A
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
THE
LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
MARCH
16, 2006
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special
session with the Lake County School Board and representatives of Lake County’s municipalities
on Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 1:00 p.m., at Lake Receptions, Mount Dora,
Florida, to discuss school concurrency. Commissioners present at the meeting
were Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer
Hill; Robert A. Pool and Debbie Stivender. Others present for Lake County were:
Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County
Manager; Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director; Brenda DeMartino, Department
of Growth Management; Michael Lauer, Consultant for Lake County; Gene Bowles,
University of Florida and Consultant for Lake County; and Judy McAuley, Deputy
Clerk.
The Lake County Schools were represented by School Board Members
Jimmy Conner, Chairman; Larry Metz, Vice Chairman; Becky Elswick; Kyleen
Fischer; and Scott Strong; Superintendent Anna Cowin; Attorney Steve Johnson;
Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning; and by Linda Hines, Consultant for Lake
County Schools.
The municipalities were represented by Tim Green, Town of
Astatula/City of Minneola/Town of Montverde; Elaine Renick, City of Clermont;
Frank Royce and Attorney Lewis Stone, City of Eustis; Greg Beliveau, City of
Fruitland Park; Teresa Greenham, City of Groveland; Bonnie Nebel and Janet
Shira, Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; Attorney Derek Schroth, Town of Lady Lake;
Sanna Henderson, City of Leesburg; Jeff Krull and Janet Shira, City of
Mascotte; Melissa DeMarco, City of Mount Dora; Nancy Clutts, City of Tavares;
and Attorney Leslie Campione, City of Umatilla; and by Jerry Cox, M.Ed., Consultant
for the municipalities.
Commissioner Hanson called the meeting to order and asked
the participants/representatives to introduce themselves.
DATA RECONCILIATION
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, announced that staffs
for the municipalities, Lake County and the School Board have basically agreed
on all of the data in the draft Data Inventory & Analysis (included in the
backup material). The draft is a compilation of population and student
enrollment projections and capacity numbers.
Mr. Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning, Lake County
Schools, explained that working on the Data Inventory & Analysis gave the
staffs an opportunity to better understand each others’ planning processes and
to come together on methodologies that are in the best interests of Lake County
as a whole.
Mr. Jerry W. Cox, M.Ed., Consultant for the municipalities, confirmed
that capacity numbers were agreed on and each group’s level of service position
is reflected as well.
Mr. Welstead noted that the intent is to submit this draft
to the State as the work product for data inventory and analysis for the
comprehensive plan and in satisfaction of the ultimate requirement. There may
be changes as we proceed, especially in the money aspect.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT DISCUSSION
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that he met
with Attorney Lewis Stone (Eustis), Attorney Leslie Campione (Umatilla),
Attorney Dan Mantzaris (Clermont), and Attorney Steve Johnson (School Board) regarding
the draft Interlocal Agreement (included in the backup material). In
identifying the biggest areas in the Agreement, separate options are provided. Today’s
goal is to fulfill the March 1, 2006, requirement to send the draft Data
Inventory & Analysis and the draft Interlocal Agreement, which will have
consensus approval, to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He stated
that the final Interlocal Agreement must be approved by all sixteen
governmental bodies and he stressed that this draft is not the final document.
Mr. Steve Johnson, Attorney, Lake County Schools, advised that
the draft Interlocal Agreement and the options were reviewed by the School
Board at a special meeting on March 13, 2006. He stated that a great deal of
the daily and annual obligations and data information and changes that need to
be made rests on the backs of the School Board.
Options - Section 1.1.3 - Oversight/Review Committee
Mr. Minkoff explained the three options for Section 1.1.3
(The Lake County Educational Concurrency Review Committee), for an oversight
committee which would be charged with evaluating how the entire system is
working. He related that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), at their
March 14, 2006, meeting, expressed interest in a committee of nine elected
official members (three each from the School Board, the BCC and
municipalities).
Mr. Johnson stated that the School Board’s preference was a
modified version of Option One with nine members who are citizens or elected
officials.
Mr. Cox stated that the municipalities feel very strongly
about Option Three with sixteen citizens or elected officials (one from the
School Board, the BCC and each municipality).
