than July 1, 2009, to enable the general purpose governments to complete their budget processes for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the School Board is raising the issue at the earliest practicable time. School Board's Request. For the reasons set forth above, the School Board respect- fully requests that the Board of County Commissioners consider the available alternatives for funding SRO Programs in St. Lucie County commencing in fiscal year 2009-2010. In light of the time sensitivity in implementing any solution, and the complex procedure to accomplish creation of an MSTU, but without suggesting that any particular alternative is the best or only option, the School Board alto asks that the Board of County Commission- The Honorable Paula A. Lewis March 11, 2009 Page 4 ers specifically address the MSTU process, including considering whether to hold a public hearing. The School Board has further authorized me to state that it will provide such pro- fessional, clerical, and other support, including appearances as may be required before the County and the governing bodies of each of the municipalities, as necessary to implement any funding alternative that the Board of County Commissioners determines would best accomplish preservation of the SRO Programs for fiscal year 2009-2010 and beyond. Thank you for your consideration, and please advise if the Board of County Com- missioners has any question or requires additional information. Sincerely, Judi C. Miller Chair School Board of St. Lucie County cc: The Honorable Robert J. Bentgn, III Ms. Faye W. Outlaw, MPA The Honorable Patricia Christensen Mr. David L. Recor The Honorable William G. Thiess Mr. Donald B. Cooper The Honorable Ken J. Mascara Mr. Michael J. Lannon Members, School Board of St. Lucie County Board Members + ~ oar Dr. Judi Miller, Chairman /a Excellence in Education Troy Ingersoll, Vice Chairman ° The School Board of St. Lucie County Dr. John Carvelli Kathryn Hensley i 4204 Okeechobee Road Carol A. Hilson St. Lucie Coanty Pablic Schools Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 • (772) 429-3600 Superintendent Michael J. Lannon I~RAIIID~S X08-09-002 To: Members of the School Board r~ ~ ~J C~ From: Michael J. Lannon, Superintendent of Schools V~ Date: March 6, 2009 Re: School Resource Officer Programs-Discussion of Funding Alternati s V As discussed on many occasions, with the drastic funding reductions that we expect for FY 2009-2010, I will soon be recommending major cuts to achieve a balanced budget. Although I have made no final determination on any of these recommendations, among the areas under re- view is the School Board's direct funding to law enforcement agencies in support of the School Resource Officer (SRO) Programs in St. Lucie County. In FY 2008-2009, the School Board's direct funding for all SRO programs will total approximately $2,724,000. The SRO Programs are very important to our public school system, but as components of law enforcement, these programs are an adjunct to the core educational mission of our system, and famish valuable benefit beyond our school campuses. The SRO Programs provide law en- forcement with access to vital information about the community, assisting in both crime preven- tion and criminal investigations off campus and within the community. The programs also bridge jurisdictional boundaries, and serve as a catalyst for coordination and information sharing among all of the local law enforcement agencies. Because the school system may be unable to provide funding for SRO Programs in fiscal year 2009-2010 and beyond, and because these programs involve important law enforcement functions that are valuable to the entire community, I believe we must act quickly to identify a comprehensive, recurring funding source, or collection of sources, to assure their continuation. Law enforcement is under the control of our local general purpose governments, which also have access to revenue sources beyond those available to the School Board. But local governments likewise are straining under the weight of the current economic situation, and must soon begin planning for the coming budget year. Therefore, any concern about the future of SRO Program funding must be raised with the participating agencies as soon as possible. Attached is the draft of a letter from the School Board Chair to the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners raising the issue of SRO Program funding; suggesting a num- ber of solutions that, singly or in combination, might present a funding solution; and offering professional and other support to the County in implementing any funding alternative determined appropriate. Discussion of SRO Program funding alternatives is an item on the School Board meeting agenda for March 10, 2009. I will recommend that the School Board authorize the Chair to send the attached letter to the County ' ''e let me know if you have any question. a o'`~'~ RECEI1fED Attachment a . x. MAR 0 9 209 ACCREDITED SYSTEM-WIDE BY THE SOUTHERN'ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCH~ ADMIN~STRATIOrJ The School Board of St Lucie County is an Equal Opportunity Agency Mazch 11, 2009 The Honorable Paula A. Lewis Chairman, Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: School Resource Officer (SRO) Programs in St. Lucie County Dear Chairman Lewis: School Board of St. Lucie County has authorized me to request guidance and assis- tance from the Board of County Commissioners in preserving the School Resource Officer, or SRO, Programs that serve our community. As I am sure you and other Commissioners aze aware, through a series of cooperative agreements with each of our local law enforce- ment agencies, the School Boazd has secured certified officers to provide law enforcement and related services to our public schools. The SRO Programs have become an important adjunct to the core educational mission of our public school system. Equally import, however, these programs include valuable services beyond our school campuses. T'he SRO Programs provide law enforcement with access to vital infor- mation about the community, greatly facilitating both crime prevention and criminal inves- ' tigations off campus and within the community. In addition, because the programs bridge jurisdictional boundaries, they serve as a catalyst for coordination and information sharing among all of the local law enforcement agencies. In addition to supplies, office space, and related support for the SRO Programs, the School Board historically has also provided funding equivalent to one-half of the personnel and operating expenses for officers and supervisors assigned by the participating law en- forcement agencies. In fiscal yeaz 2008-2009, the School Boazd's direct funding to law enforcement agencies for all SRO Programs will be approximately $2,724,000. The Problem. All Florida School Boards have experienced drastic funding reduc- tions in recent years while expenses continue to rise: In St. Lucie County, currently recognized revenue losses from FY 2007- 2008 to FY 2008-2009 aze equivalent to a per pupil decrease of more than Honorable Paula A. Lewis March 11, 2009 Page 2 2.8 percent in total funding, and a drop of $23 million in state revenues, with additional revenue cuts projected by the end of the year. During the same period, annual operating expenses have increased substan- tially as the result of opening a new school and escalations in health insur- ance and utility costs, although the School Board has been able to offset large portions of these cost increases with conservation measures and salary and hiring freezes. The total revenue reduction to public schools in St. Lucie County from FY 2007-2008 to FY 2009-2010 is now projected to be $53 million, or a cumu- lative per pupil funding loss of nearly 14 percent. Moreover, unlike the general purpose governments, the School Board does not have direct access to revenue sources outside its narrowly circumscribed authority to levy ad valorem taxes (at rates that in essence aze prescribed the Legislature) and its participation in the Florida Education Finance Program (which funding is experiencing the reductions de- scribed above). (An example of this revenue restriction is educational facilities impact fees: the School Boazd may not levy or assess directly, but must seek and obtain the coop- eration of the County and the municipalities in enacting and collecting such fees.) In the face of such steep revenue losses and cost increases, the School Board is gravely concerned that it may be unable to provide funding to law enforcement agencies for SRO Programs in fiscal year 2009-2010, or at least not at the level committed for 2008- 2009. At the same time, the School Board recognizes that the SRO Programs are simply too valuable to the entire community to allow their lapse. A comprehensive, recurring funding source, or collection of sources, must be identified to assure continuation of these important law enforcement functions in fiscal year 2009-2010 and beyond. Because of the lead time necessary for all local governments to plan for the coming budget year, the School Board is bringing its concerns forward prior to making a fmal decision on the level of funding, if any, that it will be able to commit to the SRO Programs in 2009-2010. Potential Solutions. Simply identifying a problem to sister agencies without re- viewing alternative responses would not reflect conscientious governance. For that reason, the School Boazd has examined and identified a number of possibilities for covering the anticipated funding shortfall for the SRO Programs that may be worthy of consideration: The general purpose governments could each absorb larger portions of the personnel and operating costs of the SRO Programs in the budget processes established (by the County) for the Sheriff and (by the municipalities) for Honorable Paula A. Lewis March 11, 2009 Page 3 the participating police departments. This alternative, however, would sim- ply shift a funding burden without identifying any corresponding offsetting revenue. The County and the municipalities could raise additional fees, fines, sur- charges, or costs on traffic infractions, or assess additional court costs and surcharges, to cover SRO Program costs. Statutory limitations on the levels of and uses for such fees, surchazges, and assessments, however, may pre- vent this alternative from being a viable solution. The County (together with the Sheriff) and the municipalities could direct that portions of the remaining proceeds of forfeited properties deposited in- to their respective special law enforcement trust funds be used for SRO Programs. To the extent not previously designated for other authorized ex- penditures, these funds likely aze limited in amount and unpredictable as a recurring revenue source. The County could establish a municipal services taxing unit to fund all or portions of the SRO Programs, subject to each of the municipalities enact- ing enabling ordinances, thereby allowing levy on all properties not only in the unincorporated azeas but also within the municipalities of County. This alternative has an extensive "critical path" for implementation, and if it were to be considered for fiscal year 2009-2010, that process would need to begin very soon. The County and the municipalities could implement some combination of the alternatives listed above. T'he Board of County Commissioners and its staff undoubtedly will be able to identify other alternatives for consideration. Again, because any SRO Program funding solution must be in place no later than July 1, 2009, to enable the general purpose governments to complete their budget processes for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the School Board is raising the issue at the earliest practicable time. School Boazd's Request. For the reasons set forth above, the School Board respect- fully requests that the Boazd of County Commissioners consider the available alternatives for funding SRO Programs in St. Lucie County commencing in fiscal year 2009-2010. In light of the time sensitivity in implementing any solution, and the complex procedure to accomplish creation of an MSTU, but without suggesting that any particulaz alternative is Honorable Paula A. Lewis March 11, 2009 Page 4 the best or only option, the School Board also asks that the Board of County Commission- ers specifically address the MSTU process, including considering whether to hold a public hearing. The School Board has further authorized me to state that it will provide such pro- fessional, clerical, and other support, including appearances as may be required before the County and the governing bodies of each of the municipalities, asnecessary to implement any funding alternative that the Board of County Commissioners determines would best accomplish preservation of the SRO Programs for fiscal year 2009-2010 and beyond. Thank you for your consideration, and please advise if the Board of County Com- missioners has any question or requires additional information. Sincerely, Judith C. Miller Chair School Board of St. Lucie County cc: The Honorable Robert J. Benton, III Ms. Faye W. Outlaw, MPA The Honorable Patricia Christensen Mr. David L. Recor The Honorable William G. Thiess Mr. Donald B. Cooper The Honorable Ken J. Mascara Mr. Michael J. Lannon Members, School Board of St. Lucie County