Dr. Diana Greene
Superintendent
1701 Prudential Drive   Jacksonville, FL 32207
904.390.2115   Fax 904.390.2586
greened@duvalschools.org   www.duvalschools.org

July 31, 2019

Honorable Council President and Council Members,
Thank you for expediting the list of Council Member questions in consideration of the half-cent
sales tax on behalf of the students of Duval County. To provide you with an expedient response,
we have consolidated the questions around common themes. Many of the responses to questions
have been provided in previous correspondence; however, this document provides us with the
opportunity to respond to your questions within one record. Within those responses, we have
referenced ancillary documents for additional information, should council members require more
detail.
In an effort to provide a timely response and in recognition of the urgency of moving this issue
forward, this document is primarily focused on those questions directly related to the referendum.
While we understand that some of this information may be relatively new to several Council
Members, the School Board and District staff have been immersed in this issue for several
years. After a thorough facilities review and forecasting of future capital funding, the Duval
County School Board passed a resolution with a legally sufficient plan. Rest assured your elected
School Board has done its due diligence in vetting this plan.
Our goal in providing responses to these questions is to assist the City Council with placing this
on the ballot. It is our hope that we can resolve any lingering questions and work collaboratively
on bringing this most important referendum to the voters.
For your convenience, a copy of the Master Facilities Plan is attached. Feel free to contact me
should you desire to meet and discuss this matter further.

Kind regards,

Diana L. Greene, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Schools

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE

MASTER FACILITIES PLAN
(Response to: Hazouri, Item 1; Bowman, Items 4 & 11; Wilson, Items 1, 2, & 5; DeFoor, Items 1,
2, & 3; Diamond, Items 2, 3, 8, 9, & 10; Ferraro, Item 10; Cumber, Items 3 & 4; Freeman, Item
2 & 4; Pittman, Items 2 & 5)
School Districts complete master facilities plans on a regular and recurring basis to assess the
overall condition of their school facilities. To develop such a plan requires the completion of a
Facilities Condition Index (FCI) assessment to ascertain the material condition of every Districtmanaged school, as well as the completion of a ten-year enrollment study. The FCI report was
conducted by Jacobs Engineering Group beginning in the spring of 2018. A copy of this report,
with all associated life cycle replacement costs for major building components, was provided to
the COJ Finance Department at their request on Tuesday, June 18, 2019.
During this same time period, an enrollment study was completed by Cooperative Strategies, a
subcontractor to Jacobs Engineering’s FCI study. The ten-year Enrollment Projection final report
was completed March 6, 2019. This report considered live birth data, census data, historical
enrollment by grade, by school, as well as building permits filed. Many factors such as economic,
magnet/charter/private school openings, unplanned new housing activity, and other items can
significantly change student enrollment projections. For this reason, the School Board has directed
the District to conduct enrollment projections every five years to account for any changes in these
factors.
In keeping with the School Board’s directive to complete an enrollment projection every five years
the chart below identifies student enrollment and projections from 2014-2024:
Year
District
Charter
Total

14-15
120,111
10,751
130,862

15-16
119,550
11,946
131,496

16-17
118,403
12,913
131,316

17-18
117,101
14,368
131,469

18-19
116,057
16,500
132,557

19-20
115,228
17,776
133,004

20-21
115,026
19,078
134,104

21-22
114,671
20,614
135,285

22-23
114,267
21,762
136,029

23-24
113,865
22,844
136,709

*Includes: regular, alternative, ESE, and special program students

The combination of the facilities condition study and the enrollment study provide the basis for
making short-term and long-term facility decisions. Cooperative strategies used this data to make
initial recommendations for community review. These recommendations were shared through
community meetings within each Board Member District. In total, 20 community meetings were
held for the FCI and Master Facilities Plan. Community input was collected at each meeting. In
addition, a website was established for community members to provide their input online.
Using recommendations from Cooperative Strategies, input from the community, and feedback
from the Board, the Superintendent developed the District Master Facility Plan which focuses on
five guiding principles. The first priority of the plan is completing security improvements at every
school in the District with the exception of schools being demolished. Schools being demolished
will receive their safety and security work within their new replacement school. Once the safety

2

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
and security work is funded and well underway, then the remaining project work will continue
based upon prioritization utilizing the remaining guiding principles within the Master Facilities
Plan. The remaining guiding principles are eliminating the maintenance backlog (FCI Reduction),
replacing aged and inefficient school buildings (Reduction in Age), consolidating small schools to
increase resources (Reduction in Seats), and removing portables (Removal of Portables). The
District will also consider Operational Savings as criteria for prioritization to help ensure the
project priority will have emphasis on the reduction of annual operational costs. The five criteria
are equally weighted at 20 points each for a total score of 100 points as shown in the table below
with example school scores.

The highest ranked projects within each Board Member district will be identified for the first phase
of the District Facility Master Plan subject to the availability of funds from an initial bond offering
and revenue expected within the first five years of the plan. This plan constructs or replaces on
site 28 schools and involves the consolidation of 21 schools. The consolidation process will include
community engagement involving stakeholder meetings and working groups to provide the Board
input on any proposed boundary change for schools that will be consolidated. Deferred
maintenance will be eliminated at all schools, and every school will be funded for school hardening
safety and security upgrades. The ultimate end result is the provision of an improved learning
environment for all students.
With the oldest schools in the State of Florida, the day-to-day maintenance needs of our schools
cost approximately $500,000 per month. The FCI costs are currently $243 million as of Fall of
2018 with a projection of $1.08 billion by 2023. The condition of critical systems -- mechanical,
electrical, plumbing, structural and roofing -- is different at every school. The engineering study
provides that detail. Decisions to close or consolidate schools were based on projected utilization
and the facility condition report. Sites selected for rebuilds of the consolidated schools were chosen
primarily for the availability of acreage to accommodate a 21st century school built to current
codes capable of supporting modern educational requirements. We estimate that through
consolidation and new construction, the District will have a cost avoidance of $314 million of
deferred maintenance, utility, and support costs. The total district-wide need within the Master
Facilities Plan equals $1.9 billion. The distribution of funds to each Board District was based on
the identified FCI deferred maintenance cost, security enhancements, new construction,
modernization and renovation costs for each Board Member District. The chart below outlines the
funding level for each Board Member District and illuminates the relative condition of schools in
board sections of the city.

3

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE

Council
Districts
Board Member District
District 1 Honorable Cheryl Grymes
District 2 Honorable Elizabeth Andersen
District 3 Honorable Ashley Smith Juarez
District 4 Honorable Darryl Willie
District 5 Honorable Warren Jones
District 6 Honorable Charlotte Joyce
District 7 Honorable Lori Hershey

1&2
3 & 13
4&5
7&8
9 & 10
12 & 14
6 & 11

Total
Funding
$129,171,692
$172,364,466
$321,818,485
$458,785,417
$401,811,073
$219,781,732
$207,125,880

Percentage
of Total
Budget
6.8%
9.0%
16.9%
24.0%
21.0%
11.5%
10.8%

The District is committed to removing closed, unused schools to prevent neighborhood blight.
There are two exceptions to this plan. Based on community input and the historic nature of the
school building, Ortega Elementary School will be sold as is. Lake Forest Elementary School will
be retained by the District to provide a location for early child learning center. The remaining
schools will be removed.
Regarding new construction due to area growth, the school district abides by the Interlocal
agreement between the District and the cities within Duval County in implementing concurrency.
To date, the District has not received any funding from residential development in Duval County.
Other counties rely on impact fees and other capital funding options to offset their capital needs.
The student generation rate per new construction home is specifically outlined in this document
and is used by the District to calculate the number of students that will be generated in all new
subdivisions and developments. These projections are then used by the District to ascertain
projected student enrollment numbers in the surrounding schools. As local residential
development projects are approved by the City’s Joint Planning Committee (JPC) and permits are
issued, the revised projections will be included in subsequent enrollment studies.

4

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
(Response to: Salem, Item 2; Freeman, Item 1)
Section Four of the Board’s resolution (attached for convenience) provides for an Independent
Oversight Committee (“Oversight Committee”) of volunteers for the purpose of monitoring and
providing advice regarding the implementation of the approved plan. The membership of the
Oversight Committee will be established by School Board Policy. The attorney assigned to the
Board by the Office of General Counsel is assisting the Board with a draft policy which will
establish the specific details including composition of the Committee. The Committee shall be
effective upon approval of the sales surtax and extend through the date of completion of the
projects funded under the plan.

5

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
FINANCE
(Response to: Bowman, Items 7, 8 & 14; DeFoor, Items 4, 5, 6 &7; Diamond, Items 1, 5 & 6;
Ferraro, Items 1, 2, 7 & 9; Cumber 1, 2, & 5; Priestly Jackson, Item 13; Freeman, Item 3)
Proposed District Sales Tax
Duval County Public Schools has the oldest school buildings in Florida but remains one of the
only major districts without a local revenue source to fund its facility plan (see Appendix A of the
Master Facility Plan). When the nation entered the recession, the Florida Legislature reduced the
millage districts were able to leverage to support capital/facility improvements from 2.0 mills to
1.75 mills (2008) to 1.5 mills (2009). Today the 0.5 mill would generate approximately 30 million
dollars a year; for the past 10 years that approximates a $300 million aggregate reduction in district
capital funds to address facility issues. This reduction, coupled with the lack of additional funding
sources to support facilities, has resulted in our current deferred maintenance level of $243 million
and the need for implementation of this comprehensive plan.
The sales tax referendum contemplates raising funds for capital projects for the District. Use of
existing funds for capital projects are governed by Florida Statutes and State Requirements for
Educational Facilities (contained in Section 423 of the Florida Building Code). We anticipate that
generated funds would be sufficient to cover the capital projects and debt service.
Based on a conservative estimate of $96 million initially generated through the sales tax and a
modest 2 percent increase annually after the initial year, we expect to generate approximately $1.66
billion over 15 years to fund the capital projects and the debt service. Should the half-cent sales
tax only generate $80 million initially and the annual growth rate is limited to 2 percent, we
anticipate that approximately $1.38 billion in proceeds would be generated to fund the capital
projects and debt service. As sales-tax funded capital projects are completed, we anticipate that
other capital funds would be available that normally fund the existing maintenance backlog to
eliminate any gap in funding. Any funds generated by the half-cent sales tax will be expended in
accordance with the authorized uses set forth in Section 212.055(6)(c), Florida Statutes and the
Board’s approved resolution.
We anticipate increased growth in the economy and, as a result, growth in sales tax revenue and
property tax revenue. In September 2018, the Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic
Research prepared a Long-Range Financial Outlook report and projected growth rates in the
Certified School Taxable Value for 2019-2024 ranging from 5.42 percent to 5.64 percent
(http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/long-range-financial-outlook/3-Year-Plan_Fall-2018_19202122.pdf, p. 71).
Currently, the non-voted millage rate the District is allowed to levy is 1.5 mills. The amount
generated from local property taxes is dependent on the value of the tax roll as certified by the
Property Appraiser. Any funds generated by the local property taxes for capital will be expended
in accordance with the authorized uses set forth in Section 1011.71, Florida Statutes.

6

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
District Funding
The $436,383,186 in local revenue reported in our 2017-2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) represents 35.42% of all revenue (excluding Other Financing Sources). Should the
discretionary sales tax pass, we anticipate that an additional $96 million in local funds would be
initially generated. Local revenues are estimated to be $532,383,186, or 40.09% of estimated total
revenues ($1,327,933,853).
The 2019-2020 tentative budget to be approved by the School Board is $1,819,125,972 (includes
transfers and fund balance). Should the discretionary sales surtax pass, we anticipate the annual
budget to increase by $96 million initially to $1,915,125,972.
For the 2018-2019 fiscal year, capital project revenues received for capital projects for schools and
facilities directly operated by the District (not including public charter schools) totaled
$108,566,293.10. Repair and renovation of school buildings are not the sole use of capital funds.
These dollars are also used for maintaining educational technology, expenses related to school
buses, and similar purposes
2018-2019 Capital Projects for District Schools & Facilities
CO & DS Distribution
$ 4,210,102.52
PECO
2,680,272.00
Gas Tax
229,844.67
Total State
$ 7,120,219.19
Local Capital Tax
Tax Redemptions
Interest
City of Jacksonville -Bartram Park DRI
E-Payables Rebate
Refund of Prior Year Expenditures
Total Local

$ 99,628,714.29
578,808.45
1,218,638.94
4,600.00
10,479.07
4,833.16
$101,446,073.91

Total District Revenue in Capital Funds

$108,566,293.10

For the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the District will not receive any PECO funding for district-managed
schools and we anticipate the Local Capital Tax will generate $107,750,980.
For the 2018-2019 fiscal year, the District was allocated $4,839,149 in School Recognition Funds
($100/student payable to qualified schools pursuant to Section 1008.36, Florida Statutes) and
$4,770,447 was allocated to qualified schools.
The District was also allocated $450,700 in discretionary Florida Lottery funds. From the
$450,700, the District is required to allocate up to $5 per unweighted student to be used at the
discretion of the school advisory council pursuant to Section 24.121(5), Florida Statutes. If funds
are insufficient to provide $5 per unweighted student, the available funds shall be prorated. All
$450,700 was allocated to schools for use by the school advisory council.

7

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE

Charter Funding
Charter school capital outlay funding and eligibility to receive such funding is governed by Section
1013.62, Florida Statutes. The calculation methodology for the Florida Department of Education
used to allocate state funds appropriated in the General Appropriations Act is provided in the same
Section of the Florida Statutes. For the 2018-2019 fiscal year, capital project revenues received for
and paid exclusively to charter schools totaled $7,893,111, which consists only of PECO
distributions from the state.
Debt
The District has continued to rely on PFM Financial Advisors, LLC, the same financial consultants
used by the City. Based on an analysis by PFM, the District does not expect the potential issuance
of $500 million of debt by the District, supported by a new sales surtax, to adversely affect the
City’s credit ratings. For additional information, the City should contact their financial advisors
and ratings agencies.
With respect to coordinating with City Financial offices, the City and the School District do not
coordinate issuance of debt as each entity is independent and has capacity to issue debt under the
law. By way of example, the City’s recent issuance of $74 million Special Revenue Bonds, Series
2018, issued September 2018, was not coordinated with the District’s financial offices.
Referendum
Section 212.054(7)(a), Florida Statutes requires the School Board to notify the Florida Department
of Revenue within 10 days after final adoption by ordinance or referendum of an imposition,
termination, or rate change of the surtax, but no later than November 16 prior to the effective date.
The notice must specify the time period during which the surtax will be in effect and the rate and
must include a copy of the ordinance and such other information as the department requires by
rule. In addition, the Section requires the School Board to notify the Florida Department of
Revenue by October 1 if the referendum or consideration of the ordinance that would result in
imposition, termination, or rate change of the surtax is scheduled to occur on or after October 1 of
that year. We provided the Florida Department of Revenue with a copy of the Board’s resolution
in May 2019 and fully intend on complying with this timeline and will consult the Florida
Department of Revenue for guidance.

8

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
SREF & CHARTER ALLOCATIONS
(Response to: Hazouri, Items 2 & 3; Salem, Items 3 & 4; Bowman, Items 3, 5, & 6; DeFoor, Item
8; Diamond, Items 4 & 7; Ferraro, Items 6 & 8; Cumber 1,4, &15; Priestly Jackson, Items 5, 6, 7
& 9; Pittman, Items 3 & 4)
Charter Schools
The State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF) was specifically written to capture and
institutionalize best practices and lessons learned with respect to school safety and quality. A 2017
report from the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA)
concluded that no compelling reason existed to eliminate SREF and that most school districts
supported retaining SREF. The OPPAGA report stated that SREF provides real value for school
districts in terms of student safety, facility longevity, facility quality, and school uniformity. With
the average age of Duval County Public Schools’ facilities now approaching 45 years on a square
foot basis, the SREF requirement to build for longevity and quality has benefited students,
teachers, and the community as a whole.
State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF)
Some specific differences between SREF and other Florida Building Codes (FBC) are SREF’s
requirement for larger classroom sizes, the non-SREF FBC’s allow for smaller classrooms. The
larger classrooms required by SREF provide additional square footage to enhance the learning
environment and to increase class sizes to accommodate enrollment surges which can be critical
at times. The District had 50 schools with 90% or greater enrollment this year which typically
requires larger class sizes for specific grades within those schools. Because district-managed
public schools have school boundaries that assign specific homes to specific schools, districtmanaged public schools must accept additional students from within their boundaries whenever
they show up to be enrolled. Meanwhile, public charter schools have enrollment caps and do not
have assigned boundaries. Once a charter school reaches capacity, it has the ability to turn away
students that they cannot handle due to capacity constraints. This allows charter schools to build
smaller classrooms per non-SREF Florida Building Code requirements. Enrollment surges have
occurred without warning in the past within Duval County when a charter or private school closes
unexpectedly during the school year.
SREF also requires that traditional public schools are constructed to meet public shelter
requirements when required by local governments. The non-SREF Florida Building Codes do not
have this requirement. The public requirement is estimated to add up to 7% to the cost of
construction for new schools and the school district bears this cost. Were this requirement
eliminated, then the additional cost would have to be borne by local governments requiring the
shelters. There are many more differences such as safety requirements for the construction of bus
loops, parent drop-off loops, and student parking and lighting that enhance student safety. These
differences are not required by non-SREF FBC’s.

9

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
Charter School Allocation
It is the Board’s desire to make available to charter schools a portion of the proceeds from the sales
tax levy through a non-competitive Sales Tax Allocation based on the guiding principles outlined
in the Board’s Master Facilities Plan. Currently the recommendation being considered includes
each charter school receiving $5.00/per square foot, an amount equal to district-managed schools
to be used for safety and security improvements. This will allow charter schools to address
existing and anticipated capital related improvements related to safety and security. At
$5.00/square foot, a 70,000 sq ft. charter school could receive $350,000 over 15-year period.
In keeping with the guiding principles set forth in the Master Facilities Plan, surtax funds to address
facility deficiencies and improvements based on FCI will be allocated to charter schools based on
like age of traditional public schools. All eligible operator-owned charter schools will be eligible
to receive funding comparable to district schools to support FCI needs. The District has identified
Waterleaf Elementary, an elementary school eight years old, as the comparative school. Based on
the school’s size, the school is slated to receive approximately $923,000: $517,000 for safety and
security and approximately $406,000 dollars to address the school’s FCI improvement needs. By
comparison, River City Science Elementary Academy, an owner-operated charter school has
operated in the District for 9 years. Using a District school for comparison, River City Science
Elementary could receive an estimated $456,346 in funds to support its FCI needs. Charter schools
seeking this funding would be required to properly document their FCI needs using the same FCI
process employed by district-managed schools, beginning with an engineering study through a
district-approved vendor.
Although charter schools have not provided actual square footage to the District, at $5 per square
foot, an estimated 70,000 sq/ft facility would generate an additional $350,000 for safety and
security. This would result in a total estimated surtax allocation of approximately $806,346.
Combined with PECO funding over a 15-year period, in this example the charter school could
receive approximately $4.5 million for capital expenses. The chart on the next page provides the
estimated capital revenue during the 15-year period of the surtax.
Calculations for eligible capital improvements for charter schools in leased facilities will follow a
similar calculation. The amount eligible to charter schools in leased facilities for FCI
improvements is .5 of the FCI calculation. An example of funding for an eligible leased facility is
provided in the table, as well. Use of funds will be restricted to capital outlay projects that are not
fixed in nature such as security and equipment. Schools in leased facilities will be prohibited from
purchasing or constructing new schools or additions to existing schools, or purchasing nonremovable assets. In the event the school closes, all assets purchased with sales tax revenues will
revert to the District at the District’s discretion. The Board may consider other requirements
consistent with its approved resolution prior to executing a final agreement with each eligible
charter school.

10

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
Example:

Category
Facility Age
PECO1
Safety and Security2 ($5/sq. ft)
FCI
Total

River City Science
Academy
Elementary
(Owner Operated)
9 years
$3,683,310
$350,000
$456,3463
$4,489,656

Global Outreach
Charter Academy
(Lease)
10 years
$7,444,305
$350,000
$253,5254
$8,047,830

Waterleaf
Elementary
(District-Managed)
8 years
$0
$517,560
$405,641
$923,201

PECO funding is an annual allotment – projections were based on River City Science’s allotment of $245,554 and
Global’s allotment of $496,287 for the 2019-2020 school year multiplied by 15 years, the duration of the sales tax
levy
2
Estimates for square footage were based on a hypothetical value of 70,000 sq/ft
3
FCI estimates were projected based on the age of the facility in relation to Waterleaf’s FCI prorated annually by the
age of the school ($405,641/8 years = $ 50,705.13 per year, multiplied by 9, the age of River City Science Academy
Elementary.)
4
FCI estimates were projected based on the age of the facility in relation to Waterleaf’s FCI prorated annually by the
age of the school ($405,641/8 years = $ 50,705.13 per year, multiplied by 10, the age of Global Outreach Charter
Academy, then multiplied by .5.)
1

Questions were also raised regarding why the District will not share funds on a per-student
allocation. Currently, capital funds are allocated based on capital need, not on a per-student
formula. For example, the cost of a roof replacement does not consider the number of students in
the building. It only takes in account of the cost of materials and labor needed to replace the roof.
The charter allocation as recommended ensures the fidelity of the Board’s resolution by expending
funds to improve safety and security as well as addressing the maintenance and repair needs for
existing public facilities.

11

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
CAMPAIGN & MESSAGING
(Response to: Boylan, Items 1, 2 & 3; Salem, Item 1; Bowman, Items 1 & 2; Wilson, Items 3, 4 &
6; Cumber, Items 1)
Several council members provided a list of questions regarding the School District’s plans and
capacity for implementing a successful referendum campaign. State regulations prevent school
district personnel from leading, managing, or even advocating for a campaign. The District’s
primary responsibility is to inform voters about the issue, the needs of the District, and its facility
plans. The community education effort began with the public dialog surrounding the Facility
Condition Index report and the various iterations of the Master Facilities Plan.
In the process of educating the public about the facility needs, the plan, and need for a revenue
source, the District has already held dozens of large and small community meetings, met
extensively with city officials, posted online videos and slide shows of proposed plans, and
constructed a website, www.ourduvalschools.org.
Once a ballot date is certain, a referendum campaign will be the responsibility of a private citizen
group, not the school district. This private citizen group would form a Political Action Committee
(PAC), and the PAC would be responsible for running the campaign. The School Board and the
District are following models successful in other districts. With respect to questions regarding
voter turnout, St. Lucie County recently approved their supervisor of elections to conduct a mailin ballot for their school district’s special referendum for millage. Mail-in ballots are significantly
less expensive, and the turnout in St. Lucie was an impressive 32 percent because of the ease of
voting.

12

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
OTHER POLICY & OPERATIONS ITEMS
(Response to: Bowman, Items 9, 10, 13 & 15; Ferraro, Items 3, 4 & 5; and Priestly Jackson, Items
1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 & 12; Pittman, Item 1)
Council members submitted several questions about school district operations and policy in
addition to those directly about the master facility plan and the referendum. These questions
touched on a diversity of issues including but not limited to desegregation, student transportation,
plans for the District’s current administration building, and support for charter schools. Many of
the questions proposed would require significant research and personnel time to explore fully, but
to the best of our ability to expedite action on the proposed referendum, those issues are briefly
addressed below:

13

•

Administration Building - We remain open to moving the District administration building
off the current river location. We recently completed an external appraisal of our building
and the Board will discuss this further at a future workshop. It should be emphasized that
the current building imposes no operational cost to the District. We do not have a lease
payment or debt payment on the building, and this condition of being fully paid for is a
tremendous advantage to our annual operating budget. Any future solution which would
move the District administration off the river must not have a negative economic impact
on the District or taxpayers. A lease arrangement that would divert dollars from
instructional operations is not acceptable. The District continues to be open to potential
solutions that have no adverse economic impact and that provide a central access point for
our constituents.

•

OPPAGA - Initiating the statutorily required study from Florida Office of Program and
Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) is a School Board
responsibility. District staff engaged OPPAGA two months prior to the School Board’s
approval of the resolution for a referendum on May 7. Immediately following the Board’s
vote, OPPAGA received a copy of the Board’s executed resolution. The Board action
initiating the OPPAGA study and the communication with OPPAGA were completed with
ample time to complete the process prior to the proposed November referendum date. Most
recent communication from OPPAGA indicates that they are prepared to complete the
required audit in time for this matter to appear on a 2019 ballot. This assurance that the
study could be timely completed was most recently relayed to the Office of the
Superintendent from OPPAGA in an email dated July 24, 2019.

•

Charter Operators in Duval County - Duval County Public Schools includes more than
30 charter schools available to students and families as one of a number of school choices.
The District and Board follow all state required processes to enable charter schools to
operate in accordance with law. Since July 2018, the District has recommended and the
Board has approved eight charter school contract renewals and four contracts for new
charter schools or charter school locations. For many parents, their first choice is a

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
neighborhood school or a specialized school within the District. Therefore, it is imperative
to also offer comprehensive district-managed public schools that enthusiastically serve the
needs of all children. It is the District’s goal that all district-managed schools remain or
continue to progress toward becoming high-performing schools that serve all children and
provide multiple pathways to success. We continue to make positive progress toward that
goal.

14

•

Transportation - Duval County Public Schools offers families a tremendous commitment
to transportation that meets or exceeds state legal requirements. While the state requires
the District to provide bus transportation to District-operated schools beyond a two-mile
radius from the school to the home within the school’s boundary, Duval County students
who live more than 1.5 miles from their neighborhood school receive bus transportation at
no cost to the family. In addition, the District provides an extensive network of magnet
school transportation that enables districtwide school choice regardless of parents’ ability
to transport students.

•

Academic Accountability - In the school accountability era, Duval County Public Schools
has demonstrated tremendous achievement and improvement. As examples, this school
district was recognized as one of the best urban school districts in the nation following
results of the most recent national assessments. Duval’s fourth grade mathematics students
were number one in the nation of those districts that participated in the sample. The
graduation rate for our District continues to improve to record highs. Nearly all our
traditional high schools have a graduation rate of greater than 90 percent. In state
assessments, Duval County Public Schools is a fraction of a percentage point from being
an “A” school district and has been one of the fastest improving districts in the state.

•

Administrative Overhead - Duval County Public Schools has achieved these results
through an intense focus on classroom instruction, school leadership, and school
operations. District administrative staff represent only 6 percent of all 13,000+ District
personnel.

•

Transfer between Funds - If the questions regarding administrative costs are meant to
suggest that administrative dollars could be transferred to capital funding, the question is
based on a false premise. Operating dollars and capital dollars come from two separate
sources. Development of the annual budget in which operating dollars are distributed
according to the strategic directions of the district remains a function of the Duval County
School Board in close working relationship with the district administration. Ultimate
accountability for strategic and budget decisions is manifest in Florida’s rigorous
accountability system in which the Duval County Public Schools continues to excel.

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
•

School District History, Desegregation, and Related Questions - Many of the questions
in this category will require extensive historical research and staff time to accurately
address.

While many of the other questions require extensive research, the Master Facilities Plan is
designed to improve equity among schools throughout Duval County. By focusing on the condition
of each building as the primary factor driving investment, the plan ensures that all schools get the
resources needed to provide students with an outstanding learning environment.
Under the plan:
• All schools will receive funding for safety and security improvements.
• Portables will be significantly reduced if not eliminated.
• All backlogged maintenance will be eliminated.
• Every student in Duval County will experience an improved educational environment.
The Master Facility Plan is predicated on the extensive engineering study that comprises the
Facility Condition Index report. That report, in conjunction with extensive community dialog,
underlies the final recommendations in the plan and the opportunity for Duval County to provide
its students and teachers with the same high-quality learning environments afforded students
throughout the First Coast and the state of Florida.

15

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE
Other
(Response to: Bowman, Item 12)
The school district has been asked why this tax will be a one-time event and to describe the changes
in procedures to ensure buildings will be correctly maintained in the future, how we will close and
consolidate schools that “do not justify being operational” and lessons learned to ensure this does
not happen again.
First and foremost, it is important to recognize that all district-managed buildings have remained
safe and operational under current building code despite the cuts previously outlined. In fact, our
maintenance department has done a yeoman’s job of finding efficiencies and patching systems on
a shoestring budget. The District has demonstrated excellent stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and
the situation that we find ourselves in now is a direct result of austere recessionary budget
reductions over the past decade coupled with the lack of an additional revenue stream.
The state budget was cut during the recession due to a shortage of incoming tax dollars. As a
result, school budgets, including capital funds for facilities, were proportionately cut. These
reductions resulted in a backlog of school minor and major maintenance. We were aware that this
was a short-term situation and everyone in the state was suffering during the economic
downturn. Although it was not an ideal solution, we understood that everyone had to do their part
to cut back and that those issues would be addressed when the economy improved.
In 2008, the state legislature reduced the amount of funding districts could levy from 2.00 mills
down to 1.75 and finally to 1.50 mills in 2009. This reduction in funding further exacerbated the
capital funding issue, and the list of maintenance issues grew.
The cuts by the school district were not solely confined to capital expenses. For example, you may
recall the public outcry to cuts in art, music, physical education, athletics, media services, and
magnet transportation that were made during that time.
Jacksonville now enjoys a robust economy. Throughout the city, revitalization is occurring. At this
time there is no reason that our schools should not be similarly revitalized, with priority properly
placed on safety and security. It is well documented that cities with strong educational systems
attract families and businesses to the community and contribute to the overall advancement of the
city. Through state increases in operational dollars, we have been able to make some progress in
restoring art and music to all schools, and busing services have been returned to prior
levels. Capital funding has not been similarly restored, and the school district will not be able to
meet our maintenance needs with existing funding.
Regarding the question about what we will do to make sure this never happens again, we cannot
control future funding cutbacks or reductions at the state level. We will remain committed to good
financial stewardship of taxpayer funds and available resources. Our elected School Board will
continue to advocate for the needs of schools at tall levels. It is up to the School Board to determine
existing needs, whether that is additional funding through a sales tax referendum or an additional
half mill for much-needed operational expenses such as addressing the salaries of our teachers and
continued recruitment and retention of high performing instructional personnel.

16

 2019-380 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE

There is a path to provide an adequate stream of capital funding for the future needs of our schools.
With the consolidation and closure of under-utilized schools, we are happy to work with the city
to revise and adjust existing concurrency regulations that could be a long-term solution for
addressing ongoing funding for capital needs.
We remain open to continued collaboration and hopeful that we can resolve any remaining issues
so that everyone involved can be comfortable that this initiative is not only good for our children,
but also the right thing for our community as a whole.

17