A
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LAKE COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD, AND LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
AUGUST
23, 2006
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session with the Lake
County School Board and Lake County Municipalities on Wednesday, August 23,
2006, at 6:30 p.m., at Lake Receptions, Mt. Dora, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were:
Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill;
and Robert A. Pool. Commissioner Debbie
Stivender was not present, due to another commitment. Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy)
Minkoff, County Attorney; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager; Steve Johnson,
Attorney, Lake County School Board; Jerry Cox, Consultant, representing various
municipalities; Harry Fix, Planner, Lake County School Board; Tim Green, Green
Consulting Group, representing various municipalities; Jim Hitt, representing
the City of Clermont; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk. Representatives from VOICE (Voters
Organization Involved in Children’s Education), various city
councils, various law firms, the local newspapers, and concerned citizens were
present, as well.
WELCOME
AND INTRODUCTION
Mr.
Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, introduced the members of the panel, at
which time he noted that everyone involved with the proposed interlocal
agreement had worked very hard and this meeting was a culmination of that
effort.
OUTLINE
OF AGENDA
Mr. Welstead stated that what staff
intended to do this date was provide those present with information that they
had come up with during the last few months and how they anticipate the
projects to work and then go through an outline of the proposed Interlocal
Agreement (August 22 edition), which he noted contained all the comments that
staff received from the municipalities, all the negotiations that have taken
place, and an errata sheet, containing some comments from the Department of
Community Affairs. He stated that he
hoped it was a document that everyone would be happy with, noting that, from
staff’s perspective, it was as good as they could get, working with all the
municipalities and the School Board. He
stated that he did not think everybody was 100% happy with the agreement, but
that he did not think anybody was really unhappy with it either.
LEVEL OF SERVICE DISCUSSION
Mr. Jerry Cox, Consultant,
representing various municipalities, informed those present that the level of
service he would be discussing was something that everybody is shooting for
and, hopefully, will be achieved in the first five years, with most of it being
achieved during the first three years.
He stated that some schools have already achieved their level of
service, but there are some schools in the County that are over 200% capacity,
as well. He stated that it is going to
take a period of time for it to be accomplished, at which time he presented a
slide presentation regarding the School Concurrency Level of Service, as
follows:
Lake
County’s Level of Service
·
100% of permanent FISH capacity. If dining core capacity is available, in
excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125% of
FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations, so long as
the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.
School
A
·
Permanent Student Capacity – 800
·
Dining Capacity – 800
·
Level of Service – 800
All students
should be served in permanent facilities.
School
B – Year 1
·
Permanent Student Capacity – 800
·
Dining Capacity – 1,000
·
Level of Service = 125% x 800 = 200 (in temporary student
stations)
Total Students
= 1,000
School
B – Year 2 (New wing for 100 students
opened)
·
Permanent Student Capacity – 900
·
Dining Capacity – 1,000
·
Level of Service = 125% x 900 = 225
Only 100
students in temporary student stations, because you cannot exceed dining
capacity.
Total Students
= 1,000
School
B – Year 3 (New wing for 100 students
opened)
·
Permanent Student Capacity – 1,000
·
Dining Capacity – 1,000
·
Level of Service = 125% x 1,000 = 250
All students
should be served in permanent facilities.
Total Students
= 1,000
Summary
of School B
Temporary
student stations for Year One – 1,000
Permanent
Capacity for Year One – 800
Temporary student
stations for Year Two – 1,000
Permanent
Capacity for Year Two – 900
Temporary
student stations for Year Three – 0
Permanent
Capacity for Year Three – 1,000
School
C – Year 1
·
Permanent Student Capacity – 2,000
·
Dining Capacity – 3,000
·
Level of Service = 125% x 2,000 = 500 (in temporary student
stations)
Total Students
= 2,500
School
C – Year 2 (New wing for 300 students
opened)
·
Permanent Student Capacity – 2,300
·
Dining Capacity – 3,000
·
Level of Service = 125% x 2,300 = 575 (in temporary student
stations)
Total Students
= 2,875
School
C – Year 3 (New wing for 300 students
open)
·
Permanent Student Capacity – 2,600
·
Dining Capacity – 3,000
·
Level of Service = 125% x 2,600 = 650
Only 400
students can be served in temporary student stations – Total capacity cannot
exceed dining.
Total students
= 3,000
Summary
of School C
Temporary
student stations for Year One – 2,500
Permanent
Capacity for Year One – 2,000
Temporary
student stations for Year Two – 2,800
Permanent
Capacity for Year Two – 2,300
Temporary
student stations for Year Three – 3,000
Permanent
Capacity for Year Three – 2,600
CAPACITY DETERMINATION
ILLUSTRATION
Mr. Welstead addressed the group and
presented a slide presentation, giving an example of how capacity determination
will occur during this process, noting that, in working with the School Board,
the parties had agreed to an alternative scheme for concurrency service
areas. He depicted two mythical plats
(consisting of approximately the same number of acres – 387.5 versus 382.8) and
discussed how capacity was determined for said plats. He stated that each one of the plats would
generate about the same number of students (Student Generation Rate) per
dwelling unit, indicating what that number would be for each plat. He stated that this is what the School
Board’s staff will be doing for every plat and every site plan for a
multi-family dwelling request that comes to the County. He stated that they will have to keep track
of every house, noting that, once a development has been assigned to a specific
CSA (Concurrency Service Area), that is where it will stay.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OVERVIEW
Mr. Welstead gave a brief overview
of the proposed Interlocal Agreement, as follows:
Section
1 – Coordination and Sharing of Information
·
Experience of last 10 months.
·
Fundamental to this and any process like it. Sets the tone for mutual aid and cooperation
for the future. Commits us to come up
with mutually agreeable plans.
·
Section sets up quarterly joint staff meetings, to share
information, talk about developments in the pipeline, potential school sites,
opportunities for collocation, etc.
Lists information to be shared, including zoning and land use changes,
building permits, etc.
o
County committed to help smaller communities in reporting.
·
Creates Educational Concurrency Review Committee.
o
Elected officials or citizens.
o
Review progress and discuss items of mutual interest.
o
Evaluate agreement and recommend changes.
·
Co-location and shared use – early commitment to work
together on this.
·
Shared use of existing facilities.
·
Co-location opportunities for future capital projects.
o
Advise potential partners and cooperate, to save resources,
where possible.
Section
2 – Planning Process
·
Educational Plant Survey – review by all parties,
opportunity to comment to school staff for consideration, incorporate CSAs.
·
Annual requirement for School Board, new importance for all
parties, 5-Year Facilities Work Program must be financially-feasible and adopted
by each city and county, as part of Comprehensive Plan.
·
County and cities must create and adopt Public Schools
Facilities Element to Comp Plan.
o
DCA has reviewed draft and is doing final tweaks.
o
Planners have been part of review process.
o
Not necessarily verbatim, but consistent.
o
Consider doing next round of Comp Plan amendments.
·
Recognize need to place schools in different places
throughout county and cities – land use in Comp Plan should reflect it.
·
Where do schools go?
o
List of 14 criteria essential to current requirements levied
by State.
Section
3 – Zoning Categories
·
Early discussion again – Cities and county reserve right to
govern zoning and require rezoning, if necessary, through public hearing
process.
Section
4 – Site Design/Development Plan Review
·
Like site selection, basically parallels current statutory
requirement.
Section
5 – School Concurrency Implementation
·
First section defines what are considered to be “major
amendments” and process to make the changes, including how an amendment must be
proposed and timelines for consideration by all parties.
o
Lack of response is deemed consent.
o
Disputes must be handled by statute.
·
Comp Plan amendments necessary to implement must be
considered by end of year.
o
Changes to Land Development Regulations and any other
necessary requirements should also be made as soon as Comp Plan amendment is
approved.
·
Schools Five-Year Plan must be updated annually and
incorporated into Capital Improvement Element of each city and county.
·
Level of Service Standards.
o
Discussed earlier – must be adopted as policy by School
Board and in each city/county Comp Plan.
·
Conversion charter schools counted automatically.
·
Non-conversion charter schools counted, if built to SREF
standards and money is covered, in case of failure.
·
CSAs, potential amendments to boundaries must go through
amendment process, nothing to do with attendance zones.
·
What is subject to concurrency?
o
Lots of Record and recorded plats don’t need to meet it –
they are vested.
o
Multi-family, if existing, or final site plan has been
approved, doesn’t need to meet it.
o
Age restricted communities don’t need to meet it.
o
DeMinimus subdivisions must be counted, but not subject to
proportionate share.
o
Projects determined to be vested don’t need to meet it.
o
EVERYTHING ELSE residential must meet it.
·
Applications for all go to School Board for determination
o
Fairness, keep only one (1) master list.
·
School Board has 30 days to review and make determination.
o
Yes, it meets LOS.
o
No, mitigation is or is not acceptable options.
o
If no mitigation, county/city will not process.
o
If mitigation possible, School Board and applicant
negotiate.
·
Capacity calculations reviewed:
o
Kids in seats
o
Vested development
o
Concurrent development
o
Applicant
Mitigation
Alternatives
·
If School Board determines mitigation acceptable in year 4
or 5 (or beyond), they can negotiate with developer or applicant - 90 day
period.
·
Could be:
o
Payment of proportionate share
·
SGR x DU x Cost/Student Station – Available capacity.
o
Build capacity.
o
Build school.
o
Open-ended.
Possibilities for mitigation.
Sections
6, 7, and 8
·
Boilerplate on delegation of
responsibilities, termination of the agreement (automatically renews), dispute
resolution.
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
At this time, various individuals in
attendance questioned the panel regarding concerns they had about the proposed
interlocal agreement.
THE WAY FORWARD
Representative Allen Hays addressed
those present, stating that he was very proud to hear the interaction that
occurred between them and the panel and their demeanor, noting that that was
the whole purpose of the pilot project – to get the six or seven counties
involved in the process to come up with a plan that can be used as a model to
other counties around the State and that is exactly what they had before
them. He stated that he deeply
appreciated the many, many hours that had been put into the proposed agreement
and thanked those involved for making it happen. He stated that Lake County can be proud.
Mr. Welstead suggested that those
present take the proposed interlocal agreement to each of their cities, talk to
their attorneys, consider it, and make it a reality in September, noting that
that is the way forward for the County.
Commr. Cadwell encouraged them to remember
the process that the panel has gone through.
He stated that he felt the plan before them this date was as good a plan
as could be brought forward at this time and encouraged them to approve it.
It was noted that a sample template
has been developed that they can utilize and that, if they were to consider the
agreement by December 31st of this year, they will have met the
intention of the agreement - it does not mean that it has to be approved, but
that it has been considered.
The Chairman thanked everybody for
all their hard work during the process, noting that it has been an interesting
one and she feels a very successful one.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
____________________________________
CATHERINE
C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK