HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformal SRO Program Minutes 04-07-2009BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
INFORMAL WORKSESSION
SRO PROGRAM
Date: Apri17, 2009 Convened: 9:30 a.m.
Adjourned: 11:05 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Paula A. Lewis, Charles Grande, Chris
Dzadovsky, Chris Craft, Doug Coward
Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County
Administrator, Marie Gouin, OMB Director, School Board Members: Dr. Judi Miller;
Michael Lannon, Superintendent of Schools; Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk
Opening remarks were made by the County Administrator.
The County Administrator alluded to the attached letter from the School Board Chair, Dr.
Judi Miller.
Mr. Lannon addressed the Board and provided additional information for the Board's
review.
Mr. Lannon alluded to the breakdown of the officers and where they are located and cost
per officer. There are 34 officers funded by St. Lucie County, 18 officers funded by Port
St. Lucie and 3 funded by the City of Ft. Pierce for a total of 55 officers.
The total cost of each officer is $92,479 without equipment and without the
administrator.
The County pays $1.8 million and the School Board funded $2.5 million. Total cost of
the program is $ 5.447.401. Funding figures for the various entities are: $1,720,971 St.
Lucie County, $902,730 City of Port St. Lucie, and $100,000 City of Ft. Pierce.
Com. Coward questioned if the two schools they had proposed to close were in fact
closing.
Mr. Lannon stated the schools would be closing thus lowering the total cost.
They would be reducing the officers by: (1 officer from SLC and 1.5 officers from PSL)
Dr. Miller advised the Board their reduction of one officer would be $92,479 in addition
to supplies at a cost of $8,755 and they separated out administrative costs due to the fact
each entity would need to deal with this cost themselves. The new estimate would be
those two figures combined.
Chief Deputy Wilson stated the total cost for each officer is around $100,000 including
benefits depending on seniority.
There are 3 floater positions at a cost of $300,000, 7 supervisors at around $102,011 +
each depending on rank.
The School Principals stated there is always one officer all day at the schools due to the
fact the other officer may be called out for an em~,rgency or other training required as
well as illness etc. The schools need 180 days of officer time.
Dr. Miller stated in speaking with the cities, Port St. Lucie may continue funding at their
present level but have not said anything about going over and above. They want a
presence in all the high schools and the K-8 level but they may wind up sharing. They
have not had formal discussions on the issues yet. They may wish to reduce their amount
of coverage but have not defined that as yet, but they do want to make sure the high
schools and the upper grade levels of middle K-8 aze taken caze of. They are committed
to make sure there is officer presence at these schools. They may reduce coverage at the
elementary level, she is not sure. As she stated they have not had a formal meeting on the
issue.
Com. Craft stated in his meeting with the City of Ft. Pierce he understood they may not
have the funds to cover their share of the cost for the officers.
Dr. Miller stated they were funded through a grant.
Deputy Wilson stated they are covering their costs through the CRA.
Com. Cowazd questioned if we were compazable to those areas like St. Lucie County in
the ratio of an officer per student.
Chief Deputy Wilson stated he believed they were.
Com. Craft stated he felt they needed to find the funding for this program from
elementary through high school.
Com. Dzadovsky stated realistically they do not have the funds. He supports the program
but they may need to do something differently to get to the problem.
Mr. Lannon stated they came to the Boazd because if anything like an MSTU was to be
considered the County would be the only one who could do this assessment and they
would be the main player. Then and only then could they go back and ask the other
entities for an interlocal agreement. This puts the ball in the County's court first.
He believes the grant will cover the City of Ft. Pierce's $100,000 but not the match.
Com. Craft stated he believed instead of attempting to piece meal this together it makes
sense that the county take the lead and find a dedicated funding source.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he would still like the voters to have an input and decide.
Com. Craft stated it was not required and they were elected to do a job and sometimes
they need to do what is right and he believes making sure this program is funded is right
without crippling themselves not knowing what the state is going to do.
Com. Grande stated he does not believes anyone disputes the program is right but, they
must remember for yeazs they have developed a methodology supporting the program
that everyone has been accustomed to. If they were starting from scratch Com. Craft's
point may be correct, but in today's budget for them to go out and find the funding source
to support this and if they aze going to give up the concept of everyone that's contributing
to the pot and say let's go for the single funding source, it does not make sense to him to
give this up and go for that single funding source.
Com. Craft asked what if the county could reduce their millage rate by this amount as
well as the City of Port St. Lucie and it would be a dedicated funding source that
everyone would then be paying an equal amount.
Com. Cowazd stated it is not a question if the SRO program should be funded it is the
question of how. He is not comfortable with keeping the general public out of the
process. He believes they need a short term solution for this upcoming year and work
collectively together to come up with a solution for the next fiscal year, thoroughly
2
review this and come up with a comprehensive strategy. He does not believe adding a
tax to this economy is proper at this time.
Com. Craft stated using a one time funded source basically for employees and it is not re-
occurring and believes these funds should be used for capital projects. The devaluation
of property this year and noting that the average person will be paying less in taxes next
year, it will not be a tax increase, it may be a millage increase. The .27 mills would not
even get us to the roll back. He stated he would like to see what they could get from the
city of Port St. Lucie so that the net affect would still be a tax decrease.
Com. Dzadovsky stated last year during budget sessions there was also a one time
funding source, the sale of the helicopter. He believes based on what the Citizens Budget
Committee brought forward going with an MSTU, the people in St. Lucie County may
approve the MSTU if they knew what it was going to cost them. They need to send a
message to Tallahassee that they will not keep paying for unfunded mandates and raise
taxes at the local level.
Dr. Miller stated they had spent an enormous amount of time in educating the people on
the budget constraints for this year and if anyone read the blogs, they still believe it is a
local issue they do not see the connection on how the dollars have been reduced at the
state level.
Com. Coward stated there is a misunderstanding with the basic form of government by
the general public.
Com. Grande stated he believes there is a majority present looking for a single year fix.
Mr. Lannon stated it would be two technically because the general election is in
November, they could go into a primary in August but it would still put them in a second
school year. They could look at a long range plan with a stop gap which may need to go
two years, and then go before the people with the argument they have now; they would
then look for a long term solution.
Com. Coward stated he would like to find a comprehensive long term solution. He
believes they will have the opportunity to make more difficult decisions and come up
with the money. He agrees with Com. Craft's goals but disagrees with the timing issue
and how to go about it. He does not wish to put this in a form of a tax increase with these
economic times and without public input.
Com. Craft stated if they were to adopt an MSTU they would require 2 public hearings.
They can have an all day workshop to have citizen participation. He hopes the property
values come in at 20% or less reduction because if it comes in any higher they would not
be able to fund this without a tax increase.
Dr. Miller addressed the time table for an MSTU and stated she is not sure if they have
missed the time table.
The County Attorney stated it would need to be created by July 15`. The cities would
need to adopt their own ordinance consenting to the MSTU which means they would
need to have public hearings it would be similar to the Parks MSTU.
Com. Grande asked if they were willing as a Board to commit to the Board of Education
that they would be covered. He agrees they would not be able today to lay down the
specifics.
Com. Craft asked if he was committing to fund an additional $2.7 million above what the
County is funding.
Com. Coward stated if the other entities do not step up to the plate for the program as the
county is prepared to do. He concurred with the fact the County needs to lead by
example. They can take in the CRA because their portion is funded half by the county
3
Who funds the largest portion, so we have the largest portion plus half of theirs and trey
are now going even further and doubling the contribution, and hopefully they will step up
with us and make sure the program is totally funded. He is prepared to make this
commitment. The County pays $1.7 and taking $100,000 reduction for our portion, then
you are looking for an additional contribution of $1.5 or $1.6 million and he is prepared
to commit that they will prioritize finding the funds through our budget process. He
stated he did not believe taxes should be raised because another entity was not willing to
make the same level of contribution.
Com. Grande stated he did not believe they should micro-manage another entity's budget
or their financial planning but should challenge them to meet us with the commitment.
Com. Dzadovsky concurred with the fact they needed more information from the
Property Appraiser as to where they stand with the values.
The County Attorney stated they would need to look at a two year short term solution and
then look for an MSTU referendum during the general election.
Com.Coward stated they are looking for a partnership with everyone stepping up to the
plate.
Dr. Miller stated they would prefer the long term solution so they do not have to worry
about this issue in the future.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he still believed the people needed to have the opportunity to
speak on this issue.
Com.Grande stated there may be other solutions they have not pursued and a referendum
should the last option.
Dr. Miller stated after a pretty extensive research they felt this would be the only option
to fund the program long term unless Tallahassee does some serious changing.
Com. Coward stated the Board is prepared to double their contribution which would be
2/3 of the funds of the program and will do so through challenging budget decisions
without a tax increase.
Dr. Miller stated they would need to speak with the city leaders and have serious
discussions with them.
Mr. Lannon asked if he had heard correctly that the county was reaching out to fund the
other half of the City of Ft. Pierce's share of the program.
Com. Coward stated no, this was not what he was saying. The City of Ft. Pierce needs
to step up to the plate and partner in this especially since their contribution is 1.8% taking
out the county's CRA contribution and they have 15% of the population. They should
have an increase even if they were not taking on any additional..... they need to step up
to the plate.
Dr. Miller thanked the Board for taking the time to hear the School District's concern and
being the first one to speak out on a long term solution. They will be speaking with the
municipalities and are now aware the Board is presently talking about a 2 year solution at
this point.
Com. Coward stated it was not that they were speaking solely about a short term solution,
but are committed to finding a solution without raising taxes.
Dr. Miller stated what she sees is a long term dedication to the program but not a long
term funding commitment.
4
Com. Coward stated he did not believe this was so since they have found a way to fu~~d
this program for the last 23 years and they are going to do it again this year and next year.
They are looking for a different dedicated source.
Dr. Miller stated last year on the Port St. Lucie side, there were comments as to whether
or not they should be funding this and was concerned about losing the funding because
there was discussion as to whose responsibility this was. This program has been in
jeopardy for a long time.
Com. Coward suggested in lieu of a tax increase hook at an interlocal agreement
commitment with the other entities noting the county is paying for the major part of the
program.
Com. Dzadovsky stated they need to make sure the message to Tallahassee is that they
need to take care of what they are responsible for.
Dr. Miller stated they will share the fact the county is providing 2/3 of the funding for the
program. She expects they will support the program but not sure to what degree since
they have not had a full Board discussion.
Mr. Lannon thanked the Board for their unwavering support.
Com. Dzadovsky requested the Sheriff s office look for any additional cuts they could
make in their budget to asssit with this issue.
Com. Coward gave a summary of the contribution figures as he understood them.
$1.72 original commitment, plus an additional $1.72 totals to $3.44 million
$3.44 million, minus $100,000 savings, the total commitment would be: up to $ 3.3.4
million.
The meeting was adjourned.
5
~. ~~
~ •aF
~'` ~~--~ Excellence in Education
~~ , -~
c~~~ The School Board of St. Lucie County
St. Lucie county 4204 Okeechobee Road
Public Schools Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 • (772) 429-3600
Board Members
Dr. Judi Miller, Chairman
Troy Ingersoll, vice Chairman
Dr. John Carvelli
Kathryn Hensley
Carol A. Hilson
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 Board 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 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 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 cut,r>~cted by the end of the year. RECE~V~~
~_
sEU oe ;~ ~ '..
q =.'BEST ~ n :,
>~~~ ~.~ ~: MAR 16 2009
j MAHAGEYEHT
""._ PRACTICES ,~
!~
G0. ADMINiSTnATION
ACCREDITED SYSTEM-WIDE BY THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS
The School Board of St. Lucie County is an Equa! 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 Boazd 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 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 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 Boazd 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 Boazd 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, 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,
Judi C. Miller
Chair
School Board of St. Lucie County
cc: The Honorable Robert J. Bentgn, III
The Honorable Patricia Christensen
The Honorable William G. Thiess
The Honorable Ken J. Mascara
Members, School Board of St. Lucie County
Ms. Faye W. Outlaw, MPA
Mr. David L. Recor
Mr. Donald B. Cooper
Mr. Michael J. Lannon
a... ~~ ~r
Board Members
•'~` Dr. Judi Miller, Chairman
~,~'' ~ Excellence in Education
~~ Troy Ingersoll, Vice Chairman
The School Board of St. Lucie County Dr. John Carvelli
~ Kathryn Hensley
St Lucie County' 4204 Okeechobee Road Carol A. Hilson
Public Schools Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 • (772) 429-3600 Superintendent
Michael J. Lannon
)!~$Al~@s X08-09-002
To: Members of the School Board (,~
~~ ~ ~J U
From: Michael J. Lannon, Superintendent of Schools '~~ •'
J"
Date: March 6, 2009 ~\~\~
~ V
Re: School Resource Officer Programs-Discussion of Funding Alternati s
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 furnish 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:>~~ . '' ~ h~let me know if you have any question.
~F~~,' ~ ~~ RECEIVED
Attachment ~ ;. ~,
~~'.., ~, x ~~' MAR 0 9 2009
ACCREDITED SYSTEM-WIDE BY THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCH~ gp~l~l$jRgtIOPJ
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
Deaz Chairman Lewis:
School Boazd 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
are aware, through a series of cooperative agreements with each of our local law enforce-
ment 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 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 year 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 Boazds 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
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
lazge 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 Board may not levy or assess duectly, 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 Board has examined and identified a number of possibilities for covering the
anticipated funding shortfall for the SRO Programs that maybe worthy of consideration:
• The general purpose governments could each absorb lazger 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
Mazch 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, Ernes, 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 yeaz 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 Boazd'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 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 otlier 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,
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
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM
2009/2010 Planning Information
Apri16, 2009
1. In 2008/2009 the School Resource Officer (SRO) program in St. Lucie County
Schools includes 55 officers assigned to schools as outlined in the attached table.
The total amount of the portion paid for by St. Lucie County Schools through
contracts with the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office, Port St. Lucie Police
Department, and the Fort Pierce Police Department equals $2,723,701.
2. 2008/2009 total program costs for the Sheriff s Department includes the salary
and benefit costs associated with 34 school resource deputiest. The total program
costs associated with the Port St. Lucie Police Department includes salary and
benefit costs associated with 18 school resource officers and the salary and benefit
costs of 2 sergeants.2 These total program costs are split equally between the LEA
and the school district.
3. 2008/2009 total program costs also included supply and operating costs associated
with the SRO program including fuel, automobile maintenance, bond/liability
insurance, laptop wireless connections, software and supplies costs for officers.
4. SRO program needs in terms of staffing were reviewed with principals and
overall the level of current staffing was felt to be appropriate With two officers
assigned to all large K8 schools, middle schools, and high schools the different
training schedules and other scheduling issues with the individual officers can be
accommodated while still ensuring that one officer is on campus at all times
during school hours.
5. In looking at potential needs for next year (2009/2010) pending school board
approval officers would no longer be required at Southbend K8 or at PSL
Elementary, which would reduce the overall need by 2.5 officers for next year
(1.5 officers with PSLPD and 1 officer with SLC-SO).
6. A review of the months when coverage is needed due to school being in session
(10 months) compared with the current officer length of contract (11 months)
indicates that 90.1 % of SRO contracted service is spent in contact with students
during school days.
~ The St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department absorbed the costs associated with 1 lieutenant, 2 sergeants,
and 1 secretary in 2008/2009.
2 The PSL PD absorbed the costs associated with 1 Lieutenant during the 2008/2009 school year.
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM STAFFING, 2008 - 2009
SCHOOL SLC-SO PSL PD FP PD TOTAL
Alla attah Flats K8 1 1 2
Ba shore Elementa 0.5 0.5
C.A. Moore Elementa 0.5 0.5
Dale Cassens Center 1 1
Dan McCa Middle 1 2
Delaware Avenue 1 ~'~--~ 1
F. K. Sweet Elementa 0.5 0.5
Fairlawn Elementa 1 1
Floresta Elementa 0.5 0.5
Forest Grove Middle 2 2
Fort Pierce Central Hi h 2 2
Fort Pierce Westwood Hi h 2 2
FP Ma net School of the Arts 0.5 0.5
Garden Ci Elementa 0.5 0.5
Indian Hills School 1 1
Lakewood Park Elementa 0.5 0.5
Lawnwood Elementa 0.5 0.5
Lincoln Park Academ 1 1 2
Manatee Elementa 1 1 2
Mari osa Elementa 0.5 0.5
Mornin side Elementa 0.5 0.5
North ort K8 1 1 2
Oak Hammock K8 1 1 2
Palm Pointe K8 1 1 2
Parkwa Elementa 0.5 0.5
Port St. Lucie Elementa 0.5 0.5
Port St. Lucie Hi h 1 1 2
Rivers Ed a Elementa 0.5 0.5
Samuel Gaines Academ 1 1 2
Savanna Rid a Elementa 0.5 0.5
SLW Centennial Hi h 1 1 2
St. Lucie West K8 1 1 2
Southbend K8 1 1 2
Southern Oaks Middle 1 1 2
South ort Middle School 1 1 2
St. Lucie Elementa 0.5 0.5
Treasure Coast Hi h 1 1 2
Villa a Green Elementa 0.5 0.5
Weatherbee Elementa 0.5 0.5
West Gate K8 1 1 2
White Cit Elementa 0.5 0.5
Windmill Point Elementa 1 1
Floater Positions 3 3
TOTAL SRO/SRD 34 18 3 55
Costs for Officers Salaries 3,144,273 1,516,580 100,000 4,760,853
Costs for Officers Su lies 297,670 75,780 373,450
TOTAL COSTS OF OFFICERS 3,441,943 1,592,360 100,000 5,134,303
SLCSD OFFICER CONTRACT COST HALF 1,720,971 796,180 100,000 2,617,151
SRO Pro ram Su ervisors and Support Personnel 4 3 7
Costs for Su ervisors 408,044 213,100
INCLUDED !N SLCSD CONTRACT COST HALF 0 106,550
SLCSD TOTAL CONTRACT COST (2008-2009) $ 1,720,971 $ 902,730 $ 100,000 $ 2,723,701
*Note: The Fort Pierce Police Department provided 3 officers through a CIS Grant for 2008/2009.
4/6/2009
School Resource Officers
Funding
2009-2010
Breakdown
2008/2009
Officers Location
22 Port St. Lucie
2 Fort Pierce
37 SL County (countywide)
61 Tota I
i
School Resource Officers Funding
2008/2009
School Board $2,724,000
Port St. Lucie $ 927,770
Fort Pierce $ 12Q,000
St. Lucie County (BCC) $1,500,000
Law Enforcement Trust Fund ~ 200,000
TOTAL $5,471,770
School Board Suggestions for
Potential Solutions
The creation of a MSTU with a Millage rate of
0.317 would be required to fully fund the SRO
Program at $5,471,770.
2