Parkland commissioners vow to press school board on SROs after notice to cities

Mayor Rich Walker opened a public discussion after the commission said it had received notice that the Broward County School Board had informed some municipalities they might no longer need municipal school resource officers (SROs). Commissioners voiced concern about transparency, fiscal impacts and the possibility of overlapping jurisdictions if the school district created its own school police force.

Walker said the city wants the school board to know Parkland ‘‘wants their school resource officers in their schools’’ and that the city would be willing to pay to keep SROs in place while negotiating reimbursement or funding levels. He described uncertainty around how much the district would reimburse and said the city needed to preserve the ability to place neutral, city‑employed officers inside its schools.

Commissioner Israel and others said the commission should push back, noting that some municipalities might accept the school board’s change because they would save money, but Parkland’s officials believe residents expect SROs. Vice Mayor Bridal and other commissioners raised concerns about minimum standards, the FP&L franchise fee interplay with school safety funding and the fiscal consequences if state property‑tax changes limit local revenue flexibility. Several commissioners said that while some cities may opt‑in to district policing or guardians, Parkland’s preference is to preserve SROs and the ability to negotiate funding.

No formal motion to adopt a letter was recorded that evening; commissioners indicated they support drafting correspondence to the school board to express Parkland’s position and to preserve the city’s right to continue supplying SROs. The commission also discussed practical questions—who would pay if both the city and district placed officers—and the need for clarity on how the proposed school‑side funding buckets would be used.

The discussion concluded with commissioners asking staff to prepare language for a letter and to continue intergovernmental discussions; no binding interlocal agreement or contract change was approved at the meeting.