A
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD, AND LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
JANUARY
9, 2006
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session with the Lake
County School Board and Lake County Municipalities on Monday, January 9, 2006,
at 10:00 a.m., in the Magnolia Room, Lake-Sumter Community College, Leesburg, Florida.
Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton
G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Debbie Stivender; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool. Others present 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; Bob Nabors, Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A.; Deanna Newman,
Public Pathways; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk. Representing the Lake County School Board
were: Jimmy Conner, Chairman; Larry Metz, Vice Chairman; Kyleen Fischer; and Scott
Strong. Superintendent Anna Cowin; School
Board Attorney Steve Johnson; and Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning, Lake County Schools, were
present, as well.
Representing the municipalities were:
Tim Scobie, City of Umatilla; Leslie Campione, Attorney for the City of
Umatilla; Bonnie Nebel, Town of Howey in the Hills; Teresa Greenham, City of
Groveland; Janet Shira, B & H Consultants, representing the Towns of
Mascotte and Howey in the Hills; Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group (LPG),
representing the City of Fruitland Park; Tim Green, representing the Cities of
Minneola, Montverde, and Astatula; Frank Royce, City of Eustis; Nancy Clutts,
City of Tavares; Derek Schroth, Attorney for the Town of Lady Lake; Elaine
Renick, City of Clermont; and Laura McElhanon, representing the City of
Leesburg. The City of Mt. Dora was not
represented.
Commr.
Hanson, Chairman, Lake County Board of County Commissioners, opened the meeting
and called the roll, at which time she noted that the first item of business
was a discussion about the draft interlocal agreement that was before them,
regarding school concurrency.
Commr.
Cadwell interjected that Ms. Susy Gibson, past President of the Clermont
Chamber of Commerce, was present, doing an internship with Leadership Lake
County.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the group that, under the work plan
that was adopted, the contract between the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA), the Lake County School Board, and Lake County requires that a draft
agreement be sent to DCA by January 2, 2006, in order to receive the next
payment of funds. He stated that the agreement
before them was compiled by putting together a draft that Mr. Gregg Welstead,
Deputy County Manager, and Mr. Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning, Lake
County Schools, had each prepared. He
stated that the goal this date was not to talk about the agreement, but to have
it introduced to them, for their perusal, noting that he would like for them to
discuss it in detail at the next meeting, to see if they can finalize some of
the language, particularly the language contained in Section 3. - School Site
Selection and Section 7. - Collocation and Shared Use of Facilities. He pointed out the fact that the language
contained in the small boxes next to said sections was language in the current
interlocal agreement that the County, the Municipalities, and the School Board
had agreed to delete and that the new language was that language which was
underlined. He stated that the goal this
date was for the School Board and the County to jointly send the agreement to
DCA, with a clear understanding that it had not been approved – that it was
strictly a staff generated draft agreement.
He questioned whether everyone was comfortable with sending the draft to
DCA, without having looked at it first.
Mr.
Steve Johnson, School Board Attorney, stated that he had notified the School
Board members, prior to this meeting, that the document was a first effort
draft of two sections of the interlocal agreement and that he was not
recommending the language contained in the agreement for the final document,
but that he felt it was a good start. He
recommended approving it, for the purpose of sending it to Tallahassee, as the
County’s first draft of the agreement.
Mr.
Jimmy Connor, Chairman, Lake County School Board, took a vote of the School
Board members, authorizing him to sign the document, which was unanimous.
Commr.
Hanson did the same with members of the Board of County Commissioners, which
was unanimous, as well.
It
was noted that a letter or email would accompany the draft agreement,
indicating that it was not the final document.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that he had received comments from the municipalities,
indicating that they also were not totally acceptable of the language.
Superintendent
Anna Cowin stated that she noticed there was not any information contained in
the agreement about current sites that have been accepted by the School Board
for school placement and that she felt this would be a great forum to come to
some kind of a consensus on the matter.
She stated that it would certainly give direction to the School Board,
if the group could work together, with regard to current sites that have been
selected, as a transition into the future planning for schools, noting that
they need to make sure that infrastructure is in place for future sites and
that the sites are acceptable by everybody.
She stated that they need a transition paragraph, as to how to move
forward on those properties that have already been purchased and committed, noting
that, excluding it would put the Board in a bind, as to what to do with said
sites.
Mr.
Bob Nabors, Nabors,
Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., the facilitator for the joint meeting, discussed
where the County is at the present time, where it needs to go, and how the
interlocal agreement fits into that overall scheme. He stated that the interlocal agreement was not
intended to be a document that the group had voted on, but what they had tried
to put in black and white of what they perceive to be a consensus from the
group. He stated that he hoped, by the
end of the day, to have some feeling as to how long it is going to take for the
individual governing boards to react to the interlocal agreement, so that they
can put that into the process for a full discussion, as well as the time period
for dealing with the oversight committee and conflict resolution. He stated that they have had two staff
meetings, trying to bring people together, to get an understanding of the School
Board’s five year school facilities plan and how the County does population
projections. He stated that he would
like to try to get a consensus on the basic data, which will drive a decision
on some of the issues. He stated that he
feels the group has made good progress, noting that, at the end of the meeting
that was held recently, which was on the back of a meeting that the cities had
the day before, they started jelling on some of the things that they needed to
know, such as the core capacity of the various schools, the current capacity,
what buildings are under construction that will create additional capacity, and
where they are located, in relation to each other. He stated that, during the next few weeks, he
would like to see the group try to define in a greater way the data issues and,
once they agree on what those issues are and what the areas of dispute are,
hold a forum and try to resolve them.
Mr. Harry Fix, Director of Growth
Planning, Lake County Schools, addressed the group and discussed what they have
been able to accomplish so far and what he sees in the process, as far as data
issues are concerned. He stated that the
local governments were presented with a planning document that, in many
instances, shows what the capacities of the schools will be at the end of the
five year planning horizon. He stated
that DCA has indicated that they would like to have a recent snapshot of what
the enrollments are at the present time, the number of portables at each of
those campuses, and the core capacities of each of those schools, which he elaborated
on, noting that he does not expect it to be a very large number of schools at
all.
Mr. Nabors stated that what they have
been debating and trying to get to the bottom of is which schools have core
capacity and can they agree on what that capacity is and how it will be
influenced by programs that are scheduled to be done within the planning
period. He stated that they will then have
to agree on what growth is to be expected in a five or ten year period and come
up with what additional capacity the County needs and how it fits in with what
the County currently has. He stated that
all of that is going to be based upon the level of service to be adopted,
however, noted that, if they develop a level of service that is too severe,
there is going to be a problem, in terms of concurrency management, so they
need to get that data, so that they can make an intelligent decision on where
the concurrency management areas will be.
He stated that he hoped the group could resolve any disagreements
regarding the interlocal agreement, so that they can make some decisions.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County
Manager, stated that staff went through a rather extensive brief on what the
County’s population projections were, noting that they have been in the
process, over the last 18 months, of updating the County’s Comprehensive Plan,
and, as part of that effort, they had to look at the demographics that are in
place and what they project will change over the next 20 years. He stated that the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida produces low, medium, and
high population projections that the State uses as official numbers and, over
the course of the last few months, staff has taken an average of the medium and
high numbers and come up with a population projection of approximately 460,000
people over the next 20 years, which they presented to the State, for approval. He noted that the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) used that figure last month for their transportation plan,
because they believe it is reasonably accurate.
He stated that, looking at the five year plan for the School Board, the
population projection is approximately 422,000, which would equate somewhat to
the BEBR low number, although it is a little bit higher than that. He stated that one of the things the group
really needs to iron out is what they feel the population is going to be in 20
years, noting that nobody knows for certain, so their projection would just be
a guess. He stated that, while discussing
the issue at the last meeting and presenting the methodology, a number of the
cities questioned whether there might be some double counting. He stated that, in breaking it down into
municipalities, they projected a total of 520,000 people in 20 years, so it appears
there is some double counting, which he elaborated on, noting that it
stimulated a good discussion on core capacity and the actual capacity of
student stations. He stated that the
number that is published is not always what the actual capacity is, which is
one of the reasons why staff wants to know on a given date enrollment figures and
the actual capacity of both student stations and core capacity, noting that it
is an issue of concern to everyone. He
stated that there are significant discrepancies that have to be resolved, so
that staff can come up with a base line and project into the future. He stated that staff has significant concerns
about capacity projections and enrollment, with regard to the five year master
facilities plan, noting that there are inconsistencies in the document, so
staff does not know what is counted and what is not counted. He stated that there are some schools that
are not counted that staff knows exist and some schools that are double counted
in other tables, so they are going through them one by one and identifying what
the discrepancies are, which will allow them to take a serious look at what the
needs actually are.
Mr. Johnson stated that the numbers constantly
change for different reasons, such as the fact that a school had capacity,
because it was under construction at the time, or a school had capacity,
because it was before a class size amendment, etc. He stated that the School Board agreed they
would recreate a recent point in time and get everybody the FISH capacity in
the classrooms, the core capacity of the schools, the number of portables that
were at a school, the number of portables that were being used for classrooms,
and the population of the schools at that particular time, which they hope will
eliminate the issue about the numbers being inconsistent.
Mr. Nabors stated that one of the things
the group is going to have to do is come up with a process to determine student
generation figures within a geographic area and whether there are areas in
which the students generated are less than other areas, which will influence
how big the concurrency management areas will be. He stated that staff has talked about the
fact that, once the group develops a plan and agrees on what they think the
population and student generation is going to be and where they think the
concurrency management areas will be, they need to have in place a process
review, to see if their thinking is correct, as population occurs, noting that
one can only predict so far into the future.
Commr. Hanson stated that information
contained in MyRegion.org indicates that the County’s population will be
doubled in 15 years, but staff has determined that it will be doubled in 20
years, which could make a significant difference.
Mr. Welstead stated that DCA has put
together a consortium of consultants who are in the process of developing a
number of models that will identify what student enrollment projections might
be, depending on the type of house that is built, noting that there is
discussion about whether an apartment generates more children, or a single
family dwelling.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they should try
to keep the projections high, noting that, if they project too few students,
the entire plan will become worthless.
He stated that, if they use a worse case scenario, there will at least
be a plan in place to deal with it.
Mr. Nabors stated that one of the
difficult issues around the State is the data issue - getting a feel for what a
realistic population figure is, what the existing capacity is, and what ability
there is to pay for participating roads.
He stated that they need to come to an understanding about what they
think a realistic population is going to be and then have in place a system
where it can be tested, noting that it can be revised over time and the
County’s Capital Improvement Plan can be adjusted. He stated that what they need to do is get
the best figures they can, in terms of what they think the population will be,
and develop a process for measuring it, to see if it turns out to be more or
less, based upon the real world and what is happening.
Superintendent Cowin stated that, in
listening to the discussion this date, she saw three major issues that the
group should consider, being: (1) The
student population that is generated by the actual growth; (2) the cost of that
student population; and (3) a quality of life issue, as to whether or not they
want to have the amount of people in the County that is being projected, which
she elaborated on. She stated that it
needs to be decided how much overall growth the County wants and the people who
are best able to answer that are the County Commissioners, who evaluate the County’s
economic benefit to the number of people that are physically within the
County. She stated that the group has to
look at the three issues she alluded to earlier and decide what kind of future
they want for Lake County – is it okay to meet the cost of development and
still have the growth? She stated that
that is the emotional issue that has to be addressed. She stated that she wants people to recognize
those facts, because there has been so much written in the newspapers and so
much out there that growth pays for itself, or growth is not paying for itself,
or the population is growing so badly that the County cannot keep up, so it
needs to stop growth. She stated that
the bottom line is how much the County wants to do – does it want to contain
the cities, much like those in England, where each town has a boundary, or do
they want to have the boundaries merge one into another. She stated that those are key issues that are
part of this plan and she hoped the group would address them.
Mr. Nabors stated that he would
recommend the group deal with deficits in the interlocal agreement – what
problems they have and what they need to focus more time on at their next
meeting. He stated that they should
break out into groups, identify the issues, and try to develop a
consensus. He stated that, currently,
there are meetings scheduled for January 23 and February 6, 2006, and, unless
he hears anything different, he will assume that they will be dealing with
three issues, being: (1) the interlocal agreement and problems they have with
it; (2) the conflict resolution; and (3) the oversight committee.
Mr. Strong questioned whether Mr.
Nabors felt the end result would be the adoption of an interlocal agreement and
whether it would happen ahead of the State mandated time line, to which he
responded that he did not know, but that his objective was to try to meet that
goal. He stated that he feels the group
will come to some type of an agreement on the non-data issues, however, pointed
out the fact that he feels they may have to have several meetings to resolve
some of the issues in the interlocal agreement.
He stated that the other question is how accurate the data is and how
quickly the County can develop the Capital Improvement Element.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there is a
clear intent by the Board of County Commissioners to have the Comprehensive
Plan adopted, in accordance with the contract schedule, which is this
year. He stated that this was not just
an exercise to get money from the State, but a real commitment to complete the
process as quickly as possible.
Mr. Nabors stated that his goal was
to try to facilitate the data, so that the County can make decisions within
that time frame. He stated that they
could probably have a report from staff on where they are on the issues, in
terms of data, but he does not feel they will have everything resolved by that
time.
Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager,
City of Clermont, addressed the group and discussed population projections,
noting that comments were made that the current Comprehensive Plan reflects
population projections, however, pointed out the fact that those projections
were based on what happened in the past.
He stated that there is probably some double counting going on, noting
that the City of Clermont has done population projections for the JPA and they
have not gotten up to the number that is indicated for Clermont. He stated that, if the County is using those
JPAs, because they are incorporated, there is definitely some double counting
going on. He stated that the statement
that population projections are reflective of the current Comprehensive Plan is
not really accurate, noting that he feels it overstates the population
projections, and he feels it is extremely important to have the right numbers,
when discussing what the County is going to do.
Mr. Nabors stated that there are
three things that the group has got to have and the more accurate the better,
being: (1) where the population is
occurring; (2) what the current capacity is; and (3) what the County can afford
to provide. He stated that everybody
needs to give their input, so that, if they are making mistakes, they can see
what they are.
Commr. Hanson stated that many of the
developments that have occurred in the unincorporated area were approved prior
to the existing Comprehensive Plan, which was approved in 1992, and that the
percentage of homes increasing in the unincorporated area is probably
decreasing. She stated that it was a
twist that needed to be included in the evaluation of the numbers.
Ms. Renick stated that something the
cities talked a lot about was whether they were going to look at things
district-wide, or whether they were going to go to the smaller concurrency
areas, and questioned whether it was something that could be discussed this
date.
Mr. Nabors stated that the group
could talk about the matter philosophically, but he feels it is going to be
driven by where the schools are with existing capacity and where the population
is going to occur. He stated that it
would be hard to make that decision, until the group gets the data.
Ms. Renick stated that they could
agree whether they were going to look at things district-wide, or whether they were
going to look at smaller concurrency areas, and questioned whether they could
at least accomplish that this date. She
stated that she realized a lot goes into determining what those different concurrency
areas are going to be and the group did not have the data to do that this date,
but wondered whether there was any feeling for going countywide.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he
supports doing it by districts and hopes the group will be able to come back
with information saying that he is right and they can do it that way, however,
noted that they may come back saying that it is not going to work.
Mr. Nabors stated that, according to the
way that the law reads, the County only has the ability to do district-wide for
three years. He stated that there is a
movement toward concurrency management areas, but he feels the general
philosophy around the State is whether it works.
Mr. Johnson stated that the School
Board also favors concurrency areas, but they want to make sure that the
nuances do not impact it negatively, based upon whatever data comes in.
Ms. Renick stated that, if they are
all headed that way, it gives staff direction and they could start looking at
presenting the cities with what the problems are going to be, to help them
decide what data to present to the County.
Mr. Nabors stated that he was going
to schedule the next meeting, to be held January 23, 2006, at Lake Receptions,
at which time it was noted that the group would rather hold the meetings in the
Magnolia Room at Lake-Sumter Community College, because it was more centrally
located. He stated that he would try to
set the meetings for the Magnolia Room, but would let the group know whether it
would be possible or not. He reviewed those
things that he would like for the group to try to accomplish at said meeting
and noted that he would be giving them a report about what has been done so far.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
__________________________
JENNIFER
HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK