A
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
THE
LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
JANUARY
23, 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 Monday, January 23, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., in the Magnolia Room, Lake-Sumter
Community College, Leesburg, Florida, to discuss school concurrency.
Commissioners present at the meeting were Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton
G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; Debbie Stivender; and Robert A. Pool.
Others present for Lake County were: Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney; Cindy
Hall, County Manager; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager; Carol Stricklin,
Growth Management Director; Amye King, Assistant Growth Management Director; Anna
Ely, Public Hearing Coordinator, Department of Growth Management; and Judy
Whaley, Deputy Clerk.
The Lake County Schools were represented by School Board Members
Larry Metz, Vice Chairman; Becky Elswick; Kyleen Fischer; and Scott Strong; and
by Superintendent Anna Cowin, Attorney Steve Johnson, and Harry Fix, Director
of Growth Planning.
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; Sharon Kelly, City of Fruitland Park; Teresa
Greenham, City of Groveland; Bonnie Nebel, Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; Laura McElhanon,
City of Leesburg; Janet Shira, City of Mascotte; Mark Reggentin, City of Mount
Dora; Nancy Clutts, City of Tavares; and Tim Scobie and Leslie Campione, City
of Umatilla. No one was present representing the Town of Lady Lake.
Commissioner Hanson called the meeting to order, called the
roll, and turned the meeting over to the joint meeting facilitator, Robert
Nabors, Esq., Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson P.A.
Mr. Nabors stated that discussion today will include some of
the issues in the interlocal agreement, some new issues that are not data
related, what is happening with County, School Board and municipalities’ staff
and suggestions for proceeding. He explained that the interlocal agreement that
was distributed at the last meeting tried to deal with the issues of school
siting, infrastructure requirements and joint use/colocation of facilities. He
stressed that this interlocal agreement was never intended to be a final
document.
Ms. Elswick commented that it is important that population
projections and figures are updated in the interlocal agreement each time there
is an amendment to a comprehensive plan or a land use change instead of being
done periodically. She stated that the School Board needs help with the current
overall population projections. She opined that regional coordination and
cooperation is important too.
Mr. Jerry W. Cox, M.Ed., consultant for the municipalities, stated
that the municipalities’ position is that they prefer to confine joint use to
athletic fields, outside recreational areas, parking lots and other such areas.
If there is a desire between the School Board and the municipalities or the
County, a separate agreement between them could be allowed. He commented that County
Attorney Sandy Minkoff included something to that effect in the interlocal
agreement. On school siting, the municipalities prefer not to allow public
school zoning in every zoning category. He explained that many of the
municipalities felt that their projections, on the city level, were not used in
calculating the overall County populations and that they should have been used.
On student calculations, the group agreed to use what is used for the student
generation and impact fee study.
Mr. Nabors stated that DCA (Department of Community Affairs)
had a deadline for submitting the interlocal agreement. He reiterated that the
agreement was never intended to be a final document.
Mr. Tim Green, representing the Town of Astatula, the City
of Minneola and the Town of Montverde, further explained that Mr. Minkoff used
the existing interlocal agreement between the cities, Lake County and the
School Board and added Sections 3 and 7.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there was any discussion on the
cities’ part on how elementary and middle schools were separated from high
schools. High schools would still go through the full zoning but elementary and
middle schools would be allowed in any zoning.
Mr. Cox indicated that the municipalities did not discuss
that issue.
Ms. Teresa Greenham, representing the City of Groveland,
stated that the cities’ view was that none of the schools would be allowed everywhere.
At last week’s meeting, they were concerned about the format of this interlocal
agreement and much preferred using the Palm Beach County model as a starting
point rather than the old interlocal agreement.
Mr. Nabors suggested that the interlocal agreement would be
divided into two categories. One category would be those provisions that are
essential to the CIP (capital improvement plan), like level of service and
concurrency management areas, growth and population. The other issues, such as
joint use/colocation, oversight committee and dispute, stand on their own and
could be resolved while awaiting resolution of the critical issues in the CIP.
Mr. Nabors asked if anyone has any strong policy position or
thinking on the oversight committee or what kind of dispute resolution should
be used. He stated that there is a lot of feeling around the state that the
current dispute resolution provisions in Chapters 164 and 186, Florida Statutes,
do not work well.
In response to a question by Mr. Cox as to whether the Palm
Beach technical advisory committee (TAC) meets the criteria for the oversight
committee, Mr. Nabors opined that it would. Mr. Cox remarked that they were
impressed with the way it was set up. On the dispute resolution, he stated that
his group has concluded that the attorneys will have to deal with it in terms
of following the law.
Mr. Steve Johnson, Attorney, Lake County Schools, explained
that the requirements of the statute are not very detailed. For the oversight
committee, the only requirement is to adopt a process for the implementation of
the agreement, including an opportunity for public participation. For the
dispute resolution, the requirement is to adopt a procedure for the resolution
of disputes, between the district school board and the local governments, which
may contain the statutory provisions that exist but do not have to.
Ms. Elaine Renick, City of Clermont Council Member, stated
that some people talk about the oversight committee and the technical advisory committee
(TAC) as if they are the same thing. She opined that they are two different
things. She understands the TAC to be a committee that looks at the School
Board’s capital improvement plan.
Mr. Nabors opined that it is what the group wants to craft.
For example, a TAC could make sure there is common agreement on the technical
requirements. An oversight committee might periodically see what is working and
what is not and what changes might need to be made in the whole process. He
stated that we are trying to develop a complex comprehensive planning process
in a very short period of time. The only model is Palm Beach County’s and it
took years to develop. He agreed that oversight might be on two levels. One
would be technical, like population, and there might be an oversight committee
just on other policy in terms of communication and other things.
Ms. Renick commented that she thought the oversight
committee would look more at the interlocal agreement and how the interlocal
agreement and school concurrency were working. She thinks the Palm Beach TAC is
very specific to looking at the capital improvement plan.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney for the City of Umatilla, commented
that there was some confusion because they were looking at the agreement sent
to Tallahassee with the old language for the overall process, as opposed to
what Palm Beach County had done which seems to be a good mechanism to have some
type of TAC that actually looked at the technical side. She agreed that it
probably is a good idea to have both.
School Board Member Scott Strong expressed concern that the
Palm Beach document is extremely lengthy and wordy. The summation of the
document, basically, is that they had a growth issue and they came to agreement
by dedicating a certain percentage of all revenue toward any new capacity. He
remarked that many of the high-growth cities would love that idea. Some recent
criticism of the School Board is that they renovated high schools and middle
schools in Umatilla, Leesburg, Tavares and Mount Dora and did not significantly
add capacity. Some would say we already have a school in place but that does
not address the tremendous inequities and limitations of those facilities. The
Palm Beach plan provided a framework that would not address those inequities
but would just add capacity. He stated that his Board feels differently and
believes there should be some equitable distribution of resources and the older
facilities should not be left out just for the sake of growth. He stated that,
in Palm Beach, not a single development was disapproved based on that plan. All
they did was force the school system to spend money strictly on new capacity.
Mr. Strong stated that he does not believe that plan was better for Palm Beach
County.
Mr. Nabors stated that this will be a Lake County plan which
will be tailor made. When going through the five-year plan each year, a policy
decision will be made on how much will be spent for renovation/replacement and how
much will be spent on new capacity. He stated that Orange County passed a
half-cent sales tax with all of the money dedicated to renewal and replacement
of existing schools. Those policies are now more interrelated decisions than
they were a year ago because there is a vested interest by cities and counties
in providing new capacity if they want a certain amount of growth to occur.
That balance will have to be resolved, whether artificially, such as Palm Beach
County did, or by some other method.
Mr. Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning, Lake County
Schools, remarked that, in Palm Beach County, the IPARC (Intergovernmental Plan
Amendment Review Committee) was part of an oversight that all the governments
had. He stated that he pulled that out of the draft that was given to Mr. Cox because
there is no IPARC here to refer to. In Palm Beach County, their concurrency was
never set up to stop or impede development. They had gone through a massive
renovation program for all their eastern schools. He stated that they then said
only up to a certain amount, possibly one-third, of their capital dollars could
be spent on renovations. He further explained that a lot of older schools that
were rebuilt needed to be expanded so they worked around it. Their board
adopted a policy that any facility, about 30 years old or older, would be
reviewed to determine if it should be replaced or modernized. He added that it
is driven toward growth.
Ms. Renick clarified that she agrees with everything Mr.
Strong said. For instance, the school in Umatilla should not be gypped because land
use decisions in another part of the County are not good. She stated that they
were looking for a template or starting place to work from instead of a blank
sheet of paper. She noted that Mr. Green said the Palm Beach document met nine
out of nine requirements while the Lake County interlocal agreement meets one
out of nine. She explained that she had the draft that was prepared by Mr. Fix while
some of the group had the Palm Beach County draft.
Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Fix prepared a draft of a
document that may not have been circulated to everybody and it was not intended
that it would be the document that would be used. He explained that the County
Attorney submitted a document by a certain date in order to maintain funding
for all of the consultants and he used the current interlocal agreement, the
one that we are supposed to be operating under, and took out the two sections
dealing with use of facilities and colocation and added new language. Mr.
Johnson reiterated that it was not intended to be the final document. He stated
that he has taken the position from the beginning that he does not think any
language can be agreed upon until all the issues have been discussed because
they all interrelate. He opined that the group is together today to talk about
dispute resolution and oversight. The language is open to how everyone agrees
to want to do it.
Regarding the issue of the balance between
renewal/renovation and permanent facilities, Mr. Nabors stated that there will
be a constant debate on all capital improvement plans because school districts
have limited money for capital until something happens in Tallahassee. That
renewal/replacement dance is also in the impact fee study. How much new
capacity is going to be created in a projected period in order to deal with
growth projection is a serious issue and cannot be resolved around this table.
The issue will be resolved in the data along with the policy considerations of
the School Board.
Mr. Larry Metz, Vice Chairman, Lake County School Board, agreed
that we do not want to be married to the old interlocal agreement as we go
forward. He stated that the new agreement should start with a definition
section with terms specifically defined, either by reference to the statutory
definition or with a new definition. He stated that we ought to address in the
agreement, and be able to agree on, what the data is going to be and the
process for obtaining and analyzing and using the data. He suggested that we
try to develop a draft working document that addresses some of these issues,
putting in the easy issues now and identifying the areas that need further
discussion.
Mr. Nabors stated that in trying to put this in perspective
a lot of the issues, like level of service, have to be in the interlocal
agreement but cannot be resolved until we go through some of the data. It is
always good to look at what is on paper and what was agreed to in the past. In
reality, the existing interlocal agreements do not have a lot of teeth and were
done to establish a dialogue. The interlocal agreement for this process will be
very specific on a lot of issues and will drive a lot of policy considerations
depending on how specific it is. We are trying to develop a process that
evolves into that specificity.
Mr. Johnson explained that the School District hopes to give
a snapshot of one day, probably in February. Specific data will be provided on
what the student population is for that day, what the FISH (Florida Inventory
of School Houses) capacity is, how many portables are at each school, how many
of those are being used for classrooms, the maximum capacity for the
cafeterias, and the maximum capacity for the other facilities. He stated that,
after going through the data from staff, it is easy to understand how you look
at different numbers from different days on different topics and say, “Well,
these aren’t consistent.” That is because the Department of Education has made
an exception to every rule and an exception to every exception about how these
things are reported. As you look at them, you end up with more adaptations than
you do actual data and information. He added that, with the snapshot of that
one day, the group will have a good idea of what the overcrowding situation is
around the County. Mr. Johnson stated that he will make a formal, written
request for information from the County and the cities pertaining to properties
that are available and can be built on now without needing further approval
from the County or the cities. He will also ask the County and the cities to
estimate information about upcoming developments.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, advised that he
and Mr. Johnson talked about that request this morning. Like the definition of
capacity, knowing whether or not a lot is developable today is a question we
have to ensure we are standard on so that we can give a good response.
Commr. Hanson stated that the 55 acres in east Lake County, the
location of Seminole Springs Elementary School, was approved about twenty years
ago for a high school, a middle school and an elementary school.
Mr. Nabors stated that knowing build-out projections for recently
approved major projects might be helpful.
Ms. Kyleen Fischer, Lake County School Board, stated that is
exactly the kind of information that is needed.
Mr. Nabors stated that one difficulty, statewide, is that there
is an inventory of lands as permitted for residential use, some old plats that
are not hot yet, and then there is a category of projects that have been
recently approved that are hot and will be developed unless the economy
changes. The second category is more meaningful in terms of trying to predict
what will happen over a five or ten-year period. In the interlocal agreement, one
of the things that has to be talked about is what kind of process will there be
early on to comment on new major rezonings between the School Board and the
County.
Commr. Stivender stated that information would be easy to
get but projects from the past, like lot splits, family lot splits, and the
lots of record will have to be looked at. That research will have to go back to
1959 when zoning began.
Mr. Strong explained that they are trying to provide a
blueprint of the future. He expressed concern that, when talking about cities,
there is almost an ownership process but the School District wants a countywide
system. If there are certain levels of service that are disproportionate, we
have to solve that problem, more than likely through rezoning. He stated that
the School Board just spent several hundred thousand dollars with TischlerBise
(formerly Tischler & Associates, Inc.) to provide projections for the next
twenty years.
Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, stated that
the long-range traffic zone projections that are being used for the
comprehensive plan update incorporate specific knowledge about where those
approved projects are. In a sense, that is already built in to those small area
traffic zone projections. Detailed projections to 2025 take into account the
cities’ future land uses. She opined that the County can provide the list of
those vested projects. She agreed that, although some have been on the books
for twenty years, it does not mean that there is necessarily a market for them
to build out at this time.
Mr. Strong stated that when they build out is a good
argument for the sunset provision that the School District would love to have.
For example, Sugarloaf is a ticking time bomb because the School District is
responsible to provide a student station the moment that development goes in.
He stated that they are trying to provide better data so they can be more
responsive. He pointed out that the request for data is to all the cities, not
just the County. The culmination of those numbers will be a student generation
rate and a projection.
In talking about the balance between how capital money will
be spent between permanent capacity and renewal/replacement, Mr. Nabors
observed that the other dynamic, which is so critical, is accurate population
projection and where the growth will occur and to what extent.
At this time, Mr. Gene Boles, AICP, Community Outreach
Partnership Program, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of
Florida (UF), who is under contract with Lake County, stated that he and Mr.
Mike Brown, AICP, President, Transportation Planning Services, Inc., will show
a framework for data management to use to build upon the existing data. It
provides for an opportunity to address the data issues on an ongoing basis that
are of concern. He stressed that they have only just begun their review and it
is based on the traffic zone data the County has developed. He added that Lake
County recently went through an extensive review of population projections and
projected that out on a traffic-zone basis. Mr. Boles explained that Mr. Brown,
who is also affiliated with the UF Department of Urban and Regional Planning, developed
the Urban Land Use Allocation Model (ULAM). It was developed for transportation
planning and it has a school enrollment component to it.
Mr. Brown stated that his presentation is an example of one
methodology for dealing with the issue of projecting school populations and
school enrollment. It has been used in other parts of the state and is tied
directly to transportation zone data which is developed for long-range
transportation planning. One advantage of doing that is for legal defensibility
in terms of a concurrency management system and applying exactly the same data
and same methodology for transportation. If a building permit is not issued
because of school concurrency, there is something to fall back on. He discussed
various maps and charts of school boundaries and different data sets.
Mr. Boles commented that the data being shown is existing GIS
information and both the County and School District have this capability.
Ms. Cowin pointed out that the data is not current and Mr.
Welstead confirmed that the data is from the Department of Education web site.
Mr. Boles stated that the purpose of the presentation is to
illustrate a framework for managing the data. He confirmed for Ms. Cowin that he
can take the snapshot data and input it into this format. He stressed that they
have only been involved about two weeks. He asked the group to focus on the
concept. He explained that the issue faced by everyone in the state is how to
start to bring schools’ data together with growth management data and do it in
a way that can be managed over time.
Ms. Cowin stated that the County should provide the School
Board with a snapshot of one day with their data, perhaps even on the same day.
The data for that one day can be correlated, understanding that there is a
factor of change on both sides.
Mr. Boles stated that they consistently have found that capital
outlay full-time equivalent projections made by the Department of Education are
almost never the same as BEBR (Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the
University of Florida) because they use different methodologies. The BEBR median
is used unless a county or municipality can show that there is a reason for a
different number. Lake County had recently demonstrated to the DCA that Lake
County’s numbers should be higher and there actually is a population projection
that is between the median BEBR number and the high. He stated that we need to
know what is happening in the way of development on the ground to understand what
will happen with schools. He stated that we do have much of this data but the
task is that it has to be brought together.
Mr. Brown continued his presentation by discussing traffic
zones, the process for projecting school population, and magnet/charter schools.
Mr. Strong stated that Will Davis of LPG Urban &
Regional Planners, Inc. provided the School Board with actual student numbers
for individual houses, density projections and the student generation rate to
get an accurate, actual model projected out to 2025. He asked why the most
accurate model with the specific intent for student generation rate should not
be used rather than trying to generate information through traffic data. He
added that the 55+ communities could be filtered out in that process.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc., confirmed
that a lot of the data has been completed and the School Board has the
information in-house. He stated that the cities can get access to it if they
choose. He stated that Mr. Davis agreed that it is possible to break it down to
the high school level, and all the feeder schools, all the way to 2025. He
stated that the information Mr. Davis used included elementary school students
and how that filters to middle schools and to high schools; and he looked at
growth projections based on the current future land use map.
Mr. Brown responded that this is only an example of what was
used elsewhere. He explained that one reason for using his process is that it includes
consistency with what is being used for the transportation planning process. This
application was developed in conjunction with the land use model and they are
constantly evaluating different land use alternatives, evaluating how changes
in land use policy will impact transportation, and impact the need for
additional schools and so forth. He stated that we need a process that is
fairly dynamic that can be quickly recalculated if comprehensive plan
amendments are allowed in an area and how that will redistribute or change the
need for roads or schools. He stated that there is no reason why some of the
LPG methodology and data cannot be incorporated in this process.
Mr. Beliveau pointed out that the Tischler consultant
already has built-in templates that do exactly what Mr. Brown suggested. They
prorate, look at what changes are occurring and can update data on an annual
basis. He stated that the School Board has that ability on their existing
software.
Mr. Boles stated that they understand those capabilities are
there. The data has to be looked at in two directions. One is the control total
in terms of what the projection is and how that steps down to traffic total
levels. He stated that they believe that the underlying data, described by Mr.
Beliveau, should be developed as precisely as possible. That allows the
information to be improved at this level. The School Board does have partial
data with combined information from the School Board, the County and
municipalities and has the ability to be fairly precise in particular areas
about what the relationship of how the units in particular are to student
generation multipliers. The better that information is, the better this
information will be but we have to come at it from both directions. For
example, information about where students live is available. Information in tax
files tells how many bedrooms are in a home and what living space is. In
looking at the impact fee analysis, you try to get a correlation, a student
generation multiplier, which is by type of unit because that is the way impact
fees are applied. In the planning process, we have to know what a single family
home, or multi-family home, is likely to produce in the way of a student
multiplier. Adult-restricted communities do not have the same effect. There
needs to be a way to manage both the control totals at the County level and
down to traffic zones and a way to manage, on a more precise level, as would be
used in a development review process. He stated that we are not talking about
conflicts, we are talking about two systems that work in tandem.
Ms. Cowin suggested that the consultants could meet to come
up with one unified approach, whether it be a framework from the University or
the framework of LPG. We need one set of data in the form that all of us agree on,
otherwise, we will be competing with each other and that is not the intention
of this group.
Mr. Nabors opined that we are in a different phase now in
terms of these meetings. He suggested breaking down into three committees in an
effort to start developing common data and common policies. He suggested an
interlocal agreement committee, a capital improvement element committee and a proportionate
share committee. He suggested that the committees be mostly staff and consultants.
The County, School District and cities could appoint staff to deal with these
committees to try to work on language and issues and see where the differences
are. Then the consultants can meet to get a common understanding of what data
we will have in order to drive the ultimate decision. Mr. Boles is trying to
show what is available in terms of tools and Mr. Beliveau is talking about many
other things we can overlay on that to get better data. The better data we get
the better decision we will make. He suggested that the interlocal agreement
committee can deal with those issues that are not data sensitive that we have
been debating in terms of getting a new interlocal agreement. He suggested that
the capital improvement element committee can deal with things like population
projections, projections of revenue, policies in terms of renewal/replacement
and capital. It can deal with what the existing capacity is and where it is. Then,
we can see where the common understanding is, where the differences are, and
then bring that back to this group for resolution.
Mr. Boles stated that their task, as they understand it, is
to help reconcile the various numbers into a common projection, not to
challenge them. They realize that there are different methodologies that are
used, not that there is a different intent. He stated that the numbers do not
match up in many cases and we need to understand why they do not. Some numbers are
better than others.
Mr. Nabors stated that the capital improvement committee
would help everybody. It can tell us what we know and what we do not know that
we need to know. All will be driven by population projections of existing
capacity and revenue projections. The committee would be composed of the
consultants and representatives of staff, hopefully two from the cities, two
from the county and two from the School District. He stated that the interlocal
agreement committee could be the same staff people and will start working on
the language that is not data specific. If we cannot resolve the issues at that
level, we will identify the differences and bring them back to this joint group
to resolve. If the joint group cannot resolve the differences, we will have to
figure out where we go from there, either some mediation process or something
else. He opined that if we continue to meet like this we will run out of things
to say although these meetings have been helpful because we have talked about
issues. Once we get all the consultants’ ideas together, hopefully, the
differences will pop out and we can focus our discussions on how we will deal
with the new growth committee.
Ms. Janet Shira, representing the City of Mascotte, expressed
concern with three more committees. She stated that she is already meeting with
the city, the planners’ group and this joint group. She stated that some of the
cities feel strongly enough that they want to be at every meeting. She asked if
the new committees will meet simultaneously and if they will take the place of
the current staff meetings.
Mr. Nabors confirmed that there would not be any more staff
meetings. He envisions that the cities would have representatives at the
committee meetings. As questions come up, they could direct the staff committee
to try to develop answers. He envisions that the three committees will be
working in parallel and their work product would be brought to the joint group
to make decisions. He explained that the capital improvement element committee
could be called a technical data committee. The proportionate share committee
can, down the line, deal with those issues. He stated that the consultants can
probably raise all the issues needed to get the data straight.
Mr. Johnson stated that the planners’ group should not be
continued unless there is some issue that everyone needs to deal with. He
opined that the committee meetings would have to be at separate times if some
of the same people are on all three committees. He understands that the group
that met this morning wants everyone to sign off that that is an acceptable way
to proceed. We would set up the meetings and the County, School Board and
municipalities would choose staff representatives.
Ms. Cowin asked who will pay LPG and Deanna Newman if they
come to the meetings.
Mr. Nabors suggested that, if we have a coordinated
consultant approach, money will be saved and a lot of this can be done by
conference calls. If he is needed at a committee meeting, he envisions doing a
conference call to the extent that he can.
Ms. Nancy Clutts, Mayor of Tavares, expressed concern at
being able to handle fourteen municipalities with one senior planner at three
meetings before the next concurrency meeting.
Mr. Nabors advised that the joint concurrency meetings would
be slowed down, making sure that, as these committees get their work product,
they have sufficient time to go back to their boards and commissions. He
suggested that he will not call another joint meeting until the committees have
a chance to work a while and then tell us we need another joint meeting. He
suggested leaving the timing of the committee meetings to staff. The
proportionate share committee is more of a technical committee that will not
need to meet as frequently as the other two committees. He stated that we need
to get some staff consensus on where the differences are on the basic language
in the interlocal agreement and the things that do not affect the data. With
staff and the consultants meeting, we can learn what is in agreement on the
data and try to solve any problems. If there is disagreement, we have a joint
meeting of the elected officials and try to resolve it. When the committee is
ready to make a report, we will have a joint meeting.
Mr. Johnson stressed that it will be very important for the
staff members to report back on a regular basis to their city commissions and
the County and the School Board to make sure everyone agrees with their work
product.
Mr. Nabors opined that the only way the group, collectively,
will come to agreement is have a collective staff group that walks through
these language issues in the interlocal agreement and walks through the data
issues and they can communicate back to their respective board and we can see
what kind of agreement we can reach at this level, particularly on the data
issues. He reiterated that, when we cannot reach agreements on some issues, we
have to bring the joint group together to try to resolve them.
Ms. Renick agreed that she would like to try it that way. She
does not think these joint meetings are productive and that we have not moved
forward in these big meetings.
Mr. Nabors, in defense of the time spent, stated that people
have been talking. He believes that once there is an agreement on the data by
the consultants, a lot of obvious solutions will jump out. He envisions that two
of the committees would meet as often as staff and the consultants would want
to in trying to get consensus. The proportionate share committee can wait a
while. That will be more important once the capital improvement plan is done.
Regarding the time frame, Mr. Nabors stated that he will communicate by e-mail.
He would like to not schedule any more joint meetings at this time but would
want to have staff meet. He will work with staff in terms of the time frame to
get back together. Within about three or four weeks, he will start sending out
a series of dates for joint meetings.
Commr. Hanson confirmed with the group that everyone is in
agreement with Mr. Nabors’ suggestions.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
__________________________________
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK