Special School Board Meeting

Must comply with applicable school board policies. Abusive language defined as profanity threatening or name calling is prohibited. In addition, clapping, hissing, booing, shouting, yelling or other disruptions from the audience are not allowed. Speakers who fail to follow proper decorum in the chambers will be ruled out of order by the board chair. Failure to comply may result in the microphone being turned off or a recess being called. After a warning. The chair may also direct removal from the meeting by law enforcement or the Sergeant in arm. Safety and security personnel will remain in the building to further assist. Also, we want to remind everyone that Florida Statute 843.31 requires that when law enforcement is engaged in their lawful duty, that anyone that is present be away and stay away for at least 25ft from the law enforcement. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you, Attorney Dupre. Bruno. The board wants to hear from the public, and we appreciate your cooperation in maintaining a respectful, orderly and productive meeting environment. When it is time for public speakers, I will call five speakers at a time. When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium with only one person at the podium at a time. Please follow staff's directions when lining up and approaching the podium when you're one. When your three minutes are up, please yield the mic and exit the podium and follow staff's direction. I think there is an issue this morning with the online sign up, so I will just call for our speaker, our public speakers to approach the podium. So we will now proceed with the agenda. Today's workshop will operate in accordance with School Board policy. 1020 A and the board will review the items as advertised and presented by the superintendent. Our first item is the Office of Safe Schools Quarterly Report. 2627 quarter one Doctor Hepburn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, board public. First of all, I want to take a moment to recognize the significant progress of our district continues to make in our safety, our school safety compliance. And that's mostly facilitated by our safety and security staff who normally don't get any accolades at all. And I know they don't do it for accolades. They do it for the purpose of keeping our schools safe and secure. Our first quarter results demonstrate just how far we've come over the past three years. The percentage of inspected schools with zero safety deficiencies has increased from 22% to 50%, and now to nearly 89%. Among district operated schools that that figure has reached nearly 94%. And especially note and especially noteworthy achievement, we're also seeing exceptional results across the individual safety requirements evaluated during the inspections this quarter. The district operated schools achieved a 99.6% compliance rate, while charter schools reach 97 96.7%. Both represent the highest rates reported over this year. Three year period. These improvements are not accidental. They reflect the continued commitment, hard work and accountability of our school leaders, employees and safety and compliance teams who work every day to ensure our schools provide safe and secure learning environments. While these results are certainly worth recognizing, our work is not finished. Our goal remains 100% compliance at every school. We will continue addressing deficiencies, reinforcing expectations, and holding ourselves accountable to that standard. I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the progress. These results demonstrate what we can accomplish when school safety remains a shared priority by everybody in Broward County, public schools and beyond. I will now turn it over to staff to go over a presentation. >> Good morning. My name is Morgan Nykiel. I'm our compliance coordinator and safety and security with safety, security and Emergency Preparedness Division. Do we have our presentation to be able to get started? Thank you so very much. If we can move to slide three, and I'll start with our quarterly report provided by the Office of Safe Schools. So within our reporting time frame, our first quarter of this school year covering July, August, September, there were 18 schools that were inspected. And of those only 16, a total of 16 did have no deficiencies, of course, almost 90% of those compliance visits. And of course, considerations for this calculation, this information that this is a pass fail standard. So one deficiency considers the schools inspection to be deficient. And also in looking at our number of school facilities, it's important to consider the fact of how the Office of Safe Schools calculates those is a little different than we do. It's looking at our physical locations. So our joined charter facilities are less than the total number of kids that we have. And also depending on which facilities are under the oversight of Office of Safe Schools for inspection. Some comparison to previous data from last year. In the first quarter, while there were only six compliance inspections in the first quarter, three of those inspections, or 50%, showed deficiencies. Whereas this time around, in our first quarter, very pleased to see that we have 16 with no deficiencies, making that significantly higher with almost 90% percentage. We've broken that down into, of course, our district operated and our charter comparison for this first quarter. So as you can see, 16 of those compliance inspections were at district operated locations versus only two at charter locations. So of course, this weighting does really. Point to the fact that it's getting deficiencies in an area where you have far less inspections, has a much greater impact on that compliance percentage. As a superintendent pointed out, we also calculate internally an additional data point to give us a better idea or another way of reviewing the data from our inspections. And we look at that as an item pass rate. So within every compliance inspection, there are certain items that are flagged for compliance because there are some items in those inspections that are best practice. We've given some information on how we calculate that here. But essentially this year there are 15 items that could flag for compliance deficiency. And of that, for the first quarter. One deficiency of all of our district operated locations accounted for of the 240 individual items that are evaluated there, giving us a 99.6% pass rate, where as our charters, with those two inspections having 30 items accounted to give us 96.7, still an increase, however, from the last quarter of inspections that we had at the end of last school year. And finally, we are continuing to support this endeavor and getting us to our 100% compliance with our continued inspections in our schools. We have emergency management area security managers going out and doing check ins with schools. Every school, public and charter was visited at the beginning of the school year to go over expectations, review some of the information that's going to be necessary during these inspections. And we've already begun our internal district compliance inspections with the state. From my review of the data, it's looking at, about over 40 schools have already been inspected from that inspection. And then we've also, of course, considering our safer space checks, we've incorporated that into our our drill log information. So that way there is that continual renewal of checking and verifying of that information, as we did see that as a challenge last year to ensure throughout the school year that that stays on point. It's going to be it. >> That concludes the presentation, Madam Chair. >> Thank you, Miss Alhadeff. >> Thank you. So this has been a great improvement. And thank you, Doctor Hepburn and staff and security team. So I have a few questions on on page four with the charter school deficiencies. Is there any communication back to the charter school Board in regards to these deficiencies? >> Go ahead, Mr. LaRosa. >> Good morning. Jim LaRosa Director of Safety and Security Operations. Morgan, can you address that, please? >> Absolutely. We have a process that we follow for every state compliance visit, both on our district and charter side and for our charter deficiencies, the communication that is sent out, which is a formal letter that I draft identifying the deficiencies and requesting a corrective action plan for both addressing the immediate as well as the future, does include not only the principal over that school, but also the governing Board chair in that communication. >> Can it also, Doctor Hepburn, go to their entire school board? >> Yeah, we can CC their board for the same information. >> Perfect. Thank you. And then on on page six, I see that you are incorporating the safer space checks. Are you also doing anything with having the panic buttons when they're in? If putting them in drill mode for their drills, that they're using the panic button as part of their lockdown drills in drill mode. >> Morgan. >> Thank you. Yes, we do have that as an expectation requirement within our drill log. There is a specific questions to report that they have utilized that. We also are internally reviewing that information. We're able to track that internally as well. >> Okay great. And then I just would reiterate that there needs to be more diligent training with all of our our different drills so that it becomes muscle memory in these emergency situations. And I would love to see this at 100% in compliance and, and that there would be no safety deficiencies in the future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Dr. Zeman. >> Thanks, chair. Doctor Hepburn, how safe are the schools in Broward County? >> Extremely safe. >> What feedback do you get about Broward County Schools? Degree of safety and security? >> We're a beacon of safety in the country, so lots of people come to us to kind of pick our brain about safety strategies. >> Terrific. And thanks to thanks to the team for making that the case. Thank you, Doctor Hepburn. >> Miss Hixon. >> I just have a. I think you pressed the button. Yeah. After I turn it on. I'm not supposed to hit the button. I have a question. Because about when you first get into a school and the consistency of what happens when you walk into a school, because in some places you have to take the things out of your pocket. Some places you don't have to take it out of the pocket. And there have been just through the community conversations that we've had a lot of comments being made that we're not consistent with that. So can you speak to what is the. And I've had this conversation with Doctor Hepburn already. So what does every school get to write their own procedure on how that works? Or should it be a consistent procedure throughout the district? And how are we checking to make sure of that and other things, like some schools you pull up and there's someone checking your badge and writing your license number down when you come into the parking lot, other places, nobody talks to you at all until you hit the button to call in. So how are we going to do a better job of being very consistent about what that security check looks like? As you're pulling into any school in the district? >> There you go. You're agreeing. >> With the chair. Jim LaRosa, Director of safety and security operations. So, so yes, we we acknowledge that that's been an issue in the past. We've been working hard to resolve some of that. And I will say kind of the, you know, the the big response, as cliche as it sounds, is absolutely true. Safety and security is everyone's responsibility. So we have we've engaged with our team, our safety and security personnel to, to standardize a lot of those practices, as well as implement training for front office staff, clerical staff, those folks who run the single points of entry to ensure those are those are handled properly. So multiple levels of training and, and SOPs to, to really to get at that standardization as far as being checked, emptying pockets and all that. You know, we have schools that conduct metal detection throughout the day and some, you know, other schools do not. So those are going to vary a little bit. Obviously, when you show up to those schools, for the most part, at this point, it should be standardized. We would ask, you know, if if anything is identified as being at this stage. Variant between levels of school that have come to our attention and we can address that, but it should be standardized at this point. >> Okay. And so I guess along the lines of that, sometimes when you go to a school, there's a, there's a monitor that's outside, like checking people as they're even coming into the parking lot. Some of them sit in their cars, some of them have little huts. Is the expectation that someone should be checking as you go in the parking lot? And if that is, where do we stand in terms of having a space for them? Because I don't think them sitting in their car is very I'm not I'm not trying to throw shade at anyone. I'm just saying doesn't look very professional and it's not really fair to them. And I know in some places they do have the security huts or a tent or something. So how do we make sure that that is also consistent? Because I feel like either you should have someone in the parking lot or you shouldn't. It's kind of odd that they're in some places and not others. >> So the, the expected standard is that a security employee is at the front of every school to engage visitors as they arrive. Now to, to your point. >> Not happening. >> Well, then we need to know about that. It that is the expected standard that an employee is out there. Now, what that looks like may vary to your point. You know, we do have the you know, some schools have the security shacks. You know, some don't. They should not be in their personal vehicles, you know, but but again, if that's if, if anything like that is identified, and I'll say this for, for anyone listening, you know, for all staff as well as we're out and about, you know, we need to make corrections as well. But the expectation is there is a security employee to engage with visitors as they arrive. >> Okay, great. I'll make a list as I go around for you. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Dr. Holness. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Doctor Hepburn, I commend you for these significant results as compared to the prior year. So I have a question regarding we do have staff changes. Consistently as we have staff changes and staff that are in key position of safety. What is the process in place to make sure that ongoing training, immediate, ongoing training is exercised so we can have a continuum in safety? >> And when you say staff, you're talking about the school based staff or security. >> Staff, both because we have consistent changes in staff, the security staff, the school based staff. How do we make sure new staff coming on board that they're immediately up to date? So there's a continuum in safety. >> Excuse me. They're onboarded with with training for security as well as other operational needs, especially for school based leadership that are leading schools, the principals, assistant principals. And of course, with any changes in safety staff or security staff, the security team make sure they're well trained to address the needs of that school. But training, training, training when they're onboarded. >> Okay, so when a new staff come comes on board, is the is that a high priority whereby training in terms of safety occur immediately as opposed to. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. And are there any public speakers to this presentation, any public speakers here for this presentation? Okay. Any other my colleagues, miss Rupert. >> Thank you. I didn't do it. Hi. Yeah. My question is to Mr. LaRosa. In the past several years, we've had perennial schools. How much of that is still continuing as compared to, you know, several years ago? Do you need more clarification? >> Yes. Can you repeat the question? What type of schools? >> Perennial schools. So for schools that that happen, you know, are usually on the list for failing or failing part of it year after year after year, what have you seen a huge change in that? And what did you do differently that you think made a difference? >> So we definitely prioritize, prioritize school and support our schools, you know, based on some of those factors. I think, you know, again, not to throw another cliche out there, but but students are not a able learn and b be suessful if f th n'n'feelelafaf r right So we those schools have a safensur learning environment. In some cases, if it's additional staff, it's additional resourcing. We do everything we can to support those schools, and we're doing that now. That may look differently depending on the school and the situation, of course, but I know I'm in touch with those personally in touch with in tune with those schools who they are, those principals. And, you know, we do what we can to support them. >> Doctor Hepburn, is it possible to get an update on this afterwards with a little bit more specifics involved just of the perennial schools that we've had over the years? You know, what, what percentage of them is still left and what are we doing to be able to pull them into compliance with that? >> So let me just try and clarify the question. So we get the right information and we'll bring it to a closed door security meeting. So you want to know the schools that had recurring. Deficiencies identified. Yes. And. What is what has the team done to actually improve and help them get off the deficiency deficiency list? Okay. >> Perfectly. Thank you so much. I want to, you know, definitely celebrate and forward movement, but it's also very important that we, we do look at some anomalies and then actually just share that news out. The good news. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Doctor Hubbard you have your direction. >> Yes. >> All right. The next item is North Fork site redevelopment. I will now turn it over to staff for presentation. >> Miss Nicole, you can bring the you can give the clicker to Doctor Wanza. Thank you. >> And while we wait on staff transitioning, I do want to remind my colleagues regarding this topic per the the advice of our general counsel, that, you know, this is not a negotiation. Any direction needs to be given to our general counsel and our in our superintendent, but we're not negotiating from the dais. So just as a reminder to everyone that we are not to be negotiating. All right. Doctor Hepburn. >> I'll turn it over to staff. >> Good morning. I am Valerie Wanza, the chief strategy and operations officer. And I have had the distinct pleasure of working with our general counsel, general counsel, attorney Cathy Dupuy Bruno, on this entire process. We do have a cadre attorney. Gavin. What is his last name? You can say his name. I don't want to say it wrong. >> We have our attorney, Gavin Loughlin, on the line, and we just want to make sure that he's with us. Gavin, can you hear us? >> I can wonderful. Good morning everyone. >> So if if beacon can load the North Fork redevelopment presentation, we do have the representatives from Sistrunk Rising are here as well. And I know that they have a document and we will upload it. We received it this morning. They have. And Mr. Hill can pass it out. They also have an updated concept that we were provided with this morning, and we will upload it to Granicus as well so that it is there for the public. But Mr. Hill is distributing it to the board. And so we're going to go ahead and get started. If beacon can upload the North Fork presentation, our. So again, our purpose here today, as we know, we had a conversation with the board on October 13th and the board asked for the superintendent and the GC to actually do some specific work and bring it back here today at this workshop. So this is we are I'm trying to get the slide to advance. Okay. So our, our purpose here today is really for the board to provide some guidance to the superintendent and the general counsel as we continue our exclusive negotiations with Sistrunk rising around redevelopment of the property at North Fork, the former North Fork Elementary School, we. Our agenda today, as I said, we want some direction from the board. We do have some outstanding questions that will guide our next steps, and we also want to make sure the board understands that we are following the timeline that the board established at the October 13th School board meeting. So our purpose today, we want to review some of the principal terms of the proposed redevelopment, look at some of the matters requiring additional board direction. Also, we want some clarity on the board's expectation regarding financing consideration, development commitments. Definitely the timeline timeline as well as some district projections. Protections, I'm sorry, district protections. But we also want to make certain more than anything that we have the negotiation parameters necessary to guide the preparation of the revised term sheet. So October 13th, there was a board item that did have the draft of the term sheet at that time. And coming out of that meeting by board action, the board directed staff to move forward with exclusive negotiations with Sistrunk rising, which we have had a couple of negotiation sessions since then. And then the timeline that the board gave us was today to come back with specific questions or our progress of negotiations within 45 days of today's conversation. Bring back a a revised term sheet. And then within 90 days obviously come with. A what the terms of what is acceptable to bring to the board for consideration for final approval. So now we're going to walk the board through some of the areas that we have had discussion on and what we will need ultimately board direction on. So the first one is the proposed redevelopment overview. As as was discussed in the initial proposal, and it has not changed what what is consistent is that the property the proposal is to redevelop the property for affordable housing in the form of rental units, as well as townhomes that would be available for purchase for homeowners, and then a hotel structure there on the property as well. Included in the development for the property is obviously priority housing, if you will, for district employees in that affordable housing structure, as well as a a workforce training center, of which the district will be able to offer professional development, workforce development. And then they're also community resources as well as an educator resource center for, for educators. And what's important that the developers want us to know is that they do anticipate using local contractors and workers as they do this entire development phase. And you can see here, as it relates to affordable housing, it would be 350 rental apartments with a minimum of 200. The hotel would be 150, I'm sorry, at minimum 125 rooms. I'm sorry, 125 rooms with a contractual minimum of 75 rooms based on zoning and the necessary criteria that they would have to go through. And then obviously the 18, as I said, townhomes that would be for purchase to, to, to really support home ownership. So that's the proposed redevelopment overview with those three components. So the next phase is the actual proposed transaction structure. And what, what this contemplates is doing three separate ground leases. The first one would be a ground lease for the the area of the property that would situate the affordable housing, which would be the apartments. The other ground lease would be for that hotel or commercial structure. And then there's the section in the in the in the land that would be a five year ground lease where the townhomes are with the option to purchase. So it's 299 year leases, one for the hotel structure, one for the apartment that will be developed. And then the third one would be the area of land where the townhouses would go. And that area of land would be a five year ground lease with the option to purchase so that it really can be true home ownership for the individuals who would eventually purchase one of the townhomes. So that's the proposed structure of how the ground leases would be laid out. The next area is the proposed financial considerations. And I may ask the GC to help me on this one, because I don't want to miss. I don't want to give any false information as I explain this. The first thing is that there would be an upfront $10,000 nonrefundable type of. And I'm going to call it deposit or upfront payment. The. The affordable housing structure would look at about $150,000 annually in that ground lease for that structure, plus $500 for each unit above 200. Remember, 200 is the minimum, but it could go up to 350. So it's $150,000 at minimum for that ground lease where the affordable housing is, with the potential of it going up to an additional $75,000. When we look at the the hotel before occupancy, it would be about $500 per permitted room. And so if we remember the the maximum that they're looking at is 125 with a minimum of 75. So that's where you see the breakdown of the financial proposed financial structure for the hotels, the hotel, I'm sorry. And then for the townhomes, it's $20,000 per townhome certificate of occupancy. Upon the exercise of the purchase option. And again, as I said, there is the $10,000 nonrefundable upfront payment. So as we look at the development timeline and pre-development considerations on the left hand side, you see that there's it's an estimated 4 to 5 years before their certificate certificate of occupancy on the property. So that is once the construction is done, everything is done about 4 to 5 years before you see the certificate of occupancy. But under there, you see what explains that timeline that gets us there. So there's obviously the due diligence period of at or about 180 days entitlements that could take about a two year period. There's permitting and zoning and planning that has to be done. And you can see the proposed timelines there. And then other activities, because we do know that there may have to be some additional archeological testing as it relates to the grounds and the artifacts relating to the Seminole Tribe that once occupied that land, that would have to be considered as well. And then obviously, the final. Construction, when it's actually when it actually commences. And then the milestones would have to still be negotiated as that goes along. And then the financial consideration during the pre-development, as I stated in the previous slide, there is a proposed $10,000 non refundable upfront payment, no addiction, no additional fixed pre development payments to the district are expressly established. The developer does anticipate expenditures associated with, as I said, the surveys, the permitting, the planning, planning as well as other due diligence that is necessary for construction to take place on the site. And then lastly, the affordable housing ground rent wouldn't begin until we start to issue certificates or certificates of occupancy are actually issued. So as it relates to pre-development studies and district protections, I won't repeat anything that has already been said. But on the left hand side, you will see all of the pre-development activities that have to be funded by the developer as it relates to surveys and assessments, the geological testing, the permitting, the planning, all and any other thing that is necessary to evaluate developmental feasibility on the site as it relates to district protections. The developer is obviously responsible for the cost of all of these pre-development activities. The district would be a co-recipient of all of the surveys, the studies and things that are done at the site, the completed reports and the findings would be provided to the district as they become available to the developer, and they complete each activity that is, that is listed on the left hand side, and the district will obviously, we would think, have to give some kind of consent before any invasive testing is done on the site, and then also the appropriate right to access and rely on the studies that would have to be addressed in some very definitive agreements. And then we obviously have indemnification and insurance that would have to be discussed as well. So the hotel component, one thing that we want to make