Ms. Anna Cowin, Lake County Superintendent of Schools, opined
that the School Board views this as an equity issue. She suggested that the
cities could try to divide the County into three separate regions with one
representative from each region.
Mr. Minkoff referred to Page 5, Section 1.1.2, and Page 6,
Section 1.2, of the draft Interlocal Agreement regarding the duties of the
Committee. They would be making recommendations to all of the participants.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney for the City of Umatilla,
stated that this is more of a review committee, a problem-solving committee, that
would look at how the Interlocal Agreement is working and, in that regard,
having representation from each municipality is critical.
Mr. Larry Metz, Vice Chairman, Lake County School Board, opined
that, after hearing that this will be an advisory committee, it would be fair
to have everyone with a seat at that table.
After further discussion, Mr. Minkoff stated that the
consensus is with Option Three with sixteen citizen or elected officials and a
quorum of six.
Options - Section 3 and 3.1 - Zoning Categories and School
Siting
Mr. Minkoff explained the six options for Section 3 and 3.1
(Zoning Categories In Which Schools Are Allowed; School Siting Procedures) plus
an alternative option (Option Seven) which could be added to any of the other
six. He opined that the BCC prefers Option Four which is the status quo and
which would require school sites to be rezoned in accordance with whatever the
local government zoning process is.
Mr. Johnson stated that the School Board prefers Option One
which allows public schools as a permitted use in all zoning districts. They
realize modifications would be needed with Option One such as dealing with
wetlands, industrial areas, etc. Many of these options are an attempt to look
at possible compromises to allowing schools to be a permitted use in all zoning
districts such as options with hearing officers and different plans. If it is
necessary, in order to allow schools to be a permitted use in all zoning
districts, the School Board is not in favor of going through those types of
alternative plans as a compromise. The preference is Option Four if the majority
feels Option One is not available. However, the School Board does not believe Option
Four, as currently worded, maintains the status quo. He explained that it
requires rezoning prior to acquiring a site. They would agree that they would,
prior to beginning construction on a school, have the property rezoned. If the
School Board determines, for its future policy, that it will acquire rezoning
before closing on the site, that is a decision it needs to make.
Mr. Cox stated that the cities’ first choice is Option
Seven. He stated that, in the spirit of trying to move along, their fall-back
position is Option Four. They also recognize that the School Board would want
the wording “prior to acquiring any site” omitted. He stressed that the cities’
biggest concern with this process is making sure all the infrastructure is in
place and that there is communication involved in siting the schools and the
development of the property.
Mr. Lewis Stone, Attorney for the City of Eustis, remarked
that the cities would want Option Seven as an additive. It is important for
everybody to know ahead of time how the necessary infrastructure will be put in
place and who will pay for it.
Mr. Strong stated that those requirements are incumbent upon
the School Board to do and he opined that it would be redundant to include
them. He confirmed that the School Board clearly understands it needs a better
relationship with the cities and the County and he opined that they are moving
in that direction.
Mr. Stone remarked that it makes common sense to him that
something as important as infrastructure does not get lost in the process. He
commented that, while it may be overkill, it is easier to do it when everybody
is happy.
Commissioner Stivender asked if replacing “prior to
acquiring any site” with the last sentence in Option Three would eliminate that
concern. All three local agencies would look at the site, going over the
infrastructure issues, before they acquire it.
Mr. Minkoff referred to Section 1.5.2 (Co-location and
Shared Use) on Page 7 of the draft Interlocal Agreement whereby everyone has
agreed to contact each other whenever anyone begins to plan a new facility.
Additionally, the staff committees will meet at least quarterly. There should
never be a surprise and that will ameliorate a lot of the concerns about
infrastructure.
Mr. Fix pointed out that the local governments and the
County will be required to adopt the School Board’s five-year plan into the
Capital Improvements Element. Along with staffs’ quarterly meetings, that will
absolutely assure coordination.
Regarding the wording of Option Seven, Mr. Metz stated that
an additional interlocal agreement would be necessary before the site could be
acquired. That would be problematic and cumbersome. He agreed with the infrastructure
concern but opined that current statutes allow that.
Mr. Johnson stated that the School Board would be willing to
consider additional language from the cities regarding cooperation or agreeing
to do certain things to the extent that it does not add obligations on the
School Board.
There was further discussion regarding redundancy and tweaking
the language.
Ms. Campione referred to Section 2.5 and suggested that
might address the concerns.
Mr. Minkoff stated that consensus seems to be Option Four,
keeping the first sentence, deleting the second sentence, adding language that
we cooperate in trying to locate school sites and that we would try and utilize
the factors that are set forth in Section 2.5 when we evaluate school sites.
Mr. Metz opined that restating Section 2.5 in Section 3.1 is
redundant. He suggested that the word “acquiring” should be stricken from the
second sentence in Option Four and that “commencement of construction on”
should be written in.
After additional discussions, Mr. Minkoff remarked that he
thought consensus was reached earlier. He stated that putting cooperative
language in again, without creating any affirmative duties, does not hurt.
Mr. Johnson clarified that the School Board has the
constitutional statutory right and obligation to select school sites. The
statute that requires the implementation of this Interlocal Agreement does not
relinquish that right to any other group. The list of considerations and
recommendations and notifications does not change that the ultimate decision
for a school site will remain with the School Board.
Options - Section 5.2.4 - Level of Service Standard
Mr. Minkoff explained the six alternatives for Section 5.2.4
(Level of Service Standard) which is a combination of capacity and level of
service. The three basic choices are FISH (Florida Inventory of School Houses),
FISH with program and how portables are factored in. The BCC did not have a
clear consensus on this section.
Mr. Johnson stated that we are dealing with two issues. The
law says you take a level of service and multiply it by the capacity in order
to get the number of students who can be served in a particular classroom. He
referred to the draft Data Inventory & Analysis handout in explaining the
snapshot of school student population and the capacity at each school. These
numbers are being worked on to confirm accuracy. He stated that the School
Board’s first selection would be Option One which is 100% of permanent FISH
capacity for elementary, middle and high schools. Some flexibility would be
necessary because the permanent FISH capacity at a vast majority of the
elementary schools, most of the middle schools and two high schools are
considerably over the 100% capacity level as of 2/6/06. Considering that, the
School Board discussed that Option Three might be acceptable with modifications.
One modification would be that the portable classrooms are FISH recognized
portable classrooms. The other issue is to look at the core capacity in light
of the permanent FISH capacity and consideration of some limiting percentage
factor over permanent FISH capacity.
Mr. Minkoff referred to Pages 13 and 16 of the draft Data
Inventory & Analysis, reiterating that these numbers are a work in
progress. The formula is FISH + 25% of permanent FISH for portables or dining
capacity, whichever is less.
Mr. Cox stated that the cities’ first choice is Option Three
which is 100% of permanent FISH, plus portables up to the core. They are
willing to consider 25% of the permanent student stations, not to exceed core,
as an option as well.
Ms. Teresa Greenham, representing the City of Groveland and
Howey-in-the-Hills, stated that charter schools should be addressed in the
Interlocal Agreement because Groveland is building a city charter school of
1300 spaces next year.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the non-conversion charters were
not counted in capacity because students cannot be required or compelled to go
to them. Groveland could build a city non-conversion charter school but parents
could elect to send their children to the public schools. However, in
determining student generation rates in schools that were not conversion
charters, the students would be counted as if they were private home-schooled
or private-schooled so it would impact the student generation rates per house.
If those schools are counted in capacity and become unpopular, those students
will be back in the public schools. If we do not count them in this capacity,
we will be over-populated in our public schools.
Ms. Greenham stated that Florida Statutes say other school
spaces can be counted and can be looked at to specifically mitigate the impacts
in these residential units. Groveland’s school will provide 1300 elementary and
middle spaces next year and the City Council will not be happy to sign up for
something that excludes those spaces.
Mr. Minkoff gave the example that a developer comes to the
School Board for a concurrency certificate but the School Board shows that
public schools in the area are full. If the developer proposes to build their
own school and could assure the School Board that those kids would go to that
school, they would meet concurrency. He reiterated that there is no assurance
that those kids can be compelled to go to Groveland’s city school. If the city
school fails, those kids go back in the public schools. The School Board does
not own the city’s non-conversion charter school site and there is no guarantee
that it will be operated as a school forever. The School Board does own the site
for a conversion charter school and gets the site back and can operate it if
the conversion charter school fails. He agreed that they do get a countywide
mathematical credit on the generation rate. Those kids would be counted and the
student-generation rate would be reduced by those kids.
Ms. Becky Elswick, Lake County School Board, stated that
they have to consider adjacent service areas when concurrency service areas are
established. If that charter school is successful, it will reduce the
populations in the adjacent service areas which will equalize it all.
Mr. Strong stated that the student generation rate is based
on elementary, middle and high schools. He expressed certainty that a
compromise could be reached. He suggested that students could be considered in
the calculation if the school is constructed to state standards and if the city
would be willing to turn it over to the School Board if the city decides to get
out of the school business.
Mr. Johnson agreed that something along the lines of Mr. Strong’s
suggestion could be taken into consideration in the formula.
Further discussion occurred regarding capacity.
Commissioner Hanson opined that it might be possible to add
more language to allow for and clarify Ms. Greenham’s concerns. She confirmed that
there is consensus on Option Three but asked if there are additional comments.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, representing the City of Fruitland Park, pointed
out differences in the draft Data Inventory & Analysis, Table SF19 on Page
18 and Table SF21 on Page 19, concerning capacity at Eustis High and Leesburg High.
Mr. Minkoff explained that Option Three essentially says that
every school will have 100% of FISH, at a minimum, and that can be increased by
up to 25% through the use of FISH recognized portables if there is dining
capacity. He opined that there is consensus for this option. The tables will be
corrected.
Ms. Renick asked if we can say core capacity rather than
core dining capacity.
Mr. Cox stated that we are basing it on dining only, not
media as well. Most of the media center figures are not correct, having been
lowered somehow with class size reduction.
Options - Section 5.3 - School Concurrency Service Areas
Mr. Minkoff explained the three options for Section 5.3 (School
Concurrency Service Areas). There was consensus with this group earlier that we
did not want to do this on a county-wide basis. However, Option One does
determine concurrency on a county-wide basis. Option Two uses attendance zones
for all schools. Option Three uses planning areas. The School Board wants to
discuss another planning area type proposal today.
Mr. Johnson stated that the School Board previously looked
at the elementary, middle and high schools as being individual concurrency
service areas. Their concern is that it is possible that a developer on one
side of the County could look at capacity on the other side of the County because
the school attendance zones are not necessarily geographically drawn. That creates
a problem because of the requirement to rezone attendance zones for different
schools if the levels of service rise over what is agreed to in the Interlocal
Agreement so as not to stop development by having one school with a great deal
more capacity than surrounding schools. From a practical aspect, the action
that has to be taken at that point is either to rezone the school every time
the developer comes in on one side of the County and is looking to the capacity
on the other side of the County or you zone that particular area and incur
tremendous transportation costs. He advised that the School Board would like to
consider some combination and take into consideration a travel time or travel
distance from each school, and set some maximum to get some more uniform
concurrency areas. One purpose of that is to avoid having to go through a
rezoning of attendance zones for each school every time a developer meets
concurrency.
At 2:25 p.m., Commissioner Hanson announced a ten minute
break.
Mr. Fix stated that Mr. William C. “Will” Davis, President,
LPG Mapping & Computer Services, Inc., will present slides for options
regarding Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs).
·
Attendance Zones - Mr. Fix stated that
he has heard discussion by the School Board and the County Commission that the
high school attendance zones are too large, especially in respect to travel
distances. He explained that the legislation says, in looking at concurrency
areas, that one is allowed to look at adjacent zones in order to approve
development. For example, the Tavares High School attendance zone is contiguous
to five other attendance zones.
·
Planning Areas - Somewhat reflective of
Joint Planning Areas. In each option, if the concurrency service area does not
have an elementary, middle or high school, it needs to be adjacent to a service
area that does.
·
Attendance Zones - Zones broken up
more. East Ridge divided into two zones; Tavares into three; Leesburg divided
into three; Mount Dora divided into two; Umatilla divided into three or four.
·
High School/Middle School/Elementary
School Drive Times - Mr. Davis explained the drive time analyses which range
from ten minutes to forty minutes.
Mr. Fix remarked that this suggestion is not set in stone
and may need more input. Adding too many more lines might be difficult because
we have to be sure a facility of each type is located in each concurrency
service area or in an adjacent area.
Mr. Cox pointed out that, when the municipalities agreed to
attendance zones, this option was not on the floor. He asked if any thought has
been given to using this for middle and high schools and using attendance zones
for elementary schools as a separate concurrency service area.
Mr. Fix confirmed that is an idea as well. He opined that
this could be refined by taking it back to a staff working group.
Ms. Elswick expressed that her only concern is that the
schools do not sit in the center of some areas and there could be a situation
where a child lives within two miles of a school but has to go eight miles
away.
Mr. Johnson explained that attendance area zones would stay
the same. The child would still go to the school that it was zoned into
depending upon adjustments in the zoning as they reach level of service
capacity. This concurrency service area line will not automatically change
where the student will attend school.
Regarding consensus, Mr. Minkoff opined that we are
describing Option Three with some modifications by the staffs to the map which
was shown earlier. He opined that the School Board has proposed Option Three as
written. He asked for a consensus on that option.
Commission Hanson concurred and asked for comments.
Mr. Derek Schroth, Attorney, representing the Town of Lady
Lake, opined that they had a consensus on using the particular schools as their
own concurrency areas. He remarked that a lot of this information was presented
today and it is difficult to represent a consensus on this item when looking at
some of the other options. He asked if the group can agree on some language at
this point that would be broader to allow tightening the lines later.
Mr. Minkoff remarked that it appears that everyone agrees
with the concept of Option Three. The map details can be worked out later.
Mr. Johnson stated that he hopes there is an agreement to
use a map, hopefully, that takes the school attendance zones into consideration
as well as geographic distance between the concurrency service areas to the
various schools. He opined that the exact lines on the map can be agreed upon
at some future time.
Commissioner Hanson reiterated that we will move forward
with Option Three.
Mr. Tim Green, representing the Town of Astatula, the City
of Minneola and the Town of Montverde, remarked that the cities have looked at
having all three levels of schools considered.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, from the cities’ perspective, the
smaller zones are probably better. He reiterated that we would be agreeing on the
concept and that we will work on a map that probably will be something other
than exact attendance zones.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Green regarding three maps,
one for elementary, middle and high schools, Mr. Fix remarked that we might
accomplish what we want to on one map but three maps can be considered.
Further discussion occurred regarding the map or maps and
language in the agreement.
Mr. Minkoff agreed that “map series” or similar language
could be included. He explained that the actual map does not have to be
submitted now for the March 1 compliance. If we have consensus, we will use
some type of planning level map and we will work to solidify the maps.
Mr. Johnson suggested that we apply Mr. Davis’ ideas to the
other concepts that have tentatively been agreed upon today and apply it to the
schools in the various areas to see what the numbers look like. Hopefully, that
information will be available before the next joint meeting.
Commissioner Hanson confirmed that there is a clear
understanding on Option Three, with language to be developed.
NEXT STEP DISCUSSION
Mr. Minkoff remarked that this joint group would meet one
more time, in about a month, with the final Interlocal Agreement and final maps
that would go to, and be adopted by, the individual cities, the BCC and the School
Board.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CONSENSUS
For the minutes because it was one of the deliverables due
March 1, 2006, Mr. Minkoff asked for a vote or consensus that the participants
basically agree on the draft Interlocal Agreement and the options adopted today
and that the draft Interlocal Agreement should be sent to the Department of
Community Affairs.
On a motion by Commissioner Pool, seconded by Commissioner
Stivender and carried unanimously, by a roll-call vote of 23-0, the Lake County
Board of County Commissioners, the Lake County School Board and the Lake County
Municipalities agreed on the draft Interlocal Agreement and the options adopted
today and that the draft Interlocal Agreement should be sent to the Department
of Community Affairs.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, representing the City of Fruitland Park,
was not present for the vote.
Ms. Janet Shira, representing the City of Mascotte and the
Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, asked if the draft Data Inventory & Analysis
will be attached to the draft Interlocal Agreement that will be sent to DCA.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Analysis is not part of the
Interlocal Agreement but is required information and will be sent to DCA. It
does not require approval. It is recognized that changes will need to be made
to it.
Ms. Shira stated, for the record, that the City of Mascotte
and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills do not agree with all of the data that is
included in the draft Data Inventory & Analysis. As long as it is not part
of the Interlocal Agreement, they have no problem.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
__________________________________
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK