School Board changes public input policy, adopts property tax rate and preliminary budget

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the July 31 meeting, the School Board of Alachua County addressed Chair Sarah Rockwell’s controversial comment about MAGA, adopted the property tax and budget numbers for the TRIM notices, and changed their public input policy.

School Board Members’ comments about Rockwell’s Facebook post were covered in a previous article: Click here to read what Rockwell and the other board members had to say about Rockwell’s controversial Facebook comment.

After Rockwell spoke at the beginning of the meeting, she handed the gavel to Vice Chair Tina Certain, saying she was still recovering from surgery; Certain chaired the rest of the meeting, and Rockwell left during the general public comment period and did not return.

Property tax rate and preliminary budget

At 5:30 p.m., the board held a public hearing to adopt the property tax and budget numbers that will go out on TRIM notices, and financial consultant Judith Marte gave the presentation. 

Click here to review the budget presentation.

The proposed property tax rate for 2025-26 is 6.251 mills, which is 0.01 less than the 2024-25 rate of 6.2610 mills and higher than the rolled-back rate of 5.8403 mills; however, only 0.748 of that amount is discretionary (3.003 is set by the legislature, and 2.5 mills were previously approved by voters), and nearly every county in the state adopts the maximum discretionary rate of 0.748.

Marte said there was a “big announcement from the federal government” last week that all funds will be released; the budget in front of the board did not include all of those funds, but they will be included in the final budget on September 9. She also said the state base allocation increased for 2025-26 by $41.62 per student; however, she said, the district will receive less revenue than this year “because of our decline in enrollment and the continued growth of the Family Empowerment Scholarship program,” and “significant information” about those numbers will be given to the board before the final budget hearing.

The General Fund budget for 2025-26 is about $346 million, compared to the previous year’s adopted budget of $339 million (expenditures for this year are currently about $331 million, but those are not final numbers), a 4.54% increase. Marte said the increased budget, “on face value, looks like we had more money. We do not have more funds from the state.” She said the numbers will change as the budget year is closed out, and some unspent revenue may be rolled forward. 

Rockwell pointed out that the increase in base student allocation is an increase of less than 1%, “and we know that inflation is higher than that.”

The board unanimously adopted the proposed property tax rate and budget.

Public comment on non-agenda items

Next, the board took public comment on non-agenda items, with 32 people signed up. Although this public comment period is typically capped at 30 minutes, Member Thomas Vu made a motion to allow all of them to speak, and the motion passed unanimously.

Approximately 28 people spoke in support of Rockwell, one person spoke on a different topic, and two people criticized Rockwell’s posts and called for her to resign.

The uproar after a man named Jeremy spoke and Vice Chair Tina Certain asked for him to be removed has made national news, and we previously covered it here.

Public input policy

The board passed a group of policy changes 4-0, with little discussion, and then took up the proposed change to the public input policy. Vu suggested changing the proposed policy to put the first general public comment period before the adoption of the agenda, with no time limit; he said this period would have the same rules as the current policy — three minutes per speaker until 21 speakers are signed up, and then it is reduced to two minutes per speaker. He suggested one public comment period for all agenda items, with three minutes per agenda item until there are more than 20 speakers and then reduced to two minutes per agenda item; if someone wants to speak to three agenda items, for example, they would get nine minutes or six minutes, depending on the number of speakers. Vu specified that the consent agenda would count as one item, regardless of how many items are on the consent agenda. 

Certain said she wanted to leave general public comment where it is currently (after adoption of the agenda, approval of minutes, and board member/superintendent announcements), and she wanted to limit each person to two minutes during public input on items that are not on the agenda. She also suggested moving board member comments and the teachers’ union update to the end of the meeting. 

Vu said he could accept two minutes per speaker for items that are not on the agenda, as long as speakers would get three minutes per agenda item unless there are more than 20 speakers. 

While explaining the changes to other board members, Certain said anyone who signs up by the time the meeting starts can speak on items that are not on the agenda, “and then we’ll do our consent agenda, and people can speak there, and then we’ll have action items, and you can speak at each action item, and at the end, if you missed the citizen input at the beginning, you can come at the end.”

Superintendent Kamela Patton said the district could set up an online system to pre-register so people would not need to be there before the meeting starts; she suggested opening the pre-registration at noon and keeping it open for 15 minutes after the meeting starts. 

Vu said his goal was not to deprive people of the opportunity to speak, “but this gets anybody who needs to get home to feed their families, home sooner. They’re not going to sit here and wait around for hours upon hours to speak up on something.”

Member Janine Plavac asked whether there would still be public comment at the end, and Patton said no, because the sign-up will close at 6:15. Patton said they could have a “grace period” in which people who aren’t signed up will be educated about the process for future meetings but allowed to speak. Board Attorney David Delaney cautioned them that they should consistently apply the rules “so there’s never a concern that the rules are being bent a little bit.”

Vu suggested that everyone send their preferences to Patton, and he wanted to table the policy until the next meeting, but Certain said they were “on the clock” to adopt the policy and might have to start over with the policy adoption process if they delayed to another meeting. 

Certain again summarized the changes: “We would like to revise our citizen input to move general public comments for items not on the agenda to two minutes in length. We will open up a portal for sign-up prior to the meeting at noon, and you’ll sign up…” She paused and suggested cutting off the portal sign-up at 6:00 because people can fill out a paper form when they arrive; Patton suggested cutting it off at the beginning of the meeting instead of specifying a time. Certain continued, “… and we will hear all general comments before we enter into our business meeting.” 

Vu said, “Then, for the actual agenda items, are we okay with it as is?” Certain said, “Yeah, I think we just keep it all at two minutes; we move it to two minutes instead of three.”

After more discussion about what would happen if someone got held up in traffic, was late to the meeting, and missed the sign-up deadline, Vu said, “You know, my position was just to make no changes, so I would be happy to keep it the way it is.” Patton said, “You’re killing us, Thomas!”

Patton pointed out that if the person who was late had pre-registered to speak, they could be allowed to speak at the end of the meeting at the Chair’s discretion. Certain continued to push for a requirement to sign up before the meeting started, and others gradually agreed to that.

Plavac said she thought anyone, regardless of when they arrived, should have the opportunity to speak to an agenda item that has not come up for a vote. 

Patton said some districts don’t even allow general public comment, and Certain said that in Marion County, the public speaks on all items at the beginning of the meeting; Member Leanetta McNealy said, “So let’s be cognizant of who we are and what the community expects… I don’t want us to [stop allowing general public comment].”

Patton went back to the amount of time allowed to comment on agenda items, and Vu said he had proposed two minutes per item: “It’s a single period. If you wanted to speak on four different items, you would get, theoretically, eight minutes… The two minutes start; clock starts again for your next thing you want to talk about. And you would just go item by item, and then it gets all the public speech out in the beginning. And then that would allow the compromise with everyone else who wants [it] more… orderly, where you go to us here, making motions, voting, and then moving on, after getting all the public input.”

First motion

Vu made a motion to move “all general comment to the beginning of the meeting, and everybody gets two minutes, and everybody who signed up to speak by the beginning of the meeting will have an opportunity to speak, as long as they get here by the end of the meeting. And then, for all agenda items, there is one singular… public input period for that, and every person will get two minutes per agenda item they wish to speak on, with the consent agenda counting as one item, and you will get two minutes per item in succession, so if you were done with the first item, you move on to the next one, and so on.”

Certain said it sounded like they could have a single public comment period, with speakers getting two minutes for non-agenda items and then continuing with two minutes for each agenda item: “Just do everything at once.”

Editing the policy language

Delaney told the board that he didn’t want staff to have to change the policy’s language later: “I think the board needs to tell staff exactly what language needs to be in here.”

Referring to the draft policy on page 24 of this document, Delaney recommended removing the language in Part C under “Requirements When Providing Public Input” because all speakers will now be limited to two minutes. He said the use of a portal for pre-registration does not need to be in the policy because that is a “procedure that the Superintendent and staff can handle.” In the second part of Part A, he suggested striking “15 minutes after,” leaving it as “This form must be completed and turned in to the designated staff member no later than the start of the public input period.”

Vu added that in the first paragraph on page 25, “three (3)” should be changed to “two (2),” and the last sentence of that paragraph, which limits public input to 45 minutes, should also be removed. He also said that the section on items on the agenda should be changed to two minutes per item, with the consent agenda counting as one item. 

Second motion

Vu then made a motion to “adopt the policy as live-edited with all the board members, the edits made, given just now.” McNealy seconded the motion. The minutes read, “as discussed and agreed upon amongst the Board. Adding the sentence any speaker signed up who misses the public comment portion can speak during the 2nd public comment portion.”

During public comment on the motion, Crystal Tessman from the teachers’ union asked that the union update not be placed at the end of the meeting. 

After public comment, Certain said, “So I think we settled on having general public comment at the beginning, comment at each action item, and then there will still be the comment at the end.”

Delaney said that wasn’t what had been proposed when the motion was constructed; he said speakers must sign up by the beginning of the meeting, there will be a general public comment period for non-agenda items with two minutes per speaker, then the agenda will be adopted and there will be a public comment period on agenda items with two minutes per speaker per item. He said that if someone signed up before the meeting but arrived after the public comment periods, it would be at the Chair’s discretion to let them speak, but there would not be a formal second public comment period at the end of the meeting.

Amended motion

Vu said he wanted to amend his motion to add, “Any speaker who has signed up to speak during the allotted time who arrives late to the meeting will be able to speak in a second general comment period at the end of the meeting.” McNealy agreed, saying, “I don’t want it ever to have to be the discretion of the Chair.”

The motion passed, 4-0, with Rockwell absent.

Certain said she wished Vu had sent his changes before the meeting because that would have made it easier, and Vu said, “I understand, and in the future, I will be more diligent.”

The August 13 School Board Workshop at 1 p.m. has an item on the agenda for “Public Participation at Board Meetings,” but there is no backup material yet to explain why this topic is on the workshop agenda.

Teacher transfer deadline

During a discussion on other policy changes, Vu said he wanted to have a cut-off for teacher transfers of three weeks before pre-planning. Certain suggested that Patton work on the policy and bring it back another time, and Vu said that was fine. The remaining policies were approved, 4-0, with little discussion.

Student Progression Plan

The board next took up the second reading of the Student Progression Plan, and Deputy Superintendent Cathy Atria said a section had been omitted on both the first reading and the public hearing; she read into the record additional language on computing the weights for grades on honors, AP, college-level, dual enrollment, pre-IB, IB, pre-AICE, AICE, and pre-AP courses. The Student Progression Plan passed 4-0. 

Behavioral Resource Teachers and Coaches

Next, the board discussed new job descriptions for Behavioral Resource Teachers and Behavioral Resource Coaches on second reading. 

Vu said he didn’t think the changes were needed because it sounded like “they’re pretty much going to be doing this, anyway, with our teachers, and training them to create more engaging lessons for our students.”

Certain initially said she didn’t support the change because she didn’t think the district has “cut enough… and we don’t have a number of positions by category. I’m leery of approving additional things.” Patton said these are not new positions but just a change in job titles “to ensure that, instead of just focused on behavior, they’re also working toward the literacy piece… I think it’s more… aligning what they should be doing, kind of helping lead our charge to getting other BRTs to move to that kind of work.”

McNealy said she was concerned with the addition of literacy coach responsibilities, “with as much behavior problems we have in this district… Until we get the discipline in order,… I can’t agree.”

The motion to approve the job descriptions failed 2-2, with McNealy and Vu in dissent. 

Patton said, “We’re gonna still train them up, because it’s another tool… It’s just, the title won’t be there.”

Policies clarifying Chair and Superintendent roles and personal wireless communication device use by students

The board approved three amendments to board policies on first reading; a public hearing on these policies will be held on September 2. Two of the policies clarify various roles of the Chair of the School Board and the role of the Superintendent in executing contracts; a third policy adds language to align with a new state statute on personal wireless communication device use by students. Click here to read the amendments.