Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses staff on enrollment drop and whether concurrency payments should be returned to developers
Summary
Board members probed staff about a projected decline of roughly 3,355 students next year and a multi‑year drop of about 10,000 students, and asked whether existing concurrency mitigation agreement (CMA) funds collected from earlier contracts should be refunded to developers or redirected when local seats are available.
During the May 5 work session, board members pressed facilities and planning staff on updated enrollment projections and the use of concurrency mitigation agreement (CMA) funds collected from developers under pre‑2019 contracts.
Jess Lambert summarized the district’s reforecasting: staff now expect a decline of roughly 3,355 full‑time equivalent students next year and project a larger five‑year decline of about 10,000 students. That revised forecast pushed several recommended relief schools off the 10‑year horizon; only two relief elementary schools in the Apopka area are currently recommended to open within the next decade.
Member Gallo asked whether CMAs collected from a large development known as the Grove (and other pre‑2019 agreements) are being used as credits toward impact fees, or whether the district can return funds if it does not need nearby seats. Christopher Mills, real estate and land planning, said the CMA receipts are from viable, existing contracts and thus continue to be collected but are not credited toward impact fees: "They are not credited towards our impact fees… they are in addition to our impact fees," Mills said. He added the law changed in 2019 so new CMAs are not authorized; existing CMA contracts entered prior to 2019 remain enforceable.
Member Gallo said it would be "disingenuous" to collect CMA funds that will not be used to generate student stations in the immediate area and urged study of returning money where appropriate. Staff replied that returning funds requires careful analysis — including whether rezoning could place students in existing seats — and that the district would likely want any rezoning plan in place before proposing a refund to ensure the money would not be needed for nearby capacity.
Staff also described the county’s newly adopted impact‑fee waiver rubric for affordable housing, which typically allows a 50% waiver and up to 75% in rare cases. The school impact fee study is being refreshed with current data; staff expect a draft for the advisory committee in June and board consideration in September.
No final decisions were made at the session; staff said they will return with further analysis on CMAs, rezoning implications, and the impact fee study schedule.
Key quotes
"3,355 is the FTE decline from the current year," a staff presenter said when summarizing next‑year projections. (District demographer)
"Those CMAs are viable existing contracts... they are not credited towards our impact fees," Christopher Mills said regarding payments collected under pre‑2019 mitigation agreements.
"If we don't need the money in the near future in District 1, I feel it's disingenuous to collect money when we don't need it," Member Gallo said.
Next steps: staff will provide a more detailed rezoning analysis and options for how to treat existing CMA funds and will bring a draft of the impact fee study through the advisory committee in June ahead of board discussion.
