Category: St Johns County Schools

Posted in BOCC, St Johns County Schools, St. Johns County

Recap of the Joint Meeting of the St. Johns County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners

Posted on by Beth Tate

Yesterday was a rare occurrence, a joint meeting of the 2 Board that have the future of our County in their hands.

The live audience was sparse, with more School District and County employees on hand than general public. This may be because of short notice and little publicity about the meeting.

The meeting opened with a surprise guest invited by Commissioner Chair, Christian Whitehurst.

Commissioner Whitehurst had met with Senator Travis Hutson last week and discussed some of the items on the agenda for the joint meeting. He invited Senator Hutson to speak to the group. As he introduced Senator Hutson, he pointed out that the school concerns are a “three-legged stool” with the School District, the County, and the delegation in Tallahassee providing solutions.

Senator Hutson shared that he had already begun some work on deregulation around education. He noted that St. Johns County has always been a high growth county, since he was elected to the House, working with Senator Thrasher at the time, they brought millions of dollars back to the county for education. He shared that the money that can be brought back to the county is based on a mathematical formula based on the needs and performance of the county.

Last year the total funds that could be used were about $40 million in total and 3 or 4 other counties made that list, with St. Johns County falling to be bottom of that list. Out of that dollar amount, St. Johns County only got about $1 million based on needs, compared to the other counties on the list.

He noted this is a statewide issue. There are policies on the books that have “hamstrung” the school districts with the bureaucracy. Example is that you have to build schools to hurricane standards now. This is requiring schools to be built to higher standards than necessary and that increases the cost. Not all schools need to be built that way – changing this formula could allow funds to be used for additional schools, not hardening schools.

There are also limits on how specific dollars can be spent for specific uses. That means dollars are tied to very specific uses – they can’t be used for other uses.

In the next couple of weeks, they will be launching a series of deregulation bills (for education) and will be working directly with the school board and others to refine those bills. Senator Hutson’s bills will be specifically about construction and the physical impact. He has a draft, but it is not ready for prime time.

During comments from the dais for Senator Hutson, School Board Member Canan mentioned the frustrations about money for the teachers as well as some of the mandates that are placed on teachers by Tallahassee.

Commissioner Dean took the time to point out that many of the homes that are being built today were actually approved long before the existing School Board and County Commissioners were on the boards.; 80% of the homes constructed since 2016 were approved during the process between 2000 and 2008. Roughly 40,000 homes remain to be built that were approved prior to 2008.

You can watch Senator Hutson’s comments and the following discussion at this link: Senator Travis Hutson Remarks

Overview of the School Construction Funding Process

Next up was School Superintendent Tim Forson and a presentation on how new schools are funded.

Mr. Forson talked about the complexity of funding sources for building new schools.

There are 2 silos of budget funds, Operating Funds and Capital Funding. The two funds cannot be intermingled or used for other purposes. Operating Funds are more Human Resources focused, daily operations of the schools. Capital Funding is for buildings.

He shared that when the county was building schools in 2006, 2007, and 2008, there were significant state dollars that were used with local dollars to build the schools. That state funding is now gone.

Today, new construction of schools falls on the local communities. State sources and PECO (Public Education Capital Outlay) funding no longer exists. That is not because the state is not allocating the funds; it is because the funding sources have dried up.

NOTE: PECO funding comes from the state gross receipts tax from the sale of electricity, gas, and communications services (cable, cell phones, and land lines). As these tax receipts have decreased, so has funding for PECO.

There is no state source that will help build schools in today’s environment.  

Commissioner Dean asked about the money from the Florida Lottery that is supposed to fund education. The lottery money is largely for Bright Futures, not K-12 education.

Looking at Local Sources, there are 4 primary sources:

  • Local Discretionary Capital Outlay Millage (was 2.0, is now 1.5 mills)
  • School Impact Fees
  • School Concurrency Proportionate Share Mitigation Payments
  • Half-Cent Sales Surtax

Capital Outlay millage can ONLY be spent on capital projects.

Impact fees are tiered based on the value of the home – timing is an issue.

School Proportionate Share Mitigation are based on a formula that is applied to a new construction project.

The Half-Cent surtax can only be spent on the four designated categories:

  • Meeting the Needs of an Increasing Student Population
  • Maintain High Quality Educational Facilities
  • Provide New Technology to Prepare Children for 21st Century Learning
  • Continue to Keep Children Safe

Timing of the sources:

The Millage is property tax – the school district doesn’t see that until the first time a property owner pays their property taxes. They money has to accumulate over time to fund new construction. Timeline is about 18 months before the district sees that money.

School Impact fees – paid by the homeowner when the new home is closed on.

School Concurrency fees – Mitigation fees. When a large project is phased, the proportionate share is paid when they are ready to move forward on a project. This is money that the school district gets in advance.

Sales Tax – purely economically driven

Why don’t more of these funding sources come earlier? It is taxpayer dollars and you can’t get too far ahead of the funding sources.

Not every county has Impact Fees and not every county does the work on the Proportionate Share funds. This is because not every county has capacity issues.

Not every county has the additional sales tax revenue for funding.

Observation was made that Florida’s funding of schools is not the same as other states and that can be confusing for parents coming from other states. The tax structures are so different as well as how schools are funded.

Commissioner Dean raised a question about the common belief that new schools cannot be built until the schools are at least 50% over capacity.

Answer? Statutes have changed over the years, since Mr. Forson has been involved since 2006, they have never been held from building a school because of a capacity number issue. They create a 5 year work plan, develop that workplan, and it’s approved. What stands in the way is the flow of dollars, not the state saying yes, you can build or no you can’t build.

You do need to build new schools at a size to operate in the black – there must be enough funding based on numbers of students to operate in the black.

The bonding capacity IS regulated by the state so the reduction in Millage from 2 to 1.5 did have an impact. They must complete a project before they can issue more bonds.

NOTE! School Board members have been perpetuating this urban legend – refer them back to this presentation the next time you hear it!

Commissioner Joseph asked if the School Board wanted more input into the approval of new homes.

Mr. Forson pointed out there are some legal considerations into how that happens. There are statutory and local requirements and mandates that drive the process. He did point out, they are at the table. The School Board does see the project and approves the mitigation portion before it goes to the Board of Commissioners.

School Board Member Mr. Canan wanted to refer the audience to the sales tax portion of the funding and underscore its importance. This was voted on and put in place at a time when school funds were drying up and there was no money for new schools. He asked Mr. Forson what the sales tax had funded.

Response:

  • 2 new schools
  • 2 partial schools that would probably have been only 1 school
  • 1 school expansion
  • 5,655 student stations have been built as a result of sales tax

The district would probably have about 4000 fewer seats in the system.

Mr. Forson indicated that In 10 years, the district has grown by 13,467 students to 52,000 students. Doing some fact checking, numbers in 2012 were 32,187 and numbers today are at ~52,000.

During that time, they have built 9 new schools, 3 expansions, and 3 are under construction now.

40% of that construction was based on sales tax funding.

There was further discussion about communication between the School Board and the County Commissioner’s regarding approval of new developments. Both School Board representatives and County representatives emphasized there is communication, and the School Board is engaged and aware of all new developments. They determine the proportionate fair share the developers pay and that is approved by the School Board before the Commissioners make their determination.

You can watch Mr. Forson’s presentation here: Superintendent Forson’s Presentation

Presentation of school-related infrastructure projects

Colin Groff Interim Deputy County Administrator presented on the Infrastructure projects.

He began the discussion with an explanation about the concurrency and proportionate share process.

When a developer brings forward a project, before anyone on the Board of Commissioners sees it for approval, that project has gone through the School Board and they have looked at the concurrency and said, “yes we have the capacity.” If they do not sign off on the project, it stops right there and does not move forward until the capacity deficit is addressed.

If the capacity is not there, the developer may choose to pause, or to pay the proportionate share agreement that is approved by the School Board for the developer to fund their portion of future schools.

Important to note that the process stops and the project does not move forward to the County Commissioners for review unless there is capacity or an agreement to fund future capacity. The School Board does play a role in that process.

Capital Project Updates

Dr. Asplen presented on the current school projects. He answered a question about a new High School with a projected date of around 2027 – 2028.

Colin Groff presented on the school related Infrastructure Projects

Adam Teckler, Legislative Affairs Manager, presented some next steps.

State Board of Education Report is due by November 1

Purpose is to reduce unnecessary regulation on public schools. Expected to review cost per student station formula and options for high growth school districts. May also address student transportation.

After a brief recess, they heard Public Comment.

Public comments were shared about:

  • Teacher pay
  • Appreciation for this meeting and hope for continued joint meetings
  • Don’t forget the older communities and their school needs
  • Need for more middle schools and high schools

You can watch the entire presentation at this link: https://stjohnscountyfl.new.swagit.com/videos/277579

If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.

Posted in BOCC, Growth & Development, St Johns County Schools, St. Johns County

Recap of the May 16 St. Johns County Commissioner’s Meeting

Posted on by Beth Tate

A very long day, indeed! The theme for the day was Schools!

The meeting began with a moving presentation of a Certificate of Remembrance for the Tristyn Bailey family honoring 13-year-old Tristyn Bailey who was murdered on Mother’s Day in 2021.

During the Public Safety Report, Director Skip Cole also spoke to the Bailey Family, honoring their grace and actions during such a difficult ordeal. He focused his remarks to the Commissioners on National Police Officer’s Memorial Day and noted that 1 fallen officer from St. Johns County was being added to the Memorial Wall and that the SJSO Honor Guard traveled to Washington to support and honor his placement on the wall. Director Cole then read out the names of St. Johns County officers lost in the line of duty.

The Clerk of Court’s Report included an interesting presentation on some of the oldest historic records maintained in the Clerk’s office. Included were historic deeds, including one for a property on Aviles Street, recorded in 1821. The oldest County Commissioner meeting records were from April 30, 1866. It was noted they did not meet during the Civil War and the Sheriff was asking for reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to the start of the war!

Consent Agenda

There was one public comment on the Consent Agenda with a representative from CARE expressing appreciation for the approval of the contract for Home Again St. Johns. This was long awaited funding for a permanent facility on SR 16.

More about the Home Again contract here: Consent Agenda Item 16

Regular Agenda

Agenda Item 1 – The Landings at St. Johns was one of the highly anticipated presentations. This development on the south side of Greenbriar Road, 1.5 miles east of State Road 13 is planned to be an Age Restricted community (55+) and thus would have in impact on the school system while generating about $1 million in annual ad valorem revenue that could be used to fund schools. The developer has committed to upfront road way improvements and, importantly, is paying for road improvements at Switzerland Middle School and Bartram Trail High School that would alleviate the traffic backups during school opening and closing times. These improvements were not required but included by the builder to provide benefit to the county.

Commissioner Joseph had several questions about the development related as related to school concerns. The developer’s representative referred back to this development not adding children to the school system and generating tax revenue that would benefit the school system.

Commissioner Joseph noted 130 letters against the development. Questions were asked by the developers representative about the letters because there is insufficient indication of where the letters originated (in the impacted area or even within the county.)

Side note: This highlights the need of residents who write to the Commissioners to include their property address so there is no question if they are part of the impacted communities. This comes up often in discussions.

During Public Comment on The Landings, Christine Mullis, representing the Greenbriar Preservation Group, presented concerns about traffic in the area and the inadequate infrastructure. A second representative from the group spoke about concerns related to the wetlands in the area. She noted some of the comments made by staff in the application process about the wetlands area.

During rebuttal, the developer’s representative pointed out that the comments made by staff about environmental concerns during the application process had all been cleared or they would not have been able to move forward to the application hearing today.

Several other residents spoke both for and against the development with those in favor noting the upfront infrastructure improvements and that this was active adult and not impacting the schools.

Some residents spoke on the need to slow down development in general because of the impact on schools in the County.

During the Commissioner’s discussion, Commissioner Dean noted the argument for compatibility as this property is surrounded on 3 sides by Res B zoning. He noted that you can’t have improved infrastructure without the development happening and that the timeline shows that the infrastructure needs will be addressed by the time the housing is complete. He also noted that new schools will be opening in 2025 – 2026.

Commissioner Whitehurst noted in his comments that when he graduated from Nease High School in 2000, it was over capacity at that time. He went on to talk about the constraints in the school budgets around not being able to build schools until they are over capacity. He commented that “that’s a bad policy.” He acknowledged the school related concerns and referenced a comment made by a resident that approval of this portion of the project is tacit approval of the remaining portions that will impact schools. He does not believe that is the case.

The Landings was approved 3:1 with the No vote from Commissioner Joseph. Commissioner Alaimo was absent.

General Public Comment

During General Public Comment, there were many residents of Rock Springs Farms speaking about a county managed park that somehow became the responsibility of the Roxbury Farms HOA to fund. Residents have spoken with Commissioner Alaimo and staff is working on a presentation to discuss this at the June 6 County Commissioner’s Meeting.

One resident wanted to share with the Commissioner’s the results of the ALICE Report for St. Johns County. The ALICE report is published by the United Way each year with ALICE being Asset Limited Income Constrained Employed residents. These are residents who make more than the poverty level so don’t qualify for financial assistance yet cannot afford rent and food in our county.

You can read the ALICE report for yourself here, ALICE Report

Kerri Gustafson spoke on behalf of teachers and the group she started (with over 3000 members on FB) SOS, Save Our Schools, and expressed concern about the pay for teachers. She referenced the recent magistrate’s report stating that the school system does not have funds to build new schools. She stressed that the schools need help both from Tallahassee and the County.

Agenda Item 2 – Marsh Landing

After a break for lunch, the long awaited Hamstra report on the conditions in Marsh Landing was presented by Mr. Hamstra. This was followed by a report from Attorney Wayne Flowers regarding the County Ordinances that are relevant to the Marsh Landing Storm Water Management System concerns.

After hearing both reports and public comment, staff agreed they have the necessary information to proceed with analysis and follow through on any violations that need to be addressed.

Agenda Item 5 – Project Krew

Project Krew is the code name for a “large scale manufacturing facility” slated to open in 4Q 2025. This project would bring $70 Million in tangible personal property and $14 million in building improvements to the county. The building improvements are anticipated to be robotics equipment.

Initially the project would provide 116 jobs, growing to 324 producing about $7.8 million in labor income at the beginning of the project. No land use or zoning changes would be required for this project.

They are requesting a $4.6 million dollar incentive via ad valorem taxes and expedited permitting.

The project was approved unanimously.

Closing Public Comment

The auditorium was fairly empty by the time we got to Closing comments however one stalwart resident spoke about the danger of St. Johns County losing its status of the #1 School District in the state because of over-crowding and the inability to hire enough teachers to support the growth.

Commissioner’s Reports

During Commissioner’s Reports, Commissioner Joseph shared her recent awareness of the University of Florida IFAS Extension service. Our residents in the agricultural areas of the county and those of us who grew up in 4-H have long benefited from the Extension Service. You can learn more about the many services provided by the IFAS Extension service here: St. Johns County Extension Service

Commissioner Dean suggested that it is time for a review of how much money has been spent and how it has been spent for schools in the county. His perception is that a tremendous amount of money has been allocated for schools and it is not clear that the problem is related to growth but related to the timing of schools being built.

Commissioner Joseph asked if the Commissioners could meet with the School Board to have these discussions. (Indicative that she has not been in such discussions since joining the Board.)

Commissioner Arnold noted that there has not been such a meeting since she has been on the Board (since 2021.)

There was agreement that there needs to be more communication between the School Board and the Commissioner’s regarding the growth in the county and impact on schools.

Commissioner Whitehurst noted that there is currently a slowdown in Building Permits with a 29% decrease compared to 2022.

If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.