School Concurrency

UpdatePalm Beach County

December 5, 2013

SCHOOL CONCURRENCYSERVICE AREAS

COMPLETED CAPITAL PROJECTS2000 - 2012

School TypeNew

Schools

ModernizedSchools

Additional Capacity

(New Schools)

Additional Capacity

(Modernized Schools)

Total Additional Capacity

Elementary 25 33 23,372 7,996 31,368

Middle10 9 12,606 2,189 14,795

High6 8 12,618 2,412 15,030

TOTAL 41 50 48,596 12,597 61,193

2000 – 2012TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS (in dollars)

Source: The School District of Palm Beach County Financial Records

FY

200-2012

New Schools

948,764.764

Modernization &

Replacements

1,563,904,698

Addition &Remodeling644,006,480

Total

3,156,675,941

MITIGATION/DENIALS

Under School Concurrency, no developer has been required to provide mitigation in Palm Beach County

No application denials have occurred

UPDATES DUE TO STATUTE CHANGES

Change “Municipalities” to “Participating Municipalities” (now optional; 80% Rule)

Delete references to FAC Rule 9J5 (repealed)

Delete annual Comp Plan Amendment requirement—no longer required for: CIP (by ordinance), or CSA map (in support documents)

New Proportionate Share Mitigation provisions

Delete Charter School as a mitigation strategy (no longer State requirement)

Delete Suspension requirements

LOS Still 110%, but “Re-locatable” must now be counted per

Statute

Land Development Regulations

(Subcommittee Recommended)

Include a specific process for review of School District site plans.

Include specific land development regulations that school district must adhere to in designing school sites.

Include specific landscape language for school sites.

UPDATES DUE TO CHANGED CONDITIONS/PROCEDURES

Delete tiered LOS provisions (no longer needed to phase in Concurrency)

Update School Capacity Study provisions Notify affected local government

Evaluate whether modular classrooms would be necessary

Add Age Restricted Community language

Update Development Review Table to reflect actual procedures ( Example attached)

Update population projection section (improved procedures & IPARC involvement)

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES

Exclude “100% Choice” Schools without boundaries from School Concurrency We can control enrollment by lottery

School enrollment is not affected by growth

Coordinated School Planning procedures Use of electronic data sharing Site plan process Landscape Compromise Language

Update Annual Management and Monitoring Reports

Streamline, remove redundant functions Combine with the October FTE Report

Hiatus from Meetings due to changes at the School Board

• School Board does not have any funds for new capital projects that add capacity.

• Boundary changes are now phased in and do not occur in a year, therefore enrollment relief to a school takes more than a year to occur.

• CSAs are large therefore developers are very unlikely to mitigate under current provisions

• LOS is calculated at school level instead of at CSA level

New Discussion• Calculate LOS per CSA at school level• Require the School Board to maintain the LOS by the

fifth year of the Plan• Possibly modify the CSA to make them smaller, possibly

coinciding with school boundaries.

Next Step

• Process for obtaining information on which municipalities are interested in continuing school concurrency.

– Presentation to the League– Presentation to individual Councils

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION

Website:

www.PBConcurrency.info