The continued enforcement of the Tri-Party Educational Mitigation Agreements is severely hindering development in Broward County. These agreements, created decades ago to address school overcrowding, no longer reflect the current reality. With many schools now under-enrolled, these outdated agreements impose unnecessary restrictions and fees, leaving critical projects stalled indefinitely.

There are currently two development projects in the Orange Grove area which exemplify the harm caused by these agreements. The first involves a property owner who has been unable to proceed with building a single-family home because the agreement mandates townhome construction. For over 20 years, no townhomes have been built, and the property has changed hands multiple times with no progress. This outdated requirement makes development impossible and has left the property owner frustrated and without a path forward.

The second property involves another development that has been completely halted by the terms of the agreements. The developer has faced repeated delays and financial burdens, unable to move forward despite extensive efforts to comply with requirements. These agreements create barriers that discourage investment and make housing projects unfeasible, further exacerbating the region's critical housing shortage.

Unless these agreements are ratified, properties like these will remain stalled, leaving valuable housing and economic opportunities unrealized. Development generates significant ad valorem revenue for the School Board, County, and cities, yet this revenue will remain untapped as long as these agreements persist.

It is essential for the Broward County School Board to release municipalities from these outdated agreements. The completion of projects like those in Orange Grove would provide much-needed housing and stimulate economic growth, directly benefiting the community and the broader region. The agreements no longer serve their purpose and must be eliminated to allow development to move forward.

I’m a retired clinical psychologist, and current Chair of Oakland Park’s Planning & Zoning Board, having held that position as a volunteer citizen for over 10 years.

1) The current situation in the Broward County schools is the opposite of what it was then. There is an under-capacity enrollment;
2) The fees were not set at a fixed amount. Rather, there is a formula that escalates them every year since 2003, and will be continuing to do so, making them currently prohibitive;
3) The agreement, as written, has no sunset provision. If not modified or terminated, it will go on for perpetuity, and continue to escalate;
4) The effect of this agreement, as it now stands, will have the opposite effect than was intended. The huge fee required that developers, or in lieu of them, the cities, will have to pay for any new residential units will be so prohibitive, that downtown new housing construction will most likely cease - this at a time when there is such a shortage of housing, especially affordable housing, but also housing at all levels;
5) Ironically, this will negatively impact the very areas that are arguably the most vulnerable - the most in need of support;
6) This cessation will also eliminate the ad valorum tax revenue that new housing would provide to cities, the County, AND the School Board.

I therefore propose that the Board consider that it’s in IT’S best financial interest, as well as the healthy growth of our County and its municipalities
especially in the long run, to revise or eliminate this well-intended but outdated, short-sighted and dysfunctional agreement.

The School System staff has recommended simply exempting only units designated as affordable housing from the student station fees, and maybe the school impact fee. With all due respect, this is just a way to sidestep the more fundamental issue of the current appropriateness and rationale of the whole agreement itself as written, along with its negative consequences.

I know the members of the School Board will want to do the right thing.
When this agreement was created, the cities voluntarily stepped forward to do what was then fair. Now it’s the School Board’s turn to do the same.

My name is Daniel A. Rosemond, and I am the founder and CEO of East to West Development Corporation. We are a registered 501 © (3) organization with a mission to develop affordable housing in the most challenging markets. We have been in business since 2018. But as a former public administration executive, I have over 20 years’ experience as a practitioner in the affordable housing and community development sectors.

As a Developer and Consultant, I have been involved in affordable housing projects/initiatives in several states-California, Texas, Florida and South Carolina. I don’t need to tell this Board that the issue of housing affordability is a national crisis. Working families and individuals across this country are facing significant challenges of being cost burdened due to rising housing costs. And these rising costs are directly attributed to a lack of production, specifically housing units designated as affordable. So when local government policies and practices are in place that impede the goal of developing more affordable units, that is, in my opinion a moral failure.

The agenda item (Education Mitigation Agreements) is an example of such a policy that is a financial barrier to the development of needed affordable housing in the City of Oakland Park. The Agreements are outdated, no longer relevant to current economic and population metrics. I urge the Board to eliminate or at least substantially modify these Agreements. As reported by Broward County, Oakland Park has a shortage of over 2,000 affordable housing units. It makes no sense that these Agreements would remain in place and in essence, work against the County's goal of developing more affordable housing units.

I understand that the District relied on future capital revenue to fund its capacity. But enforcing an outdated Agreement for which there is no standardization and (in this case) affects a community with under enrolled schools is the epitome of disparate treatment by a public organization. It should also not be overlooked that much of the needed affordable housing production will serve teachers, para-professionals and other support staff for the BCPS District.

I write to you respectfully on behalf of Sky at Oakland Park, located at 3801 Dixie Hwy, Oakland Park, FL 33334.

In regard to the matter at hand, please see 'Home Builders Association of West Florida, Inc. v. The Board of County Commissioners, Santa Rosa County, Florida' to determine whether the imposition of impact fees may violate F.S. 163.31801. The Florida Impact Fee Act was amended in 2019 to include the dual rational nexus test previously recognized by Florida Courts. The bill codifies the dual rational nexus test by requiring an impact fee to be proportional and have a rational nexus both to the need for additional capital facilities and to the expenditure of funds collected and the benefits accruing to the new construction. The legislative intent, as stated in the Act, is "to ensure that, when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee by ordinance or a special district adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing authority complies with this section." In this sense, the impact fee must be proportional and reasonably connected to the need for additional schools and the increased impact generated by the new residential construction. Moreover, the impact fee must be proportional and reasonably connected to the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the new residential construction.

In the case of our project, according to the School Board's own projections, the project's 136 residential units will generate a total of six students. Under the 2005 Mitigation Agreement, the cost is $1,094,256 for these same students, resulting in over $180,000 per anticipated child, all of whom are zoned for schools that currently are under capacity. If only charged regular impact fees, the total cost would be $86,200 for six students.

It's hard to see based on these projections how the Mitigation Agreement meets the dual rational nexus test as established by Florida Courts and the Florida Impact Fee Act. The imposed impact fees seem disproportionate and have no connection to either a need for additional facilities (school being under capacity) or to the impact that this new residential development will have on the necessity to increase school infrastructure (only six new students).

· The Fort Lauderdale City Commission passed a resolution at their November 7, 2024 meeting supporting release of Fort Lauderdale and other Broward cities from Tri-Party Mitigation agreements.
· The Tri-Party mitigation agreements require developers to pay student station cost rather than school impact fees for residential development in Activity Centers. Student station costs far exceed school impact fees for comparable developments.
· For example, a recent 157-unit multifamily project in Fort Lauderdale, The Rise, was required to pay $231,889 in student station costs for the 2.67 students anticipated to be generated by the project.
· If the standard school impact fee had been applied, the project would have owed the school board $72,337 in impact fees, a $160,000 difference in fees.
· When the City of Fort Lauderdale adopted its Activity Centers in its Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown, the Northwest Progresso/Flagler Heights, and South Andrews areas many public schools were overenrolled.
· The funding collected by the School Board from the tri-party education mitigation agreements was intended to create additional capacity for those schools impacted by the new development.
· The student population in Broward County public schools has fallen dramatically and many schools are now under enrolled making the payment of student station costs unnecessary.
· At the same time, the County is facing a significant housing crisis, with a critical need for affordable and accessible housing options to support its diverse and growing population.
· The higher cost on development through the student station costs is an obstacle to redevelopment and construction of affordable housing in the City’s Activity Centers.
· It’s important to note that not all affordable units receive impact fee waivers and School Board staff’s recommendations do not address the cap of $50,000 per affordable housing project.
· Also, School Board staff’s recommendations would not reduce fees on market rate units in Activity Centers.

I am writing today as Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Falcone Group, led by one Art Falcone who has been one of Broward County's most prolific real estate developers and community leaders over the course of the past three decades. We (in partnership with Kaufman Lynn Construction) are currently the lead developer of the "Horizon of Oakland Park" (HOOP) project in the City of Oakland Park, which is a public-private-partnership with the City whereby we are building 311 rental apartment units and mixed-use retail at the current City Hall. This important project includes a set-aside of affordable workforce housing units that is critically needed in the community in order to ensure that families and households can continue to live where they work, play and learn. The ability to ensure safe, stable and affordable housing is the foundation by which communities thrive, so that our students can go to school with a good night's rest and adults don't have to travel exorbitant distances to and from work in order to provide for their households.

The undue financial burden caused by these outdated education mitigation agreements is an example of unsound policy that has a vicious cycle effect and impact on the ecosystem needed to sustain thriving communities and support those in need. Our Horizon of Oakland Park project is in grave danger of being financially impossible given these realities, and thus we kindly and respectfully request that these fees be rescinded. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Alfonso Costa Jr.
Chief Operating Officer
Falcone Group

Dear Superintendent and Members of the School Board:

I am writing regarding Workshop Agenda Item #3 - Educational Mitigation Agreements.

Last September, as a member of the Broward County Planning Council, I joined my fellow members in voting unanimously to recommend that the County Commission seek release from these outdated mitigation agreements. The following month, the County Commission acted on this recommendation, passing a resolution with a 7-to-1 vote.

These agreements generate considerable income for the public schools, but they come at a very dear cost to our residents and our future and must be reconsidered.

Not every city is covered by these agreements nor every area in the cities that are party to these agreements. The impacted cities and areas were subject to these agreements simply because they requested of the County an allocation of new units in an area of their city at a time when these agreements were implemented. Had the same city requested units before or after these agreements were required there would be no mitigation cost imposed on new residential units. So today cities issued much needed development are not subject to these additional fees, yet units issued twenty years ago are — and those fees have increased dramatically due to escalation clauses in these agreements.

These agreements are unfair and inequitable, and I appeal to the board to find alternative approaches to balancing your accounts.

Kind regards,

Commissioner Letitia Newbold
City of Oakland Park

The City of Oakland Park formally objects to the continued enforcement of the Tri-Party Educational Mitigation Agreements and urges the Broward County School Board to release all cities from these outdated agreements. Established to address school overcrowding, these agreements no longer serve their purpose. Current data shows many schools are underutilized, with some being repurposed or facing closure. The continued imposition of these fees creates unnecessary barriers during critical housing shortages and economic challenges.

These agreements hinder essential development projects in Oakland Park. The Sky Building Project, a 136-unit affordable housing development currently under construction, faced over $1 million in fees under this agreement compared to $86,200 in standard impact fees. These excessive costs strain resources and increase construction expenses thus directly impacting housing prices, exacerbating the housing crisis and discouraging future investment.

Releasing these agreements would allow stalled projects to proceed, fostering economic growth while generating substantial ad valorem revenue for the School Board, County, and cities. Additional tax revenue from these developments would surpass the funds collected through these agreements. The Broward County Planning Council has deemed the agreements obsolete, multiple municipalities have passed resolutions supporting their termination, and the County Commission has endorsed the release of all cities.

Since 2022, Oakland Park has sought to resolve these issues with School Board staff with no meaningful progress. On October 16, 2024, Oakland Park adopted Resolution R2024-170, calling for the termination of these agreements. While Cities and the County once collaborated with the School Board to address overcrowding concerns, it is now time for the School Board to support municipalities in addressing today’s challenges, particularly the housing crisis and economic revitalization.

The City of Oakland Park respectfully urges the Broward County School Board to release all Cities from the Tri-Party Educational Mitigation Agreements to remove barriers, advance housing initiatives, and promote economic growth for all Broward County residents.

Thank you

I represent a city struggling to achieve equity and investment for its citizenry, which is comprised primarily of lower—and middle-class families. Over the past ten years, we have worked hard to leverage city property to generate investment and create employment opportunities for our citizens.

The primary mechanism to achieve our goal is to convert publicly owned property to private ownership, thus generating new tax revenue for the City, county, and school board and adding residential units to attract new students to our public schools.

If constructed, one of these developments will include 311 new residential units, public parking, and job opportunities in our struggling non-TIFF CRA area. However, that area is covered by a mitigation agreement that will impose an additional fee of several hundred thousand dollars on top of the student impact fee.

At this uncertain time in our country and economy, with interest rates and construction costs at a premium, developers are hard-pressed to take financial risks in impoverished areas. These projects become financially unviable when development opportunities are burdened with excessive public penalties like mitigation fees.

I urge the board to recognize and appreciate the very real negative impact these mitigation agreements have on our future development and to work with the cities, the county, and developers to find alternatives that will foster rather than hamper much-needed new development, especially in economically challenged areas of our county currently subject to these agreements.
Thank you.

Dear Superintendent, Staff, Board Chair and Board Members - 20 years ago, in order to help our partners at the BCPS and solve a shared problem regarding student over enrollment, Oakland Park was one of a handful of municipalities that signed an Education Mitigation Agreement with the Broward County Public Schools. At that time, schools were overenrolled and there was a shortage on new student desks/stations. Being a concerned partner, Oakland Park signed this special agreement providing additional financial support to the BCPS when new living units were built in specific areas of Oakland Park. The objective was to help fund the enrollment growth that was being experienced.

It’s 20 years later and the reasons to provide the extra funding to support enrollment growth and increase desks/stations no longer exists. Many BCPS schools are underenrolled and school closures have been discussed. The Mitigation Agreement signed in good faith and in partnership with BCPS is outdated and is significantly impacting disadvantaged and underfunded areas in Oakland Park that are in dire need of investment. Private Investment is being negatively impacted due to the excessive, outdated and unnecessary mitigation fees. I’m hopeful that by clearly expressing the facts to the BCPS decision makers, you will make a fair and informed decision and release Oakland Park from this overly burdensome and no longer applicable Mitigation Agreement. Once released from the agreement, I’ve asked our team that we build on our partnership by investing directly in our Oakland Park Schools, helping to upgrade the campuses, 'brand' the schools to meet the emerging and positive image and vision of Oakland Park and the BCPS leadership. I ask you to please consider releasing the Oakland Park from this outdated Mitigation Agreement and apply the standard fee structure. I (we) are thankful for your dedication and service to the children, people and municipalities of Broward County. We love our Broward County Public Schools! Please help us by making the right decision to eliminate this burdensome and no longer justifiable Mitigation Agreement. This will encourage favorable private investments and growth where it's urgently needed. TYVM

My name is Nir Shoshani, and I live at 1430 Shoreline Way, Hollywood, FL. I am the developer of the Sky building, a 136-unit residential project, along with the new city hall for Oakland Park. Sky is the largest workforce housing project in the city and the first within its non-TIF CRA. It represents the first private-sector phase in Oakland Park’s long-term revitalization plan. This project is located in one of Broward’s poorest census tracts and an opportunity zone, and I believe it will drive significant economic and social growth, thanks to its residents and the support of the local government.

When we stepped in to take over this project, after another developer walked away, we were committed to making a difference. Even during COVID, when construction costs nearly doubled, we honored our commitment to the city and moved forward with construction. However, just before breaking ground, we learned of an unexpected financial burden: the Educational Mitigation Agreement. This agreement increased our project’s fees from $86,000 to $1.1 million—an astronomical hike tied to a 2005 provision addressing school overcrowding that no longer applies today.

The issue lies in a flawed system. These fees are tied to when the original units were allocated, regardless of whether the problem still exists. If we had waited a few years to request the units, or if the project were located just three blocks outside the CRA, we wouldn’t face this fee. Yet here we are, building in an opportunity zone, a qualified census tract, and an underprivileged area, fully aligned with the city and county’s goals for investment in struggling communities, only to be penalized for solving a problem that no longer exists.

This is an inequity in the system. The school board’s taxation policies are outdated and unfairly administered, burdening the very areas that need investment the most. We are trying to bring economic revitalization to Oakland Park, but this fee jeopardizes that effort. I believe the system must be reformed to ensure taxes are allocated fairly and responsibly, supporting growth rather than stifling it. The current approach undermines our work and the progress desperately needed in underprivileged areas like this one.

It is incumbent on government to locate and preserve revenue sources by ensuring that the imposition of the financial burden is equitable, fair, transparent and takes into consideration income levels and community needs. By these measures these agreements fail to pass muster.

There is no equity, no consistency. No rational basis.

These agreements were required because cities sought development that would empower communities and result in new ad valorem revenues for cities, the county and the public schools. Fees were imposed only in areas where new units were assigned and only during a short period of time in the mid 2000s.

Residential units released before or after these agreements were executed were not subject to these additional fees and each city subject to the fee agreement contained different provisions with an escalation clause and no termination provisions.

I urge you please on behalf of my city and all cities subject to these unjust fees to release us from this obligation and work with us constructively to help you find a more equitable means of raising revenue. Thank you.

In its September 4, 2024, memorandum to the County Commission with a copy provided to all School Board members, the Planning Council stated the following as a result of a unanimous vote at its August 29, 2024, meeting:

“As the Tri-Party Educational Mitigation Agreements (Agreements) related to Activity Centers are now obsolete due to the overwhelming availability of school capacity, which was the sole basis for the Agreements, the Planning Council unanimously voted to urge the County Commission, as a party to the Agreements, to take the appropriate action to release the City of Oakland Park, as well as the cities of Coconut Creek, Dania Beach, Davie, Fort Lauderdale, Lauderdale Lakes, Lauderhill, Miramar, Plantation and Pembroke Pines, from these outdated Agreements, all of which were committed to between 2003 and 2006 to address significant overcrowding concerns in public schools by imposing additional fees on new residential developments; a condition which no longer exists. The release of these Agreements is critical to the facilitation of housing opportunities and redevelopment throughout Broward County and specifically along essential transportation corridors.”

Although the Planning Council has not had the opportunity to weigh in on the School Board staff's recommendations to its Board, Planning Council staff is of the opinion that the above statement is supportive of all dwelling units being subject to impact fees only as opposed to the School Board staff's suggestion that certified affordable units pay impact fees and market rate units continue to pay the student station fees.

In addition, while the School Board staff's recommendations mention that certified residential units may qualify for 100% school impact fee waivers as authorized in School Board Policy 1161, there is currently a maximum of $50,000 waiver per very-low or low affordable project for a total of $375,000 per year.

• Good morning, Chair and Board Members. My name is Renee Miller, President of R. Miller Consulting Group. I am here to present a case study on the real-world implications of Student Station fees in Broward County.

• My client, United Management, is a residential development company whose owner is the sole benefactor of the Wiener Museum of Decorative Arts (WMODA). Since 2014, WMODA has served as a valued cultural arts facility in Broward County, partnering with schools and community programs to promote arts access.

• In 2021, WMODA initiated plans for a Mixed-Use Cultural Arts complex featuring:

 A 33,000-square-foot Fired Arts Museum

 110-unit mixed-income residential apartments

 Public spaces and parking facilities.

• After extensive site evaluation, the development team identified the Oakland Park Downtown as an ideal location.

• The project faced a $1 million Student Station fee in excess of the Standard Impact Fee, which rendered the financial model untenable despite numerous mitigation attempts.

• As a result, this project is being developed in the City of Lake Worth Beach in Palm Beach County.

• And Broward County lost:

 A unique cultural facility, which will be home to one of only eight permanent Dale Chihuly Glass Exhibits globally.

 Greater access to the arts for our students.

 A $70 million private investment.

 Affordable, market-rate, and artist housing opportunities.

 A continuous source of property tax revenue worth millions of dollars, FTE funding, and the economic impact associated with the museum’s 50,000 annual visitors.

• I urge the School Board to direct staff to hold a workshop to evaluate the cost-benefit of these mitigation agreements and their broader impact. Thank you for your attention.

As set forth in Resolution 2024-056, the City of Plantation urges the Broward County School Board to release the city from the Tri-Party Educational Mitigation Agreement. We also respectfully request that the Board direct staff to engage with its partner entities. The City of Plantation has reached out on this issue since September 2024 without a response.

The City of Lauderhill urges the Broward County School Board to release the City of Lauderhill from the Tri-Party Educational Mitigation Agreements. Lauderhill’s agreement, established in 2007 (Instrument #: 107380599), was originally created to address insufficient school capacity. However, current data demonstrates the agreement is outdated and unnecessarily burdensome. Existing school impact fees are now sufficient to meet future student enrollment needs, making the "cost per student station fee" redundant.

The Activity Center, designated as the Transit Oriented Corridor (TOC), lies within Lauderhill’s State Road 7 Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), an area with a significant concentration of low-income and affordable multifamily housing. The City’s Community Redevelopment Plan prioritizes workforce and market-rate housing construction, but the prohibitive "cost per student station fee" hinders redevelopment efforts. While waivers or discounts for affordable housing help, they fall short in addressing the broader issue, as definitions of "affordable" and housing needs vary across the County.

A September 4, 2024, memorandum from the Broward County Planning Council emphasized that the Tri-Party Agreements are obsolete, given declining student enrollment and the availability of 243,944 permanent student stations district-wide. This is particularly relevant in Lauderhill, where planned school closures further highlight reduced capacity needs. In light of these trends, the County’s goal of expanding housing inventory, particularly in transit-oriented and redevelopment areas, should take precedence.

Lauderhill has already passed Resolution 24R-09-218 supporting the termination of its mitigation agreement. Additionally, on September 17, 2024, the County Commission voted to release cities from these agreements. I respectfully request that the Broward County School Board finalize the termination of Lauderhill’s agreement to remove unnecessary barriers, promote redevelopment, and support the County’s objectives of increasing housing inventory.