Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution_36-95/96_09/12/1996 RESOLUTION NO. 36-9 5/96 A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE POSITION OF THE PALM BEACH COUNTY MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, INC. WITH REGARD TO THE SCHOOL CONCURRENCY ISSUE; REQUESTING THAT EACH AND EVERY OTHER MUNICIPALITY IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ADOPT THE SAME POSITION IN ORDER THAT WE MAY ALL WORK TOGETHER TOWARD ACHIEVING QUALITY EDUCATION IN PALM BEACH COUNTY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County School Board, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County and the municipal governments of Palm Beach County desire to work together in order to relieve overcrowding of our schools within the County and to provide the best quality of education to all students within the County; and WHEREAS, in order to work together to achieve quality education and to prevent divisiveness among the numerous entities involved in long term planning for education, the Village of Tequesta desires to adopt the position recently set forth by the Palm Beach County Municipal League, Inc. with regard to the school concurrency issue as this position represents a workable compromise solution for the benefit of all. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1 : The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta hereby adopts the position recently set forth by the Palm Beach County Municipal League, Inc. with regard to school concurrency which is comprised of eleven (11) pages and is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 2 : The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta hereby respectfully requests each and every other municipality within Palm Beach County as well as the School Board of Palm Beach County and the Board of County Commissioners adopt this same position in order that we may all work together in a productive manner. Section 3 : The Village Clerk is hereby authorized to submit this Resolution to all municipalities, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County and the Palm Beach County School Board. S ection 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Village Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September , 1996. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Ron T. ackail, Mayor ATTEST: (Seal) Ann Manganiell Village Clerk +e wpwin60 \wpdocs \tequesta.res -2- Sa..n0aaL 7q3 - ys6$ Palm Beach Count y MUNICIPAL LEAGUE * P.O. BOX 1989, GOVERNMENTAL CENTER, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 (407)355-4484 June 4, 1996 Palm Beach County Commission 301 N. Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, Fl. 33401 Palm Beach County School Board 3320 Forest 11ill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Fl. 33406 Re: School Concurrency Program Dear Commissioners and School Board Members: Thank you for inviting the Palm Beach County Municipal League to_ participate in the process to find a solution to the school overcrowding problem. All the municipalities are • concerned over the problem of school crowding and are extremely interested in improving the educational experiences of all of our children. We feel that Commissioner Marcus, Board Member Gleason and the entire task force should be applauded for their tireless work in trying to come up with a solution to the school crowding problem. The Task Force was a great success in bringing divergent groups to the table and identifying various options for addressing the overcrowding problem. As we have reviewed the proposed school concurrency package prepared by the Task Force, we find much that we can support. The proposed school concurrency package proposal essentially has three components - Financing, Planning, and Regulating. The financing component addresses both the funding to eliminate the current backlog so that the school board can catch up with school capacity demand and the financing to fund future growth once the school board has caught up. The planning component addresses the requirement for the school board to prepare and adhere to a business plan for spending the money raised to eliminate the backlog and for funding future capacity needs along with more coordinated planning between the school board and local governments. The regulatory component addresses the transfer of local decision making to the County and School Board based on the availability of school capacity. While all three components are not complete, the Municipal League can support the proposals on financing and planning, but has serious concerns about the regulatory component of the proposal. Each component will be addressed in more detail below. • June 4, 1996 • Page 2 Financing Component The proposal for financing the catchup portion of the school capacity problem is a one cent sales tax. The Municipal League is on record supporting a one cent sales tax as a financing vehicle for an acceptable program of addressing the school crowding issue. Assuming the League's concerns raised elsewhere in this letter are addressed, the League continues to support the one cent sales tax. There is currently no concrete proposal for funding school capacity once the sales tax revenue ends. Essentially, the school board staff told us at the last workshop that if a portion of operating expenses could be removed from the capital budget, there would be enough capital dollars to fund capacity for new growth and that the school board would have to work on this during the next seven years. If there is to be a regulatory component to this program, that answer is unacceptable. Continued funding after the end of the sales tax is crucial. The school board needs to make a binding commitment on how new capacity will be funded after the sales tax expires. Planning Component This component addresses both the business plan for the school board and the increased • coordination of planning between the school board and local governments. Business Plan The School Board needs to prepare a business plan that demonstrates how the School Board will eliminate the capacity shortfall utilizing the new funding source over the next seven years and how the School Board will prevent future overcrowding beyond that seven year period. This concept is extremely important, and the Municipal League believes that any new funding source should be tied to a requirement that the school board engage in this type of business planning. The concurrency program outlined by the task force requires that the school board adopt a fi five year capital facilities program and update it yearly with the addition of a new year. Since it is projected to take seven years to catch up, this business plan should include a capital facilities program that covers the seven years needed to catch up, not just the five year program currently proposed. Also, this plan should include identification of the funding necessary for future capacity needs after the initial funding source expires. Under the current proposal, this is left for determination in the future. The task force proposal creates a five year business plan by requiring the development of a five year capital facilities plan by the School Board. The School Board's capital program would • be adopted in the County's comprehensive plan, which is required if there is a regulatory program. June 4, 1996 • Page 3 • The adoption of a business plan is a very positive benefit. However, there are other ways to ensure the development of a binding business plan by the School Board without imposing a regulatory program. For example, the same type of business planning could be required through the interlocal agreement that authorizes the use of the sales tax for school construction. Coordinated Planning State law requires the coordinated planning between the School Board and all local governments. The proposed concurrency program utilizes a regulatory program to provide the School Board with a method of tracking new development approvals. However, existing programs already serve the same purpose. For example, through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement, the School Board receives all comprehensive plan amendments from all municipalities and the County prior to the transmittal hearing. Thus, the School Board is notified of planned new development prior to approval of the comprehensive plan amendment for that development and the School Board has the opportunity to comment on the plan amendment prior to the local government transmitting the amendment to the state. Many local governments now notify the School Board of pending zoning applications and • provide the School Board with the opportunity to comment on them. If more notification is needed, the County could provide the School Board with notice of all new residential development proposed anywhere in the County through its implementation of the Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The County is notified of all proposed development prior to approval, and the County could certainly notify the School Board at the time it receives notification. If that method is not acceptable, the School Board could request this information from the individual local governments that are not currently providing it as part of the intergovernmental coordination process required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. All local governments and the School Board are required to enter into an Interlocal or other Agreement on a joint process for collaborative planning. Although the proposed Interlocal Agreement between the County and the School Board meets this requirement for the County and the School Board, it does not fulfill the requirement that the School Board enter into this type of Agreement with each municipality. Since the School Board still must enter into agreements with all the municipalities, any additional coordination requested by the School Board could be addressed in those agreements. Coordinated planning, which is what the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) encouraged as the primary method to address school overcrowding in its April 29, 1996 letter, can be accomplished without a regulatory program. Regulatory Component • The Municipal League continues to have serious concerns over the proposed regulatory June 4, 1996 • Page 4 component to the concurrency program. The League has continuously voiced its concerns about the effectiveness of the regulatory program on reducing school overcrowding and about the lack of data on the impacts of this regulatory proposal. Prior to proposing any regulatory program, the County Commission and School Board should fully address the following questions. All of these issues should be satisfactorily resolved by all affected parties prior to going forward with any regulatory program. WHAT IS THE REGULATORY COMPONENT DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH AND DOES IT ACCOMPLISH ITS STATED GOALS? The County Commission and School Board should clearly identify what that regulatory program is designed to accomplish and should evaluate the positive and negative impacts of the program. I To date, this has not been done. As shown earlier in this letter, a program of providing funds for school construction tied to an enforceable business plan by the School Board to guarantee the proper use of the funds and a coordinated planning program between the School Board and all local governments in the County can all be accomplished without a regulatory program. Therefore, it is necessary to identify what additional benefit is accomplished by having a program whereby the County and School Board regulate development approvals countywide. It must be demonstrated that this • benefit outweighs any costs or uncertainty that would be created by the program prior to the Municipal League agreeing to support this part of the program. The stated goal of the regulatory program is to prevent the future overcrowding of schools. However, based on the information that has been provided, this program will not accomplish that goal. Concurrency Will Not Prevent Future Overcrowding of Schools The School Board is projecting that 5,000 new students will be added to the school system each year. The School Board staff had previously contended that 80% of the new school growth yearly comes from existing units and 20% comes from new development. More recently, a School Board's consultant estimates that the split for new students is 50% from existing units and 50% from new units. Any new students generated from existing units would not be subject to concurrency. Data provided to the Task Force by the County Planning Department establishes that 80% of all building permits issued yearly come from vested units. These vested units would not be subject to school concurrency. The following table illustrates the impact of school concurrency on school crowding. The %'s indicate percentages of the 5,000 new students generated yearly from existing units and new units. • June 4, 1996 • Page 5 80 Units/ 50%Existing Units/ 20% New Units 50% New U it Students From Existing Units Not Subject to Concurrency 4,000 2,500 Students From New Units - Vested Not Subject to Concurrency 800 2,000 Students Potentially Kept Out of School System by Concurrency 200 500 Thus, if no new development approvals are granted countywide because of school concurrency, 4,500 to 4,800 of the 5,000 new students generated yearly would still be added to the school system. Since it is assumed that some new development would be approved even with school concurrency, the actual impact of a regulatory program on school overcrowding will be even less • than indicated above. Therefore, it appears that the regulatory component will have a negligible impact on reducing school overcrowding. However, the costs of achieving these negligible benefits could be great. Lack of Data on Impacts of Proposed Regulatory Program While the proposed regulatory program would have a negligible impact on reducing school overcrowding, it could have very negative impacts on the ability of the municipalities and the County to implement development and redevelopment plans. The League has requested technical analysis on how concurrency would affect the County's educational system and the economy. To date, no real data has been provided on the basic assumptions, methods, data base used and results obtained regarding the impacts of concurrency on Palm Beach County over the next five to ten years. Prior to adopting a whole new regulatory program, the County and School Board should at least analyze how concurrency would improve the educational system; how concurrency would affect redevelopment of our coastal cities; how concurrency would affect county growth patterns; and where concurrency would stop growth in the County during its implementation. Until a real analysis showing that the positive benefits of the proposed regulatory program outweigh any negative consequences, the League can not support the proposed regulatory program. Depending on where and when new schools are built, certain areas of the County could be • in a development moratorium for a period of years. This could result in small residential infill June 4, 1996 • Page 6 projects being stopped, which could have serious consequences for the redevelopment of our coastal municipalities. For example, the City of West Palm Beach is actively seeking to increase the number of people residing in the downtown area. This is essential for the implementation of the new Downtown Master Plan and furthers the County Comprehensive Plan goal of directing development to the eastern areas. It has not been easy to attract new residents to downtowns. If the City is fortunate enough to attract a fifty unit residential apartment project for downtown West Palm Beach and that project is denied based on school concurrency, the negative impacts upon the City's redevelopment efforts would be great. Yet the reduction in school crowding would be negligible." That project would generate a total of around 30 students over the next 20 years. The potential negative impacts of the proposed regulatory program have not been adequately evaluated and could potentially be severe. THE SCHOOL BOARD WILL CONTROL THE LOCATION AND TEVIING OF DEVELOPMENT COUNTYWIDE. 'IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD? • Development that is otherwise consistent with adopted comprehensive plans would be delayed based on the availability of adequate school capacity. The School Board is the agency that controls the timing and location of the construction of new school capacity. Thus, the School Board will effectively have veto power over the implementation of adopted local comprehensive plans. Is this an appropriate role for the School Board? THE SCHOOL BOARD WILL BECOME A REGULATORY AGENCY. IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD? Under the proposed program, the School Board will now be reviewing development applications. In addition, development will now be dependent upon the availability of school capacity and the elimination of school overcrowding. School overcrowding is relieved both through creation of new school capacity and the assignment of students to maximize utilization of that capacity. Thus, the yearly development of both the school capital facilities program and the school attendance boundary assignments will now become components of that regulatory program. Because both will control where new development can occur, both will be subject to non - educational related pressures. In order to implement the regulatory program, new non- educational factors will have to be addressed by the School Board. Each area is discussed in more detail below. • June 4, 1996 Page 7 School Capacity The School Board will have to provide enough capacity yearly to attain and maintain the adopted level of service. The School Board will be under great pressure to allocate capital funds to new schools and capacity adding projects. Areas subject to development restriction will exert great pressure on the School Board to fund capacity improvements in those areas. The pressure to add capacity could have a negative impact on needed renovations and upgrades of existing schools, including those in the coastal communities. After the seven year catch up period, enough capacity is projected to be built to allow the schools in Palm Beach County to operate at a level of service of 110%. More information on the attainability of this goal will be provided in the school plant survey presently being conducted. ( Until that survey is completed, we will not know if th 110% level of service is attainable. if it is 'C not based on projected funding, the School Board will t fin enues for capacity during the next seven years in order to attain a projected level of service. School Assignment The school assignment issue is as significant as the creation of new capacity in relieving school crowding and minimizing the impacts of any regulatory system. • The projected level of service is 110%. This level of service is the systemwide level of service - not the level of service for each school. At the last workshop, Marty Hodgkins presented an example of how school concurrency would affect the Acreage area of the County. (See Tab 10, Workshop Binder) In his Acreage example, Mr. Hodgkins indicated that although the area currently has over 1,000 more students than permanent student stations, four new elementary schools would be constructed over the next seven years, resulting in enough capacity for the Acreage area to meet the 110 level of service. From this analysis, it was concluded that concurrency would not affect development in this area. This conclusion is only correct if capacity is equalized by school boundary assignment over the seven schools in Mr Hodgkins' example in the Acreage. If capacity is not equalized, this area could be greatly impacted by concurrency. Using Mr. Hodgkins' figures on capacity and students, it is possible that each of the four new schools could operate at 113% capacity and H.L. Johnson and Cypress Trails could operate at 111% capacity and Loxahatchee could operate at 90 capacity. Even though the area would operate at the adopted level of service, all but Loxahatchee would exceed the adopted level of service. A major portion of the Acreage/Royal Palm Beach area could be shut down for new development. This is not merely a hypothetical concern. The County School System is currently operating at a systemwide level of service of 119%. There are eighty (80) elementary schools. Enrollment at fifty (50) elementary schools currently exceeds the existing systemwide level of • June 4, 1996 • Page 8 service of 119%. On the other hand, fifteen (1 S) elementary schools have enrollments of less than 100% of the school's capacity. If a level of service was imposed today based on the current systemwide level of service of 119% (which is the proposed method of setting the level of service after seven years), development in large areas of the County would be precluded by concurrency due to this imbalance in school assignment. Therefore, the School Board should agree that it will adjust boundaries annually to equalize the utilization of all the schools. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has also raised the issue of school assignments. In the April 29, 1996 letter, DCA indicates that concurrency must be analyzed for achievability and financial feasibility on a concurrency area by concurrency area basis. As proposed in the draft ordinance, a concurrency area would be the existing assigned school and the next three closest schools. The School Board must also agree to send the students generated from a project in that area to one of those four schools so that the required geographic nexus for the regulatory program is achieved. As attendance boundaries change, so does the concurrency area, which means that the financial feasibility for attaining the level of service must be re- evaluated. The only way the level of service can be financially feasible for each concurrency area is for the School Board to make equalization of capacity utilization one of the highest priorities in the annual boundary cycle. ARE THE SCHOOL BOARD, COUNTY COMMISSION AND MUNICIPALITIES • PREPARED TO ASSUME THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR REGULATORY TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY? Since it will now be a regulatory agency, the School Board may have liability for regulatory takings that may occur as a result of the proposed regulatory program. Decisions on where to build new capacity and on school boundary assignments will now affect the development potential of property. Has the School Board adequately evaluated its potential liability for these activities? Since the County is proposed to be regulating development countywide based on the provision of infrastructure by the School Board, the County could have liability for regulatory takings based on the decisions of the School Board for both capacity provision and school assignments. The present proposal does not give the County any say in school assignment decisions and very limited say in school capacity decisions. Yet these decisions will determine the development potential of property. Has the County Commission adequately evaluated its potential liability for these activities? Even though the proposed program would be imposed on the municipalities through a charter amendment, the municipalities may still be required to amend their comprehensive plans to implement the concurrency program. If that is the case, the municipalities may have potential liability based on a county- imposed regulatory program that is dependent on school capacity and • school assignment decisions of the School Board. The municipalities will have no input into those June 4, 1996 • Page 9 decisions. WHY IS AN INTERIM LEVEL OF SERVICE NECESSARY? The purpose and necessity for an interim level of service has not been demonstrated. The proposed interim level of service imposes a regulatory program during the "catch -up" period of seven years. However, the proposed sales tax provides enough money to build the capacity required to eliminate present overcrowding and provide for the new growth over the seven years! If there is adequate funding to build capacity for the projected new growth, why is there a need to regulate that growth? On the other hand, the proposed levels of service in years four through seven have not been supported by any data and analysis showing the effect they would have on implementation of adopted comprehensive plans in the municipalities. The level of service proposals for years four through seven have not been analyzed to determine their impacts on growth in the county, including their impacts on redevelopment in the coastal communities. Given that there is no need for a regulatory program during the first seven years since there are adequate funds to pay for the capacity required by growth during Those years and the lack of data regarding the effect of the interim level of service, the Municipal League position of • not supporting the imposition of a regulatory program during the catch up period through the proposed interim levels of service remains unchanged. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE POSITION To summarize, the Municipal League position on the proposed school concurrency package is as follows: - Assuming agreement with the following League positions, the League supports the One Cent Sales Tax to fund new schools. - The League supports tying the new funding to the development of a binding business plan by the School Board on how the money is spent. - This business plan should include a capital facilities plan for the life of the sales tax (not just the five years currently proposed) and for future funding to keep the school system caught up. - The statutory requirements for coordinated planning between the School Board and all of the Municipalities needs to be addressed. The current proposal just addresses • this requirement between the County and the School Board. June 4, 1996 • Page 10 - The League can not support a regulatory program during the seven year catchup phase. Given that there will be adequate funds to provide capacity for growth during this period, there is no need to impose a regulatory program during this period. - The League can not support any Charter Amendment authorizing imposition of a countywide regulatory program at this time. Based on the data provided to date, there are few benefits to the regulatory component of the proposal while there are many potential negative consequences. - Prior to the initiation of any Charter Amendment authorizing imposition of a countywide school concurrency program, the County and School Board should comply with the provisions of the Multi- Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement that was signed by the County, School Board and almost all of the municipalities by submitting the proposal to the forum for development of a consensus by all the Forum members on whether a regulatory program is an appropriate solution to any future overcrowding problem. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE PROPOSAL The Municipal League proposes that the beneficial portions of the proposed concurrency • program be implemented through an Interlocal Agreement between the School Board, Palm Beach County, and the municipalities. This proposal implements all of the positive benefits of the Funding and Planning Components as outlined above. The Interlocal Agreement would provide for the following: - The levy of a one cent sales tax for school construction over seven years. - The utilization of the entire proceeds of the sales tax for school construction (municipal sign -off is needed for the municipal share to be used for school construction). - Creation of a business plan for spending the sales tax revenue and for keeping caught up with future demand once the sales tax revenues are expended. - Creation of the joint planning mechanisms that are required by statute between the School Board and the County and all of the municipalities in the County. A draft of this Interlocal Agreement is currently being prepared and will be circulated shortly. The Municipal League would urge the School Board and County Commission to carefiilly consider this proposal as an alternative to the proposed concurrency program currently under review. This proposal includes the funding and planning components that everyone agrees to and that are necessary without linking them to a potentially divisive regulatory program. • Implementation of this approach would allow a unified appeal to the voters which is essential if June 4, 1996 Page 11 the sales tax is to pass. We look forward to your responses and to continued dialogue on solving this most critical issue. Sincerely, Gale English, President Palm Beach County Municipal League, Inc. cc: County Administrator Robert Weisman School Superintendent Joan Kowal Members, Municipal League Board of Directors Mayors and Managers, Palm Beach County Municipalities Thomas Pelham, Esq. _ Barbara Alterman, Esq. • •