A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JANUARY 17, 2006
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded
by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to
add the two items to the agenda, as requested by the
Commr. Hanson noted that Commr. Stivender will not be joining the Board today.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, as follows:
List of Checks or Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of checks or warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Request to approve the following Contractor Bonds – New, Cancellations, and Riders:
5291-06 Apopka Plumbing LLC
5766-06 Guy Clement d.b.a. Clement Electric Inc.
6450-06 Nezamudin Fazol/Amirian Electric Inc.
5340-05 Robert E. Knight
5093-06 Change the name of the principal:
From: Edmon William Greaner Company, Inc.
To: Edmon William Greaner
6449-06 Change the name of the principal:
From: James Sheddan/Jimmy’s Electric Service
To: Anthony J. Stoothoff/Jimmy’s Electric Service, Inc.
4944-06 Charles L. Henry Jr. d.b.a. Henry Electric Company
Changing Bond Number FL 140 to Bond Number FL 9499
Request to acknowledge receipt from the Town of Lady Lake, Ordinance 2005-50, amending Ordinance 94-08, Land Development Regulations, adding Chapter 20, Commercial Design Standards; and Ordinance 2005-52, amending Ordinance No. 94-08, Land Development Regulations, Chapter 10, Landscaping and Tree Protection. Each ordinance passed and ordained on the 15th day of December 2005.
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the
Revised Circulation and Registration Policy
Request from Community Services for approval and signature of revised Circulation and Registration Policy, LLC-8, as recommended by the Lake County Advisory Board.
Contract – Berryman & Henigar/Roads
Request from Procurement Services for approval and execution of the Contract with Berryman & Henigar for the engineering design services for clay to pave roads, RSQ 05-071, in the amount of $819,046.00.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Contract/Department of Community Affairs/Fire Rescue Station Number 10 Astor Wind Retrofit Project/Budget Transfer
Request from Public Safety for
approval and execution of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Contract between the
Subordination of Utility Interest Agreements/Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Request from Public Works for approval to accept and
execute the following Subordination of Utility Interest Agreements between
Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc./
Request from Public Works for approval and execution of an Amendment to the existing Agreement with Billy R. and Jennifer L. Williams, to extend the closing date to February 28, 2006 to secure all necessary documents for closing relating to the Old Mt. Dora Road Project (Number 4865).
Final Plat/Pillars Landing/Maintenance Bond/Developer’s Agreement/Resolution
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Pillars Landing and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Pillars Landing plat; accept a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $35,000.00; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Pillar Development, LLC; and execute Resolution 2006-11 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System: Yonaomi Circle (County Road Number 0837D). Pillars Landing consists of 22 lots – Commission District 2.
Final Plat/Blue Spring Lake/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Blue Spring Lake and
all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Blue Spring Lake final plat;
accept a Letter of Credit in the amount of $846,059.50; and execute a
Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and
Blue Spring Lake, LLC.
Final Plat/Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II plat Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II consists of 88 lots – Commission District 4.
Final Plat/Homestead Hills/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement/Resolution
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Homestead Hills and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Homestead Hills plat; accept a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $8,733.00; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Homes in Partnership, Inc.; and execute Resolution 2006-12 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System: Hollywood Avenue (County Road Number 5765). Homestead Hills consists of 11 lots – Commission District 4.
Resolution to Advertise Public Hearing – Vacation Petition Number 1067 – Allan Roe, Representative, Wicks Consulting – Silver Lake/Leesburg Area – Commission District 1 Replat – Destiny Estates
Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution 2006-13 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1067 by Allan Roe, Representative Wicks Consulting, to vacate a few road rights of way, in the Revised and Corrected Plat of Re-Subdivision or Silver Lake Estates, located in Section 9, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, in the Silver Lake/Leesburg area – Commissioner District 1, in conjunction with the replat to be known as Destiny Estates. Since a portion of the roads right of way to be vacated and replatted provides access to adjoining parcels, the Vacation should be effective upon recording of the Destiny Estates Plat.
Resolution to Advertise Public Hearing – Vacation
Petition Number 1075 –
Request from Public Works for approval and signature on Resolution 2006-14 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1075 by Palmer Homes, Representative Bruce Duncan, to vacate a citrus loading easement, located in Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 –
Resolution to Advertise Public Hearing – Vacation Petition Number 1074 – Dalhousie Meadows, LLC – Eustis Area – Commission District 5
Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution 2006-15 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1074, by Dalhousie Meadows, LLC, Representative Ben Champion, to vacate an ingress/egress easement, in the Plat of Lake Meadows, located in Section 29, Township 18 South, Range 27 East, in the Eustis area – Commission District 5.
RESOLUTION TO LAKE
Hanson introduced Mr. Steven Yates, Case Coordinator for
Commr. Cadwell stated that Guardian Ad Litem is one of the National Association of Counties’ presidential initiatives, and they try to focus on local government and getting them more in tune with what is going on and really educating the public.
Steven Yates addressed the Board and introduced Karla Grimsley, Program
Director, Guardian Ad Litem,
Ms. Grimsley addressed the Board and thanked them once again for all of their support over the past years, especially over the past couple of years, with their program and noting that, when they went through the Article V transition, the Board stood with them and continued to support them. The Board has shown they do care about children and families in this County, and she commends them for that and wants them to know how grateful they are and that she says this on behalf of all of the staff of Lake County and the volunteers that serve children in this community.
Commr. Hanson asked the volunteers who were present, approximately seven of them, to come forward for the presentation.
Yates informed the Board that they have about 73 guardians in
Commr. Hanson read Resolution 2006-1, which was approved by the Board on January 10, 2006 and presented it to Mr. Yates and Ms. Grimsley.
PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY (PHA) ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND FIVE YEAR PLAN COVERING FISCAL YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2009
Commr. Hanson welcomed Ms. Nicki Mahoney, a resident member of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) Governing Board, who is required to join the other Board members as a voting member for action on this item.
Mr. Cheryl Thomas, Housing and Community Development Director, addressed the Board to present the Public Housing Agency (PHA) Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2005 and Five Year Plan, which have been taken to the resident advisory board for their input; they have been publicly posted for 45 days for additional citizen comment; and now they come to the Board for a public hearing, which is the final step before they are submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Commr. Hanson recognized Commr. Cadwell as the Board’s Affordable Housing liaison, and noted that he had no comment at this time.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Lake County Public Housing Agency (PHA) Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2005 and Five Year Plan Covering Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009 and authorized the Chairman to sign and certify appropriate documents for submission.
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to change the beginning time of the Board meeting on February 7, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., to allow adequate time for the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) to meet at 8:30 a.m. and consider objections to reports made by the special magistrates.
CONTRACTS/LETTER OF AGREEMENT/SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve the Letter of Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Jerry W. Cox, Consultant, to provide technical and administrative assistance to the cities in developing a school concurrency plan.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill wanted to know if there was a possibility that they might include a $15,000 cap on this so, if there is anything over and above that amount, it would be brought back to this Board for approval.
Mr. Minkoff noted that it would be $30,000 assuming that the School Board would have a similar cap.
Commr. Hanson stated that they could add this language to the agreement but, if they see that they are going to go beyond that amount, it would be back before the Board anyway.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Letter of Agreement does not mention a cap in it, so they would be bound to the language being presented in the document, and he feels that this item will come to a conclusion before they can even generate that many hours.
Mr. Minkoff stated that an alternative may be to put a termination clause in the agreement where they could terminate with a 30 day notice so that, as the billings came in, if they felt there was an issue, they could reopen the agreement.
Commr. Cadwell amended his motion to include a 30 day notice of termination, and Commr. Pool amended his second to the motion; and Commr. Cadwell asked that the Board and the School Board be updated on the amount being spent.
Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that there has been a request from the Chairman who will be out of the country on March 21, 2006 to move that meeting to March 14, 2006, which would normally be a work session day.
It was the consensus of the Board to reschedule the Board meeting, as requested.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Roy Hunter, Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board and provided them with a handout regarding a public meeting on Social Security Prescription Medicine Drugs. The meeting will be held at Spring Creek Elementary School Cafeteria on January 26, 2006, Thursday, at 6:30 p.m., and everyone is invited. Mr. Hunter suggested that everyone go to their doctors and get their prescriptions set up so that they will always have an extra 30 day supply in case of emergency. Because there has been so much confusion over this issue, he felt that it was important that people attend as many of these sessions as possible.
Commr. Hanson thanked Mr. Hunter for his outreach efforts and education.
Mr. D. J. Mauro addressed the Board and stated that there is nothing more dear to his heart than the immigration policy they have in this country. He has presented the Board members with copies of a video tape entitled “Immigration by the Numbers” and stated that, for about five years now, he has been quoting a figure of 35 million people who are here illegally in this country. Mr. Mauro stated that he would like to discuss the video at the next Board meeting and talk about the immigration policy that is in this country today.
Maintenance of Roads/Transportation Assistance
Travis Whigham, representing Forest Hills Association, addressed the Board and
stated that he would like to take the opportunity and thank the Board for a few
things, one is the $1,500 that they are going to use in their community. He also wanted to let them know that he will
be applying for the new $25,000 Block Grant for future use. Also the County should be starting work on
some of the roads in the
Hanson thanked Mr. Whigham for what he does for his community and
Superior Concrete/Permitting Process
Bruce Duncan, Attorney, stated that he is here on behalf of Superior Concrete
Mr. Duncan explained that two engineering reports were done; one was an independent engineer who had no involvement with this matter who certified the safety of the building defraying some of his decisions to the project engineer; the project engineer then reviewed the engineer’s report and certified those concerns that the independent engineer was not able to confirm. Mr. Duncan stated that they feel that the structure is safe and structurally sound and they have confirmed the strength of the concrete pad.
Duncan stated that it is not just
Commr. Cadwell wanted to know if staff was aware that Mr. Duncan was coming before the Board today with this issue, and Mr. Duncan explained that, as soon as he was made aware of it, he contacted Mr. Minkoff and Mr. Welstead to let them know that he was going to appear before them today. Mr. Duncan wanted to clarify that this is not something that he generally does; he has continued to have a nice working relationship with County staff; he is just saying that their hands are tied without some direction from the Board, and his client asked him to make this last effort in his behalf.
Commr. Cadwell stated that this is a code case and, if the Board wants to talk about it, he would be interested in asking staff where they are with this case.
Mr. Duncan clarified that there is no pending code matter against them at this point, even though there were some other issues regarding a fence and some watering measures, and they have tried to alleviate other concerns which, in turn, took care of some of the code matters.
Ms. Carol Stricklin, Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that there is a pending code matter. The property was first cited on September 21, 2005 for failure to have building permit and that citation is still open so it is a pending code case. Ms. Stricklin explained that the greatest responsibility of the Growth Management Department is to ensure life safety, and they do that through the administration of the Florida Building Code. To respond to the questions regarding the status of this matter, Ms. Stricklin explained that the site plan is very close; there were two major problems; the building was built four feet below the minimum flood elevation; and there is no central water service available so there are no fire hydrants; the applicant needs to show on his plans and then construct a 33,000 gallon tank. With regard to the building plans, staff has done the initial review and met with the contractor and project engineer, and Ms. Stricklin stated that she would ask Mr. Dale Greiner to report to the Board the status of those plans.
Dale Greiner, Director of Building Services, addressed the Board and explained
that their plan review staff met with the engineer and general contractor for
Commr. Pool wanted to make sure that staff understands that this, in no way, insinuates that staff is in a bad position, because the Board applauds them for making sure that everything is safe and is done correctly, and he also applauds Superior for coming forward recognizing that the gentleman that is no longer there worked without a permit. Since there had been some inspections done, he wanted to know if there was a way to have the Butler building people tour the facility recognizing that it was installed according to their engineered plans.
Greiner explained that, in regards to the engineered set of plans for the
pre-engineered building, a structural engineer has to design a foundation for
that building, and they have to meet those plans, and those two plans did not
come together; the
After some discussion, Commr. Pool stated that the Board appreciates what Mr. Duncan is trying to do, but he needs to provide staff with the information.
Mr. Greiner stated that, if Mr. Duncan provides that information, this will allow him to issue a permit and send his inspectors out to determine if the forensics match, or if it gives them enough information, or if they need more forensics and, once the electrical is done, he can give him a CO.
Commr. Pool stated that obviously they need to provide some information. He discussed what they call special inspections where someone would pay a fee to have an inspection done after hours and, even though he was not implying that the County gives them any special priority, this is an option, which was confirmed by Mr. Greiner who indicated that this would be done for a fee, if it becomes necessary.
Mr. Greiner explained that, if they determine that this has to be in the flood zone, then the building has to have the ability to handle flood, which is usually with break away walls, and he is sure that this building was not designed for that.
Hanson stated that it appears that the issues being discussed by staff on this
particular matter are safety issues, the electrical and the concrete. In terms of flood elevation, she has been
told that everybody agrees that the flood elevations are not correct and is
something that is going to be difficult to correct and will take a long time,
and they are also dealing with FEMA. In
regards to the issue of fire protection, she understands that they are very
seriously looking at
Mr. Duncan stated that his client is in the process of installing the fire tanks and setting up inspections, so they are not contesting that issue.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels staff has done everything they can to try and resolve this issue, but it is important know that it is an industry, they employ a lot of people in the County, and they need to provide for their safety. She asked Mr. Duncan to get the information to staff as soon as possible.
was noted that Cindy Hall,
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, stated that he would first like to discuss the proposed Interlocal Agreement relating to the school concurrency issue, which is a result of their discussions in December. Today they are concerned about the areas of School Site Selection, Paragraph 3; and Collocation and Shared Use of Facilities, Paragraph 7. Apparently there was some disagreement as to what should be said in these paragraphs, and he would like to hear any objections to this language, which he will present to the working group next week.
Mr. Welstead addressed Paragraph 3, School Site Selection, and stated that it talks in general terms about what they would like to see; there are some State requirements, about 15 or 20, for educational facilities that he has discussed with the Board previously. Staff is suggesting that those items be contained in any requirements that are put together. In sub-paragraph (6), it talks about infrastructure requirements including minor collector roads for elementary and middle schools; and major collectors for high schools.
In Paragraph 7, Collection and Shared Use of Facilities, Mr. Welstead stated that, as a point of reference, everyone seemed to be in favor of doing collocation and shared use of facilities, with the exception of the final decision being made by the principals. The cities had a meeting about two weeks ago in which the managers and the staff were present, and they had some hesitancy about offering up municipal facilities for use other than municipal purposes.
Discussion occurred regarding schools and parks, with it being noted that the only kids that would be using the parks would be those that were out of school.
Mr. Welstead stated that he needs to put together a Commission position on this issue for next Monday’s meeting.
3. School Site Selection
In regards to Paragraph 3, School Site Selection, Commr. Cadwell wanted some discussion on the last paragraph in sub-paragraph (7), from the Board’s standpoint, and to find out whether this is something the Board can live with because it basically says that you can put schools everywhere, but they have to be approved by this advisory board which would include a School Board member, a County Commissioner, and a representative of the municipalities; he would assume it would be a municipal representative in the area of where that school is going to be. He sated that he would be less concerned with this issue, if it said they would allow elementary and middle schools in any zoning districts as along as they were approved by that advisory board but he still has not come to a comfort level yet about giving up that ability to do that for high schools, because he thinks that is a big issue for the School Board.
Commr. Hill stated that the paragraph being referred to by Commr. Cadwell is not settling to her; first there is no public input at all in that process which is very valuable and this Board has always retained that they wanted public input whenever they are making decisions.
Commr. Cadwell stated that they could put some language in there that would require that advisory committee to hold a public hearing on the site, to have that as part of the process.
As her second point, Commr. Hill stated that, as an elected official, she felt that it was her duty to look at land use and land decisions, and she thinks most city officials feel that way. She stated that property rights is a very big issue in the State of Florida and in the nation, and she thinks that is one of their duties as elected officials, and she is not willing to break that down and take public input out of it. She would rather see something along the lines of a special master where staff is represented from all of the counties, the cities, and the School Board, and they find the sites based on specific criteria, and then they treat it as if it were a zoning board, and they have a public hearing process where they can speak at that zoning when they consider those sites. Then it would come to this Board as a judicial board, not a quasi-judicial board, where they have the final say. It would be something like the process now being used for the Value Adjustment Board (VAB); they could include School Board and city representatives but she thinks the five of them should sit on that board and make the final decision.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board would not hear additional evidence at that second hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that they are trying to show the School Board that they are trying to work with them; making it even harder for them to go through a process is not something that is going to be beneficial to either one of them in this negotiating process, which is his only concern.
Mr. Welstead explained that a staff group, given the criteria that are established, would look over a number of sites, determine what sites might be appropriate, recommend it to a special master who would hear evidence, the special master would make a ruling, and then the Board would affirm or deny that special master decision.
Commr. Pool stated that this keeps the politics in it. They know that schools can be in any zone and, if they meet all of the land acquisition issues, all the criteria they set forth, and then present it to a special master, he cannot see where they can get to a bad site, if they meet all of the criteria.
Commr. Hill stated that they can get a bad site, because you still have public input, which will need to be considered.
Comm. Hanson explained that the Board really has not had a problem other than one zoning case, and they have put the schools exactly where the School Board wanted them but, in general, they would get their zoning approvals before they bought the property and that is where the problem comes in.
Commr. Pool pointed out that the language says that the School Board, the elected officials, and the municipalities would agree to the site, as part of the process, but Commr. Hill stated that she likes the process as it is today, with them coming in as an applicant and the Board applying all the Comprehensive Plan elements just as they would in any other case.
Commr. Pool explained that the School Board’s argument is that schools will be allowed in all zoning districts; Commr. Hanson pointed out that, even though things are allowed and permitted in a zoning district, they still have to come before this Board. It was clarified that, if it is straight zoning, they cannot condition it, and then there is also the possibility of charter schools and Commr. Hill wanted to know if that would apply to them.
Commr. Cadwell stated that it may be a local issue, because of that one zoning case, but statewide this issue is important to schools boards. Because there are going to be other tougher issues and this is a negotiation process that they are going through, he would be willing to let that advisory board pick middle and elementary schools; and high schools, which are a lot more intense in a neighborhood, would still come to this Board through the zoning process; and he would be willing to present this as their position.
Hanson wanted to know if Commr. Cadwell would be willing to tighten it up one
more step and that would be to have the School Board member, and the district
Commr. Cadwell agreed with this suggestion and asked Mr. Minkoff if this would be allowed under the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
Ms. Minkoff explained that they took out the public hearing language because they did not want it to be a quasi-judicial process so, if they write something where they will take public comment or allow public input, they will need to try and write around that.
Commr. Pool wanted to know what they would do if it becomes multi-jurisdictional where there may be two communities that would share responsibilities and if they would add members to the advisory committee.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, once they agree that they will do that, then on a staff level, they would draw up some type of map, or maybe the School Board has an attendance map, and then they will ask the League of Cities, at the beginning of the year, to appoint a person for each one of those regions.
It was pointed out that utilities may be an issue, and Mr. Welstead reminded the Board that anything they decide on today will not be presented next week as the final agreement.
Commr. Hill stated that this is a major issue for the County and cities, because it deals with the availability of infrastructure and who puts that in, whether it is roads, or sewer, or other infrastructure and, in certain situations, they will not have to come back to this Board.
Mr. Welstead pointed out that there are two distinct areas; one is site selection; the other is the approval process. In the site selection process, there should be specific rules; if they do not meet those, then they will not come before this Board.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that anybody can come before County staff and staff can recommend denial but there is nothing that prohibits them from bringing it to the Board. Under this agreement, if it does not meet specific criteria, they cannot even bring it to them.
Commr. Hill was concerned about waivers and variances; Mr. Welstead explained that this could be handled by putting in mandatory requirements.
Commr. Pool felt that the language, as follows, would address their concerns:
“The County and each municipality agree to modify
their comprehensive plans and land development regulations to make public
schools an allowable use in all zoning districts, so long as a School Site
Advisory Board comprised of elected officials of the School Board,
Commr. Cadwell stated that instead of “public schools”, he would suggest “middle schools and elementary schools” and then the high schools would still come before this Board.
Commr. Pool explained that, if they cannot get to this level, if the city, County, or School Board do not agree with this process, then they are not going to have this argument.
Discussion occurred regarding the fact that some of the sites are going to meet the majority of the criteria, with the understanding that the other criteria will be done in the future, which would then put the County in a position where it would be outvoted and knowing that roads are a major issue for the County.
After further discussion, the Board felt that offering the noted language with “middle and elementary schools” would be a least a step forward in the negotiating process but that they need to develop site selection criteria.
Commr. Hill pointed out that, in the County’s site selection ordinance, it says that these sites should be in urbanized areas but they never seem to be.
Commr. Pool explained that, because there are not rooftops today, if you do have approved projects, i.e. Sugarloaf, those would be forthcoming. They should not build the school before they start developing those projects; they should acquire the land and have permission to develop but Commr. Hill felt that it was a catalyst to put those in before they meet timeliness.
In regards to Paragraph 7, Collocation and Shared Use of Facilities, it was noted that everybody seemed to agree with the County’s position and the way it was written except for principals having the final say and the language reflects this change.
Mr. Welstead referred back to Paragraph 3, School Site Selection, and stated that he would suggest that the high schools would still have to go through that advisory board; they would not have the ultimate approval authority but they would still need to go through there and get their recommendation but, after some discussion, Mr. Minkoff clarified that the Board was okay with the language that says only elementary and middle schools; and where it says “there may be more than one Board within the County” the Board wants to change that to “there shall be more than one Board within the County based on geographic regions” and require that this group have a meeting to take public input before they make a decision.
was noted that the School Board members’ seats do not mirror the
It was noted that the Board was in general agreement to what was being proposed in Paragraph 7, Collocation and Shared Use of Facilities.
Commr. Cadwell wanted to point out that he keeps reading newspaper articles about how this all got started by community interest and the School Board interest; this only got started because this Board stepped forward and said they wanted to do this. He wanted to say this publicly because it did not start anywhere other than right here when this Board said they need to do this; this is a way to try to be responsible to do it; and they brought everybody into the process.
Commr. Hill pointed out that, when Commr. Cadwell was Chairman, he brought something similar to this Board, and they tried doing something similar at that time, and this gave them a real procedure and good direction even from the State level to accomplish this now.
Issue 7: Creation of an Oversight Committee
Welstead stated that staff has two more issues to discuss that will be on the
table at Monday’s meeting, which he distributed to the Board for
consideration. The first issue is the
creation and/or composition of an Oversight Committee; the second issue is a
dispute resolution process. He pointed
out the Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning, Lake County Schools, prepared a
Draft dated 12/15/2005, VI. Monitoring, and he took
Mr. Minkoff explained that this group would be paying attention to the data, updating it and making sure it was right; and they would be watching all the governments to make sure they were complying with concurrency. They would monitor dispute issues so that they all follow the same rules. He felt that there were two separate functions of this group.
In comparing the documents, Mr. Welstead explained that Mr. Fix has a much formalized process; his item is just ideas for implementation; they are not significantly different.
Commr. Cadwell felt that staff needs to give the Board some ideas as to whether this is really going to provide a work product that is going to help; if the design is such that everything that comes out of the committee is going to be something they will need for a decision process or let them know in a report card form how they will do it, then that would be okay but he wants them to look at it and make sure it does not become so cumbersome that they cannot do their job.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the information provided by Mr. Fix says citizens; the information provided by Mr. Welstead says commissioners, school board members, or city representatives. So the question is should it be elected people or not elected people; should it be citizens that have no connection or not; so the composition will be an issue that they will have to discuss.
Commr. Pool stated that sometimes he worries about including the Commissioners in all of these committees when citizens can probably give them a different insight and a vision that they do not see as an elected official.
It was clarified that the Board will make the final decision, but they need to establish a framework for those citizens and this seemed to be the general agreement among the Board members.
Mr. Minkoff explained that each government will have a part of the Comprehensive Plan that says they will not issue building permits if there is no school capacity, so they will be looking at building permits that they issue and, if they are violating that agreement, then they are going to say that the government is issuing permits, or you are rezoning when you should not be because there was no capacity, so they will be overseeing what they are actually doing as well.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #4
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY/PLANNING WORKS
Commr. Hanson reported that it was a good meeting last week (January 12, 2006) with Michael J. Lauer, AICP, Planning Works, and the Board, on school concurrency.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL
STATE IMPACT FEE TASK FORCE MEETINGA
Cadwell informed the Board members that he will be attending the State Impact
Fee Task Force meeting in
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK