Flagler County Administrator Heidi Petito last week wrote Superintendent LaShakia Moore that county government will no longer pay the $1.4 million a year in subsidies for the school district’s School Resource Officer, ending a 50-50 cost-sharing agreement that’s been in place for a decade. The county is not required by law to share the district’s security costs.
Petito’s letter was phrased in a way that makes it seem as if the county has already made its decision. It has not: commissioners are interested in having that discussion, but Commission Chairman Andy Dance said the 50-50 cost-sharing approach is no longer sustainable. Dance was previously a school board member. He understands the district’s budget and the pressures it’s under.
“I am writing to inform you of an important decision regarding our ongoing financial commitment to the school district,” Petito wrote Moore on Feb. 13 (the day before the sixth anniversary of the Parkland school massacre), summarizing the county’s support “through various legacy expenditures” over the years. “However, after careful review and consideration, we have concluded that we can no longer sustain annual legacy expenditures that are not directly aligned with our strategic plan or mandated by state statute, while at the same time achieving our responsibility as county government.”
Flagler County Sheriff’s deputies provide security for the district. If the county were to end its contribution to the district’s security budget, it would add huge pressure on an already financially strapped district to think of replacing some of its deputies either with armed civilians or armed guards. Sheriff Rick Staly in the recent past has repeatedly said that he is not opposed to supplementing his ranks with additional security, such as armed civilians. But he has been opposed to any approach that would in any way replace some of the deputies.
School Board member Cheryl Massaro was not aware of the letter when told of it by a reporter this morning. Her initial reaction was simply: “Wow,” a reaction she repeated several times before addressing the consequences. “My first concern is financial. Let’s face facts. We’re not in the best financial situation we’ve been in the past. We’re already below our reserve of $6 million,” Massaro said. “So keeping that in mind, we’ve always feared this was a possibility. At any given time the county could make that decision, and then what are we going to do? SROs are wonderful, I love them, but they’re expensive.”
Petito wrote that the county prioritizes its money in line with its own goals. “Therefore, it is necessary for us to establish a transition plan to gradually transfer the financial responsibility for these legacy expenditures to the school district,” she wrote Moore. “We understand that this may pose challenges in the short term, but we are committed to working collaboratively with you and your team to ensure a smooth transition process.” Petito specified the amount in play, and requested a meeting with Moore “to discuss the specific details and timeline for transferring these expenditures to the school district.”
Petito wrote as if it were a done deal–as if the County Commission had voted, or agreed by consensus, to end the 50-50 split. It has not. The letter is based on a very brief, very general Dec. 18 County Commission workshop discussion on budgeting that could be interpreted different ways–as, indeed, different commissioners interpreted it differently–though there’s no question that the School Resource Officer commitment was very much part of the discussion, and that commissioners wanted it re-evaluated.
Commissioners were discussing the budget in broad brushes ahead of budget season, and deciding whether they want a reduction in the county’s tax rate next year–as Dance put it, “what do we want to put out there as far as tax relief and lower millage?” After commissioners discussed various budget priorities, Dance brought up the SRO spending: One of the elements to look at, he said, is “legacy expenses, which have to be again kind of stepped in because we’re affecting budgets and have to give people some advance notice if we’re going to start reducing some budgets we have. I think one of the largest ones is in our contribution to school resource officers. It is a big a big dollar, but we’ve we’ve continued that on, and our share of that has continued to grow. And I’m not sure if if the school district is getting additional monies from the state or not, but it’s a very important community program.”
“Now would be a good time to discuss with the school board, the sheriff,” Commissioner Greg Hansen said.
“We can start at least to understand better the constraints that the school district is under on any expenses with the resource deputies,” Dance said.
There was no discernible consensus from that discussion for direction to tell the district outright that the 50-50 split was over–only that it was time to re-evaluate it. (See the segment here.)
Dance in an interview today said Petito’s letter did not put the cart before the horse. “It’s just the avenue to alert the district that we need to sit down and have a discussion about these items,” Dance said. SRO’s are “an important part of the community, an important part of school safety, but there needs to be a transition plan I believe, and having come from the other side, having been part of both sides is unique, understanding from the school side that those contributions were helpful in meeting the needs of the district. But my obligation from the county side is looking at the statutory obligation and being a good partner and coming up with a new agreement.”
Commissioner Dave Sullivan interpreted the letter as Dance did. “There’s no decision,” Sullivan said. ““The Board of County Commissioners has not made a specific decision on doing away with the SRO funding. But we’re looking at it as: is that part of our strategic plan we’ve agreed to and must fund?” Sullivan said the county cannot continue paying for things outside its own, immediate priorities. Still, as far as he was concerned, “I am not going to pull the money back without knowing that the effort will go on, how it will be funded in a different manner.”
The district cannot legally retreat on security, within certain parameters (the one-armed-presence at every school), but the county can legally pull back its funding.
Commissioner Leann Pennington said the letter was written in a way that did not reflect the commission’s decision. “I had to go back and look through our meetings and workshops,” she said today. “I know we talked about these legacy expenses and such, but I don’t recall drilling down as to what the amounts were and I don’t recall consensus. I’m a little caught off guard by it.” Pennington said the same thing had happened with a discussion about potentially increasing the sales tax. The commission had discussed it, and the word “consensus” had even been part of the discussion, but she and another commissioner disputed whether that consensus existed for the letter Petito eventually sent local governments, soliciting support for such an increase. The letter and the proposal were withdrawn after some embarrassment for the county. (See: “Flagler County Uses False Information as It Asks Cities to Support Increase in Sales Tax” and “County’s Sales Tax Hike Rings Hollow as Attorney Defends Commissioner’s Unilateral Request for Delay.”)
In this case, there may be some disagreement over wording and interpretation, but not over the near certainty that what had been a settled question in previous years no longer is: the county, like Palm Coast, like the School Board, is under financial pressures, some of them self-inflicted–commissioners in the same discussion about the SROs were also intent on cutting back their tax rate–some of them not: insurance costs, for example, are rising, and the prospect of an increase in the homestead exemption has budget offices quaking. But that’s why the County Commission wanted to send out its alert to the district.
“In looking at the school district’s financial constrains as well as ours this is budget season, we both need to be discussing this so we can properly set our budget,” Dance said. “School district does theirs before ours, so they’re under a little bit more pressure.”
The school district has had SROs in its schools for decades, but the permanent assignment of at least one deputy at every school (two at each of the two high schools) followed the Parkland massacre. A new state law made the placement of at least one armed police officer or security officer in every school a requirement. It was up to districts to decide how they would make that work. Some districts took the less expensive security-guard approach. Some took the even less expensive approach of arming school staff under the so-called “guardian” program, though in neither case do armed personnel have nearly the level of training or law enforcement professionalism that sworn deputies or police officers do.
Sworn deputies can be prohibitively expensive, and have been getting more expensive fast. In 2006, the district was paying for nine deputies. The bill at the time: $222,500, including crossing guards. This year, the cost was $1.2 million for 14 deputies, including the additional deputy the district was required to add at its alternative school, but not the deputy at Imagine School at Town Center, the charter school, which is paid for separately. The district also received a contribution from palm Coast government for one of the deputies. The rest of the cost is picked up by the county. (See the 2023-24 contract.)
“This is going to be a hardship to say the least, to the district,” Massaro said. “We’re really going to have to come down to the nuts and bolts to save on everything to try to make up for that loss.” She added: “I’m sure the superintendent is not pleased with this notification because it’s going to put us all back on how we’re going to make this work.”
