A
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
THE
LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
NOVEMBER
18, 2005
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 Friday, November 18, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., at Lake Receptions, Mount Dora,
Florida, to discuss school concurrency. Commissioners present at the meeting
were: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Welton G.
Cadwell; Debbie Stivender; and Robert A. Pool. Others present for Lake County were:
Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Gregg
Welstead, Deputy County Manager; Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director; Amye
King, Assistant Growth Management Director; Valerie Golden, Administrative
Associate II, Department of Growth Management; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office
Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.
The Lake County Schools were represented by School Board members
Jimmy Conner, Vice Chairman, and Becky Elswick; and by Attorney Steve Johnson.
The municipalities were represented by Tim Green, Town of
Astatula/City of Minneola/Town of Montverde; Elaine Renick, City of Clermont;
Frank Royce, City of Eustis; Al Goldberg, City of Fruitland Park; Bonnie Nebel,
Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; Max Pullen and Bill Vance, Town of Lady Lake; John
Christian and Sanna Henderson, City of Leesburg; Janet Shira, City of Mascotte;
Mark Reggentin, City of Mount Dora; and Nancy Clutts, City of Tavares. No one
was present representing the City of Groveland or the City of Umatilla.
Commissioner Hill called the meeting to order and introduced
the joint meeting facilitator, Mr. Robert Nabors, of Nabors, Giblin &
Nickerson PA.
Mr. Nabors gave a brief description of his forty years of practicing
law, noting that he has almost exclusively represented local governments. He stated
that he will not be giving legal opinions in his role as facilitator. He recognized
that the cities and Lake County are concerned about how school concurrency will
affect their ability to govern, their growth management policies, their
economic development and about interference by an outside body in making
decisions. On the other hand, the School Board’s business is providing schools
and educating children and they are concerned about the fact that they would be
unfairly impeded in terms of their discretion. Because of the growth management
act, the data will have to be agreed upon and we have to agree on the basic
principles that have to be done. Mr. Nabors asked the County and cities to
realize that school districts are somewhat different in the sense of their
revenue capacity. We will be dealing primarily with capital facilities and
school districts are very limited because they do not have the discretion to
use general operating funds for capital.
Mr. Nabors explained that today’s objective is to take the
aggregate issues (the matrix) and narrow them and begin a basic decision making
process. The interlocal agreement will resolve a lot of the basic issues and
will largely drive the school element and the capital improvement element in
the Comprehensive Plan. The level of service, which will be included in the
interlocal agreement, is imbedded in a lot of issues, such as the existing
deficiency, the projected capacity, available revenue, population increases,
concurrency areas and other technical issues. Policy issues, such as school
siting and joint use of facilities, may be dealt with on a faster track than
some of the technical issues. He stated that the capital improvement element of
the Comprehensive Plan, for the first time for schools, will have teeth in it
in terms of concurrency. School facilities will have to be available on a
concurrent basis with development or development orders will not be issued.
Mr. Nabors called on the participants to discuss the
aggregation of eighteen issues that are presented in the matrix and how those
issues affect the School Board, the County and the cities.
Ms. Elswick commented that, as a School Board member, her
first priority is to make sure they are doing the very best they can for the
students in Lake County. Their focus is on academic achievement. Facilities
make a difference in academic achievement and research has been developed to
show that. She recognized that the community leaders have a perspective of
having to manage services, they have to be sensitive to economic development
issues and the schools affect that in the quality of students and the level of
service that attracts high wage employers to the community. She stated that,
while coming from a very different basis, we have the same common goal in
trying to do the best to maintain and, possibly, improve quality of life in
Lake County.
Mr. Nabors pointed out that, to a large degree, the growth
management legislation and concurrency deal with capital. Those are intertwined
with operational issues like colocation and joint use but it is a capital-type
focus. He explained that the eighteen categories/issues on the matrix, taken
from issue papers which were submitted by the School Board, Lake County and the
cities, are not ranked in terms of importance and that some relate to each
other.
Referring to the most efficient use of and maximum
utilization of capital, Commissioner Hanson commented that she does not see
that issue as being part of joint-use/colocation of facilities or space
limitations. She asked, in looking at it as if it were a business, if it is
possible to use school buildings more of the year or more of the day or more of
the week.
Mr. Nabors suggested that issue relates to capacity in the
sense of whether or not the current schools have a capacity that is not being
used by some kind of a change in operations.
Discussion occurred regarding combining issues/categories on
the matrix.
Ms. Renick explained that Clermont came up with five main
issues during their recent workshop. She opined that smaller concurrency
service areas should be considered rather than a county wide area and asked if
everyone agrees.
Commissioner Cadwell expressed agreement, if the School
Board is comfortable that it does not affect the level of service throughout
the County, and so long as some zones are not better off than others.
Mr. Johnson stated that the School Board prefers individual
service areas, not county wide, but that needs to be put on a map to see if
that is the best method.
Mr. Nabors explained that the only experience we have to
look to is Palm Beach County who implemented an optional concurrency. They did
not have the severe limitations of the current law. They did concurrency areas
based upon driving distances from schools. He pointed out that Palm Beach
County is fundamentally different than Lake County. He stated that the law is
clear that concurrency management areas are allowed and the statute drives it that
way after three years, with district wide being allowed during the first three
years.
Commissioner Pool stated that vested rights, such as
Sugarloaf Mountain, might enter into the mix and we should plan for those.
Mr. Nabors agreed that vested rights are an issue. A feeling
of the timing of development will be needed. Student generation rates will
affect concurrency management areas.
Discussion occurred regarding service areas, appropriateness
of high school attendance zones, the redistricting committee, how often
redistricting can be done, the cities’ desire for stability, a work product possibly
generated by a separate committee, consideration of contiguous zones and how
those look on a map.
Mr. Minkoff asked to come back to the work plan and pointed
out that today’s task is not to make a decision on any issue, just to identify
the issues. Each governmental entity needs to do the study necessary to
understand the impacts of an issue. He stressed that it is premature to talk
about issues today.
The matrix consists of the following eighteen issues:
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Nabors gave opinions of which issues
should be individual topics for discussion and which issues should be combined.
Further discussion occurred regarding the issues, how they would be defined and
how they would be resolved. State statutes deal with some of the issues.
Mr. Johnson opined that he thought the group would try to decide
how to handle dealing with a particular issue. The School Board intends to
present information and data relating to the policies and their preferences on
how to move forward. His understanding is that the interlocal agreement is
supposed to include a policy and procedure for integrating the municipalities,
the County and the School Board in making these decisions.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the process that was set up is to
identify the issues today and determine which issues would be discussed, and
hopefully resolved, at the next meeting. Prior to the next meeting, everybody
that wants to would submit their position in writing for distribution.
In discussing some of the issues, the participants generally
agreed that issues 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 are separate issues.
Mr. Nabors explained his view that proportionate share
methodology is a concept that was put into the bill that allows a developer to
trump concurrency. He suggested that the consultants or planners, in looking at
the statutes, could give a white paper on what they think some options are for
debate and consideration. He stated that some options are required in the
interlocal agreement.
Mr. Minkoff further explained that proportionate share is
required. If it is on the School Board’s five year capital plan and the
developer fails capacity, he pays proportionate share and gets to develop. He stated
that, if there is no concurrency problem, proportionate share would not be used
but that is not going to be the issue in Lake County. The statute provides the
formula in Chapter 163. The issues, for example, could be whether land can be a
contribution versus cash, or whether building a school can be a contribution as
opposed to cash.
Further discussion occurred regarding proportionate share
and credits against impact fees, temporary capacity, district wide concurrency
and how these issues are inter related; and oversight/advisory committees.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11: 05 a.m., Mr. Nabors announced a ten-minute break.
Mr. Welstead referred to a handout, “Model Proportionate
Fair-Share Ordinance” (a copy is included in the backup material) and explained
that, while this model is for transportation, it gives a lot of ideas about how
proportionate share is determined.
After conferring with Mr. Nabors, Mr. Minkoff and Mr. Lewis
Stone during the break, Mr. Johnson explained that the original eighteen issues
will be combined into the following nine issues:
Mr. Nabors announced that discussion
at the next joint meeting will be held on newly numbered issues 4 (school
siting and infrastructure requirements) and 6 (joint-use/colocation of
facilities). The idea will be that everyone will submit their written positions
or views of those issues in advance of the meeting to Ms. Valerie Golden. He
stressed the importance of School Board and County staffs working together to
resolve the data issues.
There was consensus that the proposed
school concurrency meeting schedule for December, January and February is
acceptable. Meeting notices will be sent to participants and meeting dates will
be published in the newspaper.
Discussion occurred regarding
canceling the tentatively scheduled joint meeting on November 29, 2005. It was
noted that most city councils/commissions meet once a month.
Mr. Nabors summarized that the next joint
meeting will be held December 5, 2005, at the Tavares Civic Center, and discussion
will deal with new issue numbers 4 and 6. Ms. Golden will send an e-mail giving
a deadline for position papers on issues 4 and 6 and she will distribute those
position papers to all the participants before the next joint meeting.
Discussion was held regarding
consultants and staff participation. Mr. Minkoff pointed out that the County’s
consultant will consult the County and the School Board’s consultant will
consult the School Board. Each municipality, the County and the School Board
has to make an independent decision. He stated that there will be, and has
been, a lot of sharing at the staff level.
Ms. Clutts, Ms. Renick and
Commissioner Stivender continued the discussion regarding sharing of
information by the consultants.
Mr. Minkoff reiterated that the Board
of County Commissioners will share staff and the consultant as much as they can
but the cities need to understand that everyone is coming at this from a
different direction and this is not a non-biased, cooperative effort. This is a
negotiation.
Mr. Nabors stated that there will be
a sharing of data but the interpretation of that data and how it is applied
will be policy decisions.
Mr. Conner, in speaking for the
School Board, stated that their staff and consultants are eager to meet with
the cities and the County. He stated that they will accept any invitation to
participate in staff meetings.
Regarding the contents of the draft
interlocal agreement, Mr. Nabors opined that DCA (Department of Community
Affairs) wants to be sure there is a process moving along to get to the
ultimate solution.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the contract
(with DCA) only applies to getting the money to the School Board and the
County. The contract has some slide dates. The due date for the interlocal
agreement is January 1, 2006, or as soon as it is done.
Mr. Welstead explained that County
staff is sharing information with all the planning staffs as much as possible.
At the conclusion of today’s joint meeting, the staffs/planning directors will
establish an informal process to share information. He stated that all the
information will be shared and the conclusions will be up to each entity.
Commissioner Cadwell stated that the
toughest decisions have to be made by the elected officials.
It was agreed, once again, that the
next joint meeting will be December 5, 2005.
Commissioner Cadwell informed the
group that the statewide impact fee task force met recently in Jacksonville. On
a 6 to 5 vote, they voted to move forward with some legislative controls over
impact fees. He stated that the task force will meet again on December 12,
2005, at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville.
Ms. Elswick stated that Lake County
is in the minority with school growth. Approximately 15 Florida counties are
growing in student population, 33 may be status quo and approximately 19
counties are declining in student population. In school impact fee discussions,
Lake County is in the minority in the State of Florida and this is a fight.
Regarding position papers on issues 4
and 6, Mr. Welstead stated that those will be due by November 30, 2005.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, asked
if a date can be set for a meeting with the consultants and any municipalities
who choose to participate.
Commissioner Cadwell advised that the
County does not have a consultant under contract at this time.
Mr. Johnson stated that issues 4 and
6 will be discussed at the December 5, 2005, joint meeting. He suggested that,
tentatively, issues 1 and 2 could be discussed at the second meeting (December
14, 2005); issues 2 and 3 could be discussed at the third meeting (January 9,
2006); issues 5 and 8 could be discussed at the fourth meeting (January 23,
2006); and issues 7 and 9 could be discussed at the fifth meeting (February 6,
2006).
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
__________________________
JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK