Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6A_11/9/1995 � � Palm Beach Counly MIINICII P.O. BOX 1989, GOVERNMENTAL CENTER, WE"! Village of Tequesta AUG 2 8 1995 Village Manager's Office MEMORANDUM TO: Palm Beach County Municipal League Board of Directors Councilman David Swift Councilman Jay Alperin FROM: Steven L. Abrams, Presiden L 4 DATE: August 25, 1995 RE: School Concurrency and 1k Sales Tax *********************************************************** At my request, League Attorney John Corbett has prepared the attached synopsis of information regarding the school concurrency ordinance and 1 sales tax being proposed, as presented to our Board of Directors on August 9 by ECTF Co-Chairs Commissioner Karen Marcus and Jody Gleason, School Board Chair. This is provided for your information and for future discussion and review. SLA/drh Enclosure V44(leeit aga *AA ATTORNEYS AT LAW FLAGLER CENTER TOWER • • 505 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 1003 / �/L'/ AREA CODE 407 J3HNCCRSETi alm. �.CJeac2, Jfufvda 11110/ TELEPHONE659.08Ca TRELA J Y:HITE TELECOPIER 659-3375 MEMORANDUM To: Steven L. Abrams, President, Palm Beach County Municipal League From: John Corbett /2) Re: School Concurrencyur Task Force Presentation to Municipal League Board of Directors August 9, 1995 Date: August 25, 1995 County Commissioner Karen Marcus and School Board Chair Jody Gleason appeared at the Municipal League Board Meeting to report on the School Concurrency Task Force that they Co-Chair. The Board of Directors requested that I prepare this memorandum summarizing the presentation and discussing the issued raised during the presentation. I have supplemented the • figures presented at the Board of Director's meeting with figures on school revenue contained in the minutes of the School Concurrency Task Force and figures on building permits and development approvals prepared by Palm Beach County. The Task Force now has 23 members. The initial Task Force, which first met on January 25, had fourteen members appointed by the County Commission and seven members appointed by the School Board. Two municipal league appointees, Dave Swift and Jay Alperin, were added prior to the May 11, 1995 meeting. TASK FORCE TASKS A handout was presented detailing the four tasks of the Task Force. The handout is attached to this memorandum. The following represents the status of each task as reported by Commissioner Marcus, Chair Jody Gleason and Assistant School Superintendent Larry Zabik. August 25, 1995 Page 2 Determination of the Level of Service The first task is the determination of the level of service. The Task Force has tentatively set the level of service at the existing school core capacity- 930 for elementary; 1,500 for middle; and 2,500 for high schools. The Task Force is still exploring the impacts of setting smaller school sizes, which would increase the funding needs since more facilities would have to be built. The smaller sizes being explored are 700 for elementary, 1,000 for middle, and 1,500-2,000 for high schools. Backlog Funding Alternatives The second task is establishing backlog funding alternatives. The School Board estimates that it needs $600 million to make up the backlog and build the schools that will be required due to new demand for the next five years. This figure includes $284 million for the current backlog, which requires 15 new elementary schools, 3 new middle schools and no new high schools along with $35 million in renovations to existing schools. $316 million is required to meet the projected new demand over the next five years, beginning in August, 1995. The demand is generated by a projected 25,000 new students who would require 10 new elementary schools, 6 new middle schools, 2 new high schools, and the building out of 2 existing high schools. The preferred option at this point for meeting the funding need over the next five years is a 1 cent sales tax. A 1 cent sales tax would generate $114 million per year, which would result in $570 million in new revenues over five years. Thus, there would appear to be a $30 million shortfall even with the 1 cent sales tax. Planning and Funding For Growth The third task is to plan and fund growth beyond the next five year period. $60 million is required yearly to meet projected growth demands. Three elementary schools are needed yearly, and a middle and high school are needed every second or third year. Currently, there has not been an identified revenue source for this need. Impact fees currently generate abouf$6 million per year. The County may consider raising that figure in the future, but it appears that the maximum revenues would be about $16 million. A new revenue source would be needed for future years. In ra/cleet am' 'Wed :lz/m eacAc, Axcda 3340/ August 25, 1995 Page 3 If the School Board could get operation and maintenance expenditures out of it's capital budget, there might be enough money to fund the future capital needs. However, School Board Chair Jody Gleason did not think it was likely that this would occur. Implementation - Charter Amendment and Concurrency Ordinance The fourth task is the implementation of the determined solutions, which includes the preparation of the necessary Charter Amendment and concurrency ordinance. A subcommittee has been created to begin drafting the school concurrency ordinance. Jay Alperin is the municipal league member on this subcommittee. At this point, there is an attempt to pattern the school concurrency ordinance after the Traffic Performance Standard ordinance. Commissioner Marcus stated that concurrency would not go in place until the School Board catches up with the backlog. However, she also said that the preliminary thought is that concurrency would be phased in over three to five years. A three to five year phase in may not be adequate since the estimate was that it would take five to seven years to fully catch up with the backkog. Commissioner Marcus also said that there may be some degradation of the level of service allowed over the first few years. Commissioner Marcus said that there would be safeguards built into the ordinance. She listed the requirements for a five year funding program, a two year wait and go period, and an independent oversight committee as examples of potential safeguards that the Committee is considering. Larry Zabik added that perhaps the sales tax proceeds would be placed in a trust fund and there would be an independent audit of expenditures. The tentative schedule is to have the draft of the concurrency ordinance completed by next June. Commissioner Marcus indicated that the task may be completed sooner. PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING SALES TAX AND CONCURRENCY Sales Tax State law allows the imposition of a one cent sales tax for local government infrastructure. The tax must be approved by the voters in a referendum. The County Commission has the authority to place the tax on the ballot. Unless there is an interlocal agreement between the County and municipalities comprising 7f0J, (via i14e FYe / aim ge.acAi, J/,qi z ?3.G0/ • August 25, 1995 Page 4 over 50% of the incorporated population, the proceeds of the sales tax would be split between the County and the Cities by statutory formula. A rough analysis of the statutory split would indicate a 60% share for the County, with the remaining 40% split among all of the municipalities. Since the County desires that the entire proceeds of the sales tax go to the school board for the construction of new schools, this interlocal agreement is required. The School Board would either be a participant in this interlocal agreement or would enter into a separate one with the County. School Concurrency In order to implement countywide school concurrency, the Palm Beach County Charter would have to be amended to allow the County to adopt a countywide ordinance on school concurrency. The County Commission could place that charter change on the ballot. Once the Charter was amended to allow for a countywide school concurrency ordinance, Palm Beach County would have to amend its comprehensive plan to establish a school level of service and to adopt a financially feasible public school capital facilities program. After the comprehensive plan was amended, the County Commission could adopt a countywide school concurrency ordinance. Linkage Between Sales Tax and Concurrency There are both legal and political linkages between the sales tax and school concurrency. Legally, in order to adopt a school concurrency program, Section 163.3180(1)(b)1, F.S., requires that the public school level of service be adopted as part of the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan along with a financially feasible public school capital facilities program established with the school board that will provide educational facilities at the adopted level of service. If the sales tax fails, there is no funding source that would allow the County to comply with this statutory requirement. Politically, Commissioner Marcus' position is that the sales tax allows the School Board to catch up with the need for schools.and concurrency keeps us caught up in the future. She expressed her own personal feeling that she could not support the sales tax without school concurrency. �p , Caret ami �'I7 'e Need Ia/m. Read, Altai fl401 • • August-25, 1995 Page 5 TIMING FOR REQUIRED REFERENDA There is no firm schedule for the required referenda. Larry Zabik indicated that the School Board staff would be recommending that the School Board support an election in the spring. Commissioner Marcus indicated that she was looking at September of next year. The County Commission and School Board will continue to discuss the timing issue. ISSUES RAISED DURING DISCUSSION How Can Voters Be Assured That Money Will Be Spent Correctly? In response to this question, Commissioner Marcus stated that concurrency gives the voters the assurance that schools will not get behind again. Once we catch up, we can assure voters that the existing backlog situation will not happen again. Chair Jody Gleason suggested that the recent School Board track record shows that the Board has 14,000 new student stations opening on time and on budget this year. Also, a committee could be put in place to oversee how the money is spent. Further, there is now parallel planning occurring between the County and the School Board which was not occurring in previous years. School Quality Concerns were raised that the regulatory program proposed does not address improving the quality of education. Systematic school reform was needed. In response, the hope was that having more capacity and eliminating overcrowding would help improve the quality of education, but systematic reform of the education system was beyond the scope of school concurrency. Concurrency Will Kill Development Absent An Assured Level of Funding Unless there is an assured level of finding and an assured schedule of construction throughout the planning period (currently 2010 in local comprehensive plans), school concurrency can totally stop growth in the developing communities. Under the concurrency proposal, cities are giving up their land use authority to the County and the County is giving up its and the cities land use authority to the School Board. If the School Board decides not to build a required school in an area serving a city, no development would be permitted in that city. roldeit emu/ yrk& l ea! Ja/m Read, Jul',qh. 33.401 August 25, 1995 Page 6 Does Concurrency Really Prevent the Future Overcrowding of Schools? According to Jody Gleason, 20% of new school demand is caused by new development. The other 80% is caused by families with children moving into existing units within the County or current residents having new children. Of the 20% of the new school demand caused by new development, a large percentage is caused by the construction of previously approved and vested units. These units would not be subject to concurrency. For example, from January 1994 through May 1995 in unincorporated Palm Beach County, the County Commission approved 3,321 new dwelling units. These units would have been subject to concurrency if an ordinance was in place. During the same period, the County issued 10,636 building permits. Assuming all of the newly approved units were built during this 18 months (which is highly unlikely), the remaining 7,315 units came from previously approved and vested projects, which would not have been subject to school concurrency. Thus, 31% of the new units constructed during this period in the unincorporated area would have been subject to concurrency. Historically, around 68% of all new building permits issued yearly are issued in the unincorporated part of the county, with the remaining 32% being issued by all of the municipalities. Assuming the same split between vested and non-vested projects in the municipalities and given that new development only accounts for 20% of the new school demand, concurrency would only actually address approximately 6% of the potential new demand. It does not appear that a school concurrency ordinance would guarantee that schools would not become overcrowded again. Instead, all it may accomplish is preventing newer better designed projects from being approved, forcing a combination of the development of older vested projects which may not be desirable and the further slowdown of the construction industry. Also., a disproportionate burden might be borne by the developing communities, since a higher percentage • of their new units might be attributable to new development which could be stopped by concurrency. ram {'4ik Cot Jahn Read, Jla a z 33.G01 3i44VODu 7— TASK FORCE WILL REVIEW AND BE INVOLVED IN TASKS 1-4. THEY WILL ALSO REVIEW THE GLEASON/MARCUS WORK PROGRAM AND RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES. TASK #1 - Level Of Service Determination ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE School Board 4-6 Months Task Force A. Establishment of a Level of Service that addresses one or more of the following: 1. School Capacity 2. Integration 3. Class Size 4. Use of Portables 5. Core Facilities (Cafeterias, Gyms, etc.) 6. Boundaries 7. Private Schools B. Application of Level of Service 1. School by School 2. Countywide 3. Regional 4. TAZ/SACS TASK #2 - Backlog Funding Alternatives ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE Joint (Gleason/Marcus) 6 Months Task Force A. Identify backlog of schools Tools to identify backlog should be: 1. Population Projections/Growth Trends 2. Students Population/Growth Patterns 3. New Schools/Locations Related to Growth Projections 4. Long Term Plan for School Location 5. Reliance on 5 year plan for assured construction B. Identify Funding Alternatives a. Traditional Ways 1. Millage 2. General Obligation Bond Issue 3. COPS 4. Impact Fees 5. PECO/Other State Programs 6. Section 237 Loans 7. CO & DS Funds b. Non-Traditional Ways 1. One cent sales tax increase 2. Developers paying for new schools 3. MSTUs TASK #3 Planning and Funding for Growth ASSIGNMENT ' SCHEDULE Joint 4-6 Months (directed by Marcus & Gleason) Task Force A. Identify Funding Sources for 5 Year Funding a. Traditional Ways 1. Millage 2. General Obligation Bond Issue 3. COPS 4. Impact Fees 5. PECO/Other.State Programs 6. Section 237 Loans 7. CO & DS Funds 8. Funding for operating and maintenance costs b. Non-Traditional Ways 1. One cent sales tax increase 2. Developers paying for new schools 3. MSTUs B. Identify Annual Needs 1. Population Growth/Trends (5,000 new students annually) 2. Student Growth/Trends 3. Distribution of New Students 4. Annual Construction Needed and Planning Horizon 5. Location of New Expanded Facilities 6. Use of alternative structures 7. Change to Department of Education building requirements C. Identify Existing Capacity Shortfall Based on Level of Service 1. Existing Enrollment = 126,000 2. Permanent Capacity = 95,000 3. Existing Shortfall = 31,000' 4. New Permanent Capacity Needed 5. Projected Annual Growth = 5,000 • 6. Assured Construction/5 Year Plan D. Funding Needs/Cost Analysis (funding alternatives from Task 2) 1. Funding necessary to address existing deficiencies consistent with proposed LOS 2. Funding necessary to address future needs consistent with proposed LOS 3. Capital Improvement Element Adjustments needed TASK #4 - Implementation (Charter Ord. Adoption) ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE Joint 6-12 Months Task Force A. Board of County Commissioners approved School Concurrency Task Force expanded to include seven members appointed by School Board. B. Draft Charter Amendment C. Amend Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Element D. Draft Countywide Ordinance E. Outline Implementation Strategy 1. Phasing of current capacity deficiency & annual depicted deficiencies 2. Stage of the Development Review process to apply to LOS 3. Failure of either party to meet applicable School Concurrency standards TIME FRAME A. Total duration of project estimated at 2 years. E. Tasks #'s 1, 2, and 3 may be conducted simultaneously. These tasks should be completed in one year. C. Task #4 could start after Level of Service is identified and completed by the following June. TASK FORCE WILL REVIEW AND BE INVOLVED IN TASKS 1-4. THEY WILL ALSO REVIEW THE GLEASON/MARCUS WORK PROGRAM AND RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES. TASK#1 - Level Of Service Determination ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE School Board 4-6 Months Task Force A. Establishment of a Level of Service that addresses one or more of the following: 1. School Capacity 2. Integration 3. Class Size 4. Use of Portables 5. Core Facilities (Cafeterias, Gyms, etc.) 6. Boundaries 7. Private Schools B. Application of Level of Service 1. School by School 2. Countywide 3. Regional 4. TAZ/SACS TASK #2 - Backlog Funding Alternatives ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE Joint (Gleason/Marcus) 6 Months Task Force A. Identify backlog of schools Tools to identify backlog should be: 1. Population Projections/Growth Trends 2. Students Population/Growth Patterns 3. New Schools/Locations Related to Growth Projections 4. Long Term Plan for School Location 5. Reliance on 5 year plan for assured construction B. Identify Funding Alternatives a. Traditional Ways 1. Millage 2. General Obligation Bond. Issue • 3. COPS 4. Impact Fees 5. PECO/Other State Programs 6. Section 237 Loans 7. CO & DS Funds b. Non-Traditional Ways 1. One cent sales tax increase 2. Developers paying for new schools 3. MSTUs • TASK #3 Planning and Funding for Growth ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE Joint 4-6 Months (directed by Marcus & Gleason) Task Force A. Identify Funding Sources for 5 Year Funding a. Traditional Ways 1. Millage 2. General Obligation Bond Issue 3. COPS 4. Impact Fees 5. PECO/Other State Programs 6. Section 237 Loans 7. CO & DS Funds 8. Funding for operating and maintenance costs b. Non-Traditional Ways 1. One cent sales tax increase • 2. Developers paying for new schools 3. MSTUs B. Identify Annual Needs 1. Population Growth/Trends (5,000 new students annually) 2. Student Growth/Trends 3. Distribution of New Students 4. Annual Construction Needed and Planning Horizon 5. Location of New Expanded Facilities 6. Use of alternative structures 7.. Change to Department of Education building requirements C. Identify Existing Capacity Shortfall Based on Level of Service 1. Existing Enrollment = 126,000 2. Permanent Capacity = 95,000 3. Existing Shortfall = 31,000 4. New Permanent Capacity Needed 5. Projected Annual Growth = .5,000 6. Assured Construction/5 Year Plan . D. Funding Needs/Cost Analysis • (funding alternatives from Task 2) 1. Funding necessary to address existing deficiencies consistent with proposed LOS 2. Funding necessary to address future needs consistent with.proposed LOS 3.. Capital Improvement Element Adjustments needed • TASK #4 - Implementation (Charter Ord. Adoption) ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE Joint 6-12 Months Task Force A. Board of County Commissioners approved School Concurrency Task Force• expanded to include seven members appointed by School Board. B. Draft Charter Amendment S C. Amend Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Element -s'`D. Draft Countywide Ordinance E. Outline Implementation Strategy • 1. Phasing of current capacity deficiency &annual depicted deficiencies 2. Stage of the Development Review process to apply to LOS 3. Failure of either party to meet applicable School Concurrency standards TIME FRAME • A. Total duration of project estimated at 2 years. B. Tasks #'s 1, 2, and 3 may be conducted simultaneously. These tasks should be completed in one year. C. Task #4 could start after Level of Service is identified and completed by the following June.