A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
OCTOBER 10, 2005
Lake County Board of
Others present at the meeting were Scott Strong, Chairman of the School Board; Becky Elswick, School Board Member; Larry Metz, School Board Member; Barbara Hoagland, Chief Analyst, Office of Policy and Budget; Alex Carswell, Facilities Administrator, Department of Education; James Stansbury, Regional Planning Administrator, Department of Community Affairs; Representative Alan Hayes; Amye King, Assistant Director of Growth Management; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Interim Director of Growth Management; Sanford “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Hill welcomed those present and thanked everyone for joining them this morning. She recognized Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, and noted that a lot of cities are represented today; the School Board is in attendance; and a lot of citizens are present.
It was noted that approximately 100 people were in attendance.
Commr. Hill stated that they have a lot of information to present today, in a very short period of time. She stated that they are going to make a commitment to listen to each other and work together. The State officials here today have created a framework, and they are going to give them all some guidance that is going to allow them to make some sound and solid decisions for the future. She stated that Representative Alan Hayes was voted by the Florida Association of Counties as Freshman Legislator of the Year and, at this time, she is going to turn the meeting over to him to do the honors of introducing the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and to give a few comments.
Hayes thanked everyone for coming here today.
He stated that their presence here speaks volumes and says that they
care and that is why he and the DCA and the Governor’s Office and all of the
others are here today. The legislature
has a dedicated group of men and women that are trying to make this State a
great place, and it is all about teamwork.
A PAY AS YOU GROW PLAN FOR
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Mr. James Stansbury introduced himself and stated that he is Regional Planning Administrator with DCA. He will doing a power point presentation (A Pay As You Grow Plan for Florida’s Future – Implementing Florida’s Landmark New Growth Laws) that includes information about the Public Schools Facilities Element, and the Interlocal Agreement that they will be working on together.
Stansbury stated that every local government in the State of
Mr. Stansbury stated that, within the existing Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a Concurrency Element, which sets out the level of service they want to maintain for roads, water, sewer, solid waste, and all capital facilities. Now they will be adopting an Element for Public School Facilities and updating the Capital Improvement Element to reflect the necessary improvements in terms of schools; then they will be updating the Intergovernmental Coordination Element for interaction between the different agencies; and updating concurrency management where they are going to establish a level of service they want to maintain. This will bring schools into the same category with water, sewer, transportation, solid waste, etc., as noted.
Mr. Stansbury reviewed the power point presentation, which contained information as follows:
SB 360 – Planning Requirements
· Signed into law June 24, 2005; Effective July 1, 2005
· Requires all local governments and school boards not eligible for a waiver or exemption to adopt school concurrency by December 1, 2008.
· Directs Department of Community Affairs to establish a phased schedule for adoption of the public school facilities element and required updates to interlocal agreements.
Stansbury pointed out that
SB 360 – New Funding
· In additional to regular ongoing funding:
Ø Provides $113.4 million for 2005-06 to fund school construction
Ø Provides $75 million thereafter
· Schools struggling to keep pace
· Concurrency intended to forge a tighter link between development and school capacity
· It is a “pay-as-you-grow” plan
Benefits of School Planning
· Provides mechanisms for ensuring a community is adequately served with schools
· Ensures better coordination between schools plans and local plans
· Results in stronger ties between the development approvals and school capacity
· Raises local decision maker’s awareness of school capacity and programming issues
· Results in more resources being coordinated and directed to issue areas
· All local governments must adopt consistent public school facilities elements (PSFE) to comply with Section 163.3177(12), F.S.
· All local governments and school board must update interlocal agreement (ILA) consistent Sections 163.31777 and 163.3180(g), F.S.
· All local governments must adopt amendments to their capital improvements element:
Ø Financially feasible public school capital facilities program
Ø Annual update
· All local governments must amend their intergovernmental coordination element consistent with requirements of Sections 163.3177(6)(h) 1 & 2
· All local governments not eligible for a waiver or exemption must update interlocal agreement and adopt public school facilities element incorporating concurrency by December 1, 2008:
Ø Apply concurrency district-wide initially; must be at sub-district level within 5 years
Ø levels of service must be uniform county-wide
Ø proportionate share mitigation must be allowed
· It must be a uniform system in terms of level of service standards, implementation requirements, and proportionate share mitigation.
Mr. Stansbury stated that, once they look at the anticipated growth, in the end it will be the School Board budget that is incorporated into the different local government’s Capital Improvements Element identifying that as a funding source. After that, there will be a need, as they update their budgets, to update that Capital Improvements Element to identify the new facilities that are planned that next year and years further out.
was noted by Mr. Stansbury that waivers will not be applicable in this
particular case given that
· Available only on a district-wide basis
· Approved by DCA and DOE concurrency
Ø Capacity rate for all schools cannot exceed 100%
Ø Projected 5-year student growth rate less than 10%
· In some cases, a waiver may still be granted if only a single school exceeds 100%
· Application forms available on DCA school page web site
· Valid for 2 years, unless data and analysis support a longer or shorter time frame
· Must be submitted jointly by all local governments and school board
· Must be approved by elected body
· Municipalities in districts not eligible for waiver may qualify for exemption
· Submit request (with data and analysis) to DCA as soon as possible, but not later than transmittal of PSFE and ILA by county and school board
· School Board verification required
· Must reassess exemption status at time of Evaluation and Appraisal Report
· Must comply within 1 year of SB proposing school within jurisdiction
· Exemption criteria:
Ø Development orders issued for fewer than 50 dwelling units during preceding 5 years, or fewer than 25 additional students generated during preceding 5 years; and
Ø No land annexed during preceding five years that permits residential uses affecting school attendance rates
Ø No public schools within jurisdiction
· DCA directed to establish phased adoption schedule
· Schedule runs Jan 1, 2008 to Dec. 1, 2008
· Published in FAW August 5, 2005; mailed to each Local Government and School Board; and at DCA web site (http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/School Planning/
· Schedule is adoption due date, not transmittal
· Schedule applies to:
Ø plan amendments
Ø updated interlocal agreement
· All local governments within county due at the same time
Under discussion, Representative Hayes stated that he did not believe there was any municipality in Lake County that would qualify for the exemption, which would require that it be void of any school facility in a community and have 50 dwelling units permitted; he questioned whether anyone was aware of a community in Lake County that does not have a school facility in it.
It was noted that Montverde and Howey may be two communities that would qualify for an exemption.
Stansbury reviewed the following penalties, which he noted would not likely
apply in this particular situation because
· Local government precluded from adopting plan amendments which increase residential density
· School Board subject to sanctions imposed by Administration Commission involving the withholding of construction funds
· Update existing ILA: local governments exempt before may not be exempt now
· Purpose of ILA is to assure a uniform school concurrency system throughout district and to serve as starting point for the development of the PSFE
· Requires consensus on level of service standards, concurrency service areas, maximum utilization of capacity, annual adoption of CIP, options for proportionate-share mitigation, implementation procedures, and procedures to amend ILA
· ILA must meet criteria of sections 163.31777 and 163.3180(13) (g), F.S.
· Single interlocal agreement encouraged
· To be submitted to DCA prior to or at same time as comp plan amendments
· Subject to compliance review
Public School Facilities Element
· All non-exempt local governments must adopt PSFEs which are consistent with one another and which meet the criteria of s.163.3177(12), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.025, FAC
· Purpose is to ensure that public school concurrency system is based on appropriate and relevant data and analysis and that consistent goals, objectives, and policies are adopted
· PSFE must address:
Ø Correction of existing deficiencies,
Ø Ensure adequate school capacity for the 5-year and long term planning periods,
Ø Coordinate school location with residential development,
Ø Ensure necessary supporting infrastructure,
Ø Include options for proportionate-share mitigation, and
Ø Procedures for school site selection
· Must include maps of the general locations of schools for 5-year and long term periods
· Exempt from the twice per year limitation
Mr. Stansbury pointed out that the local government is limited to amending its Comprehensive Plan twice a year. In this particular case, an exemption has been created to allow the local government to adopt the PSFE outside of that twice a year. They prefer that because it will give the local governments and the school board the opportunity to focus on just this element.
Capital Improvements Element
· Must incorporate a financially feasible public school capital facilities program established in conjunction with School Board
· Must incorporate level of service standards
· Must update public school capital facilities program annually
Stansbury stated that only 20% to 30% of the local governments in
Intergovernmental Coordination Element
· Must satisfy requirements for intergovernmental coordination set forth at Sections 163.3177 (6) (h) 1. and 2.
Ø Comprehensive plan must be coordinated with plans of school board
Ø Must establish joint processes for population projections and school siting
Level of Service Standards
· Established in conjunction with school board
· Must be district-wide and apply to all schools of the same type; can have different level of service standards for different types of schools
· Incorporate into capital improvements element
· May use tiered level of service standards
Concurrency Service Areas
· Area within which level of service is measured
· Examples: district, sub-district, school attendance zones
· Encouraged to initially adopt a district-wide concurrency service area
· Within 5 years of adoption of school concurrency, must adopt less than district-wide service areas
· For less than district-wide service areas, must demonstrate that utilization of school capacity is maximized to greatest extent possible
· Include service areas and criteria for establishing/modifying as supporting date and analysis
· If less than district-wide, must consider capacity in adjacent service areas and shift development impacts as needed to meet LOS (level of service)
· School concurrency applied to residential development
· Applied at time of site plan, final subdivision approval, or the functional equivalent, for a development or phase of development
· Adequate capacity must be in place or under actual construction within 3 years
· Developer can satisfy school concurrency through mitigation proportionate to the demand
Mr. Stansbury explained that there has been a recent change in the statute that DCA has interpreted to require that all local governments now begin to plan for schools. This is school concurrency and this is more on the permitting level. If they do all the planning that is needed, school concurrency should not be an issue; it should be a rubber stamp; that capacity should be there because it has been planned for. When they see future land use map amendments coming from any local governments statewide, and those future land use map amendments are going to result in an increase in residential density, they are going to look for data and analysis demonstrating that the local government has coordinated with the school board and has determined the impact from those additional densities and how is it being planned for; is there a school that is on the books that is going to be constructed; is there a plan to rezone; what is the plan for addressing that increase. He stated that they do the planning now so that concurrency is not going to be an issue when that time comes.
Proportionate Share Mitigation
· Developer must execute legally binding development agreement with local government and school board
· Mitigation must be proportionate to demand from actual development and take into account previously allowed residential density
· Options include:
Ø Contribution of land
Ø Payment for construction or land acquisition
Ø Actual construction
Ø Creation of mitigation banking based on construction of a school facility in exchange for right to sell capacity credits
· Amount must be credited toward any other impact fee or exaction for same need
· Must be directed by school board to a school capacity improvement identified in 5-year district work plan which satisfies demands created by that development
Key Documents Affected
· Interlocal Agreement
· Public Schools Facilities Element
· Capital Improvements Element
· Intergovernmental Coordination Element
· Expedited Interlocal Agreement Incentive
Ø Direct financial assistance to lead local agency
Ø Base amount plus adjustments for number of students and municipalities
Ø Must have executed contract with DCA by December 31, 2005
Ø Updated agreement due by September 1, 2006
Ø DCA will have employees dedicated to assist
Mr. Stansbury stated that they are basically waiving the
expedited interlocal agreement incentive since
· Pilot Communities
Ø Why Pilots? Provide models for other communities to follow and/or draw from before statutory due dates
Ø 6 pilot communities will prepare examples
Ø Draft ILA due March 1, 2006
Ø Draft PSFE by June 1, 2006
Ø Will be posted on DCA web site in downloadable format
· Planning Consultant
Ø Will produce specific deliverables, such as proportionate share mitigation methodologies, alternative approaches to establishing LOSS (level of service standards)
Ø Will be available to assist pilot communities
Ø Will be available to other local governments based on need and availability of funding
· Best Planning Practices for Coordinated School Planning
· Technical Workshops
· DCA web site – http://www.dca.state.fl.us./growthmanagement2005/
Mr. Stansbury stated that the DCA will be providing technical assistance in the form of $200,000 directly to the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners. They will also be providing the opportunity to use a consultant hired by the DCA; they hope to have that consultant on board by the end of the month. The consultants will be available to assist the communities; they are currently working on a package with more than one consultant. The county also has the option of taking that $200,000 and using a portion of it to hire their own consultant.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:05 a.m., Commr. Hill announced that they will take a five minute recess.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Alex Carswell, Department of Education, addressed the audience and stated that,
as of June, he was an administrator in the
Ms. Barbara Hoagland, Chief Analyst, Office of Policy and Budget, addressed the audience and noted that all of their constituents care about this issue. Anyone that is not connected in anyway with local government, or planning, from an outsider not working in the school area, they have to ask if schools and growth, and growth management, are connected and question how they can deal with growth management, if they are not looking at the schools. Clearly the outcry has been heard and this goes a long way in trying to resolve those issues. In looking at this at a conceptual level, Ms. Hoagland explained that they are trying to look at the growth in the areas, and the impacts to the schools, to make sure that they are making that connection. The interlocal agreement is really their coordinating document, and it is really important that they start to identify some of those coordinative issues at the interlocal agreement level. The planning piece is the Public Schools Facilities Element, and it is important because that is where they should be making sure that the growth and the schools occur in a way that is consistent and take in to account what is happening at the land development level, and the private sector level, and the plans of the school board. The Capital Improvements Element and the five year school facilities work plan are real important because that is where they have tied in their budget. They have done their planning and determined what they expect and what they want and, in the Capital Improvements Element, they have identified their levels of service and what level they are able to provide to their citizenry and how they will pay for it. The concurrency is really their backstop and, even though they are hopeful that the planning works, the concurrency makes sure that they do not fall afoul of the plans.
Hoagland recommended that everyone spend some time looking at SB 360, which was
signed into law June 24, 2005; effective July 1, 2005. She explained that several years ago a bill
was passed that had all local governments and school boards enter into an
interlocal agreement, per Statutes.
There is also a piece in the Statutes that addresses the element and the
concurrency and they all keep reflecting and referring back to each other. They have basically met the requirements of
the agreement, so it is really within the concurrency part of the Statute, and
within the public facilities part of the Statute, that they need to look at and
see what new things they need to do to be able to apply concurrency in
Ms. Hoagland thanked them all for agreeing to be pioneers in this effort and great leaders for the rest of the State. They would now like to open the meeting up to questions and comments from the audience noting that they will be available at the close of the meeting for further questions.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWER PERIOD
At 11:33 a.m., the audience was given an opportunity to ask questions and make comments about the information provided during the power point presentation.
Commr. Hill stated that they need to go forward with the next meeting and plan it today.
After a brief discussion with officials and legal staff, it was noted that the next meeting will be held on Friday, October 28, 2005 at 1 p.m. The place will be announced.
closing, Representative Hayes wanted to say that this is an opportunity for
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK