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.
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
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK