Pensacola councilors question who will run city'school facility planning under 10-year interlocal agreement

Pensacola City Council members discussed a renewed 10-year interlocal agreement for public school facility planning and pressed staff on who will represent the city in ongoing conversations with the Escambia County School District and Escambia County.

Council Vice President Pen said the agreement appears "substantially similar" to the prior version and asked, "how are we interacting with the school board on trying to do the best we can from a school district standpoint in the city?" She also asked who will be the city's point of contact going forward.

The agreement governs coordination on school capacity and facility planning among the city, the county and the school board. Council members said the document is intended to continue the partnership and that it can be amended in the future if participants identify changes they want.

Staff told council the superintendent is the primary point of contact for the city and that the city has been speaking frequently with that office. A staff member, Mr. Kinsella, said the city intends to sign the renewed agreement promptly so the partnership can continue, but emphasized that "we still have the right at any time, to, change the agreement." The planning department was identified as the city group assigned specific responsibilities under the agreement.

Council Member Baer pressed whether the three-way meetings the agreement calls for have occurred in the past, saying he could not recall a meeting involving a city governing-body member, the school board and a county commissioner. Baer said the agreement requires the county to call those meetings; staff replied they do not have evidence in the record that the county has called them recently.

Council members did not record a formal vote on the agreement during the portion of the meeting in the provided transcript. Staff advised that, once signed, the agreement will provide the framework for continuing discussions and that amendments could be pursued later if the city, county or school board determine revisions are needed.

The item was placed on the regular agenda for consideration; no motion, mover, second or roll-call voting results were included in the transcript excerpt.

Clarifying details noted in council discussion included that the agreement is a 10-year renewal and that the planning department will be the city unit assigned to carry out the agreement's operational responsibilities. Council members want confirmation whether the county will convene the multi-party meetings the agreement describes before expecting full three-way coordination to occur.