A
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
THE
LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
JULY
27, 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 Thursday, July 27, 2006, at 1:00 p.m., at Lake Receptions, Mount Dora,
Florida, to discuss school concurrency. Commissioners present at the meeting
were Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer
Hill; Robert A. Pool and Debbie Stivender. Others present for Lake County were:
Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County
Manager; Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director; Brenda DeMartino, Department
of Growth Management; and Judy McAuley, Deputy Clerk.
The Lake County Schools were represented by School Board Members
Jimmy Conner, Chairman; Larry Metz, Vice Chairman; Becky Elswick; 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; Greg Beliveau, City of Fruitland Park; Teresa
Greenham, City of Groveland; Bonnie Nebel, Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; Janet
Shira, Town of Howey-in-the-Hills and City of Mascotte; Sanna Henderson, City
of Leesburg; Melissa DeMarco, City of Mount Dora; Nancy Clutts, City of Tavares;
Attorney Leslie Campione, City of Umatilla; and Jerry Cox, M.Ed., consultant
for the municipalities.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Hanson called the meeting to order and asked
the participants/representatives to introduce themselves.
I. DISCUSSION/ADOPTION OF CONCURRENCY SERVICE AREA (CSA) MAP
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, referred to the concurrency
service area (CSA) map and additional information which is included in the
backup material. He stated that statutes require the parties to develop
concurrency on some geographic basis. The option of measuring concurrency is
given either on a district-wide basis or delineating “concurrency service
areas.” In the event concurrency was initially based district-wide, we were
required to transition to a system of concurrency service areas within three
years after adoption. Due to the nature of overcrowding and imbalance between
schools in different parts of the County, this group decided to go straight to
concurrency service areas in an attempt to address localized problems more rapidly.
Mr. Welstead explained that initial discussions centered on
using existing attendance zones but this caused concern about bootstrapping
available seats in one area of the County to allow development in an
overcrowded area. Instead of using the attendance zones, an alternative was
developed several months ago that divided the County into smaller areas. He
stated that the map presented today contains fifteen concurrency service areas
and an additional four “lake” areas. The lake areas are designed to prevent
consideration of contiguity between CSAs that require transit through another
CSA or outside the County. Each area contains at least one school with
contiguity to schools of each level.
On a motion by Commissioner Pool, seconded by School Board
Member Strong and carried unanimously, the Lake County Board of County
Commissioners, the Lake County School Board and the Lake County Municipalities
adopted the Concurrency Service Area (CSA) Map as presented.
II. SERVICE LEVEL DISCUSSION/AGREEMENT
Mr. Welstead explained that we are required to establish a
service level for concurrency that is financially feasible. At one of the past
meetings, discussion led to a suggestion that a service level of 125% of
permanent FISH (Florida Inventory of School Houses) capacity would be
acceptable. During discussion, it was refined and suggested that 125% of FISH
should apply only to schools where excess core capacity was available to serve
the student population. What is proposed for adoption today, and was discussed
by the School Board July 24, is a level of service (LOS) equaling 100% of
permanent FISH capacity, with provisions to accept temporary student stations
up to 125% of FISH capacity where dining capacity (core facility capacity)
exceeds FISH capacity.
On a motion by Commissioner Cadwell, seconded by Mr. Green
and carried unanimously, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, the
Lake County School Board and the Lake County Municipalities approved a level of
service (LOS) equaling 100% of permanent FISH capacity, with provisions to
accept temporary student stations up to 125% of FISH capacity where dining
capacity (core facility capacity) exceeds FISH capacity.
III. CHARTER SCHOOL INCLUSION
Mr. Welstead stated that the Florida Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) has “mandated” that capacity/enrollment of non-conversion
charters be included for purposes of determining concurrency. DCA has allowed
that some of these charters established as special purpose charters (e.g.,
National Deaf Academy or DOJ/DCF-chartered schools) need not be included.
Several of the municipalities are either actively pursuing city-chartered
schools or are considering their use in the future. The cities want to ensure
their efforts in this area are considered to provide for future development
opportunities within municipal boundaries. Previous discussion by the School
Board and staff has centered on the requirement to count capacity that it has
no control over and cannot assign students to. Additionally, requirements for
hurricane resistant buildings and sheltering capability, as well as the contingency
of failing charter schools and subsequent transition of both facilities and
students to traditional schools, are in question.
Mr. Welstead stated that the issue for discussion today is
whether, and how, to count these schools given the state mandate.
Mr. Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning for Lake County Schools,
explained that the School Board is laying out a capital plan and possibly has
to look to the provision of whether there is available space in the charter
schools. In some instances, the charter schools could be in business one or two
years and then be out of business. Another concern is the fact that students cannot
be assigned to non-conversion charter schools.
School Board Member Becky Elswick confirmed that the School
Board is obligated to take students that are attending a charter school that
fails.
School Board Member Strong agreed that charter schools could
be absorbed if the School Board has the ability to take over the structure.
Often, there is a financial consideration attached to it.
Superintendent Anna Cowin explained that, if a school does
not meet the AYP, students can choose to go to any school, even if it is
overcrowded. She stated that there are nine charter schools in Lake County,
four of which are conversion charters this coming year. She estimated that
there are 4,000 students in those four conversion charters.
Mr. Steve Johnson, School Board attorney, explained that the
Interlocal Agreement, as written, only includes non-charter schools. The level
of service is based on 100% of FISH capacity and non-conversion charter schools
are not included in the State FISH capacity count. He explained that anyone who
meets minimum qualifications can apply for a charter school, the State gives
them start-up money, and they start getting money through the School Board from
the State for the individual student. If that charter school fails, the School
Board did not have the ability to plan for those increases in the number of
students. He stated that the majority of students in charter schools in Lake
County are in conversion charter schools. Those are counted as part of the FISH
numbers and are not an issue. He stated that DCA has specifically said that
specialty schools, which draw students from other counties, are not included.
He stated that we are talking about non-conversion, non-specialty charter
schools, over which the School Board has no control except to monitor their financial
status from an outside position.
Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Welstead that the word “mandated”
would be in quotes because there has not been a written opinion or rule from
DCA. He added that the School Board would consider contesting such a rule because
it defeats the purpose of school concurrency. He stated that they have negotiated
through this contract from the beginning with level of service without those
charter schools being included and it is the School Board’s position that we
should continue that way and not include them until some other time that a DCA
ruling might have to be dealt with.
Mr. Jerry Cox, consultant for the cities, stated that there
is quite a bit of difference between proposed municipal charter schools and the
storefront charter schools. He stated that two or three cities are considering
building individual structures that would meet SREF (State Requirements for
Educational Facilities) standards. They do not want one city to get capacity,
turn it over to the School Board, and have all the money from the capital
outlay budget go to update that school because that would take capacity from
the adjoining municipality. He stated that he sees no reason why the schools that
are being built to SREF standards, that the School Board could assume and could
put students in if they took control, could not be counted in capacity. He
stated that the cities feel very strongly about that and would suggest to the
School Board to put a cap on the contract if they are concerned about being
able to place students in it. He opined that not counting charter school that
many of the municipalities have been planning may very well be a deal killer.
He stated that he fully understands the problems with charter schools,
particularly the storefronts, but the municipalities are planning schools in
the communities that would be comparable to what the School Board would build.
Mr. Johnson answered that the School Board has no objection,
especially with municipal charters or any other charter willing to build
schools according to the same standards, if the School Board can take over the
school and operate it without any effect on its capacity, in the event the
school fails. That is something he believes the School Board can live with and
would agree to be able to do that. Mr. Johnson confirmed that statutes do not require
that charter schools be built to State standards.
Mr. Jimmy Conner, School Board Chairman, stated that it
needs to be crystal clear in that contract that the School Board would want
some control over the physical building in the event of default.
Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed contract language will
need to be rewritten because it currently says FISH capacity. He stated that it
was understood that, not only will charter schools be built according to
standards, but, in the event of failure or closure, the School Board would take
them over. He clarified that non-conversion charter schools that are built to
SREF and Department of Education (DOE) standards will be considered as
capacity. He explained that it will not work if the school is built to SREF
standards but is built at 100% financing because the School Board would have to
essentially pay for the entire building. There will have to be some conditions
on how the financing is handled.
In response to Mr. Conner’s inquiry about why someone, perhaps
a city and a developer together, would agree to turn over a building to the
School Board, Mr. Johnson answered because they want it included in capacity.
After additional discussion, Mr. Johnson stated that the bottom line is, if the
School Board has no ability to take over that facility and operate it on an
economic basis, there is no reason for it to be included in concurrency because
we are back to square one on the five-year plan on dealing with all the
students that are in there. He confirmed that the statute says, if a school
defaults, all the equipment purchased with State money, such as books and
desks, defaults to the school district. He explained that most of the time the
facilities are built by a third party/management company and then leased to the
school to operate. He clarified that conversion schools operate as public
schools.
A motion was made by Mr. Johnson for approval to include,
for capacity purposes outside of school district owned and operated schools,
non-conversion charter schools and charter schools that agree to construct
their schools according to School Board/DOE standards that authorize in the
charter agreements for the school district to take it over and operate the
school in the event of default, as will have to be defined at a later time; at
the School Board’s discretion as to certain financing criteria that will have
to be met in order to be able to economically operate the school after it takes
it over.
A corrected motion was made by Mr. Johnson, and seconded by
Commissioner Stivender, to accept, for concurrency purposes, FISH approved
schools and seats, conversion charter schools and other charter schools that
meet the criteria outlined above.
Further discussion occurred regarding financing and schools
built through CDDs (Community Development Districts).
Commissioner Hanson stated that this issue needs to come
back to the group when final language is completed.
Mr. Johnson stated that some of these issues will be handled
in the charter contracts but there has to be some reference to them in the
Interlocal Agreement. Regarding debt, he further explained that the trick will
be sufficient language in the charter contracts that the School Board is
comfortable with the arrangement it will have with that school and that they
can be included as capacity in the interim.
Commissioner Hanson called for a vote on the corrected motion
which carried unanimously by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, the
Lake County School Board and the Lake County Municipalities.
Commissioner Hanson noted that quite a few issues have to be
addressed as the language is drafted.
IV. SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Mr. Welstead explained that, traditionally, school boards
have been exempt from local planning provisions and could place a school at
their discretion based on determined need. Once the decision was made, the
school would be built without consultation with local government. Several years
ago, state law changed and local governments now assert that schools are
required to seek local government approval for site plans and are required to
comply with zoning requirements. School boards dispute this. He stated that
today’s discussion is not centered on the validity of this requirement but the
requirement of the current school concurrency statute for the parties to
address “the need for and timing of onsite and offsite improvements to support
the proposed educational facility, including identification of the party or
parties responsible for the improvements.”
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, opined that, with a
couple of language changes to Section 4 of the Interlocal Agreement (included
in the backup material), Mr. Johnson is comfortable recommending to his clients
that they agree to go through the site plan process. The local governments
probably believe that the School Board should have to go through the site plan
process for schools that are located in their jurisdictions. He remarked that
school boards throughout the state contest that but this is one case where the
Attorney General agrees with local governments. He stated that the statute
specifically requires, in this agreement, to determine the need and the timing
for both onsite and offsite improvements to support new schools. The process of
how to pay for those has to be identified. He opined that this item probably is
on the agenda so that Mr. Johnson can make sure his clients are okay with the
wording changes to agree to go through with that.
Mr. Johnson stated that he discussed with the School Board
that it is his opinion, and the opinion of several other school boards, that
the school boards are exempt from direct involvement and requirement of
following all of the land development regulations (LDRs) in building in cities
and counties. He explained that they are required to submit a development plan
and to confirm and get a certificate from the local jurisdiction as to whether
or not it satisfies the LDRs. The agreement says, as outlined in the statutes,
the school board will receive from the local government either a determination
that it satisfies the comprehensive plan and LDRs and that is the end of the
discussion; or, if there is a disagreement, the intergovernmental dispute
resolution process would be followed. Mr. Johnson remarked that School Board
staff’s concern would be that unreasonable additions, such as demands from a
city for concrete driveways around the school where all the other roads are
asphalt, could be included in LDRs. He noted that past disagreements over plans
that have been submitted to local governments have been worked out with changes
by one party or the other. He does not think this agreement puts them in the
position of reaching the ultimate decision of whether they are saying they will
waive their right to contest it. There should be a balancing test between the
School Board’s right to build a school and the county/city right to enforce
their LDRs. He stated that, assuming things work out, this will not cause any
change.
Mr. Conner stated that he is not comfortable asking the
School Board to approve new language that has not been reviewed. He suggested
that this warrants a discussion by the School Board itself.
Mr. Minkoff pointed out that this concept has been in all
the draft agreements but has not been fully agreed to by Mr. Johnson.
School Board Member Scott Strong stated that he does not see
that this has been a big problem because they have been cooperating and he does
not want anything to impede their process in getting additional capacity.
Mr. Conner agreed that the School Board has a solid track
record with the municipalities.
Commissioner Cadwell stated that the County cannot abandon
its responsibility to the rest of the citizens that live in those areas and
that is what they would be doing by not having anything to say about what the
School Board wants to do. He stated that there has to be an opportunity for
dialogue and that the language should be left in the agreement and talked about
later, before final adoption.
Mr. Johnson stated that they are obligated to include
Section 4.4.1 with a couple of changes. The statute requires the School Board
to submit a site design/development plan to the government entity no later than
90 days before construction starts. The government has 45 days to answer two
questions, whether it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and whether it
is consistent with its LDRs. The statute allows an alternative process to be
developed between the various government entities and the school board in order
to work something out where this process can be accomplished.
Mr. Johnson read portions of Section 4, Page 11, of the
Interlocal Agreement. He referred to Section 4.1.2 which does not say the
School Board will be required to do everything that is in the LDRs even though
the School Board is willing to work with everybody. He stated that he looks at
it that they are not, in this agreement, saying they are going to concede and
have to perform every approval process the same as any other developer. He
stated that they are saying they will go through the review process, find out
what needs to be done on onsite and offsite improvements and, if everything
works out, there will be no more discussion. If it does not work out, they will
be going through a dispute resolution process that, hopefully, will resolve the
dispute.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Hanson regarding
the elimination of the public hearing requirement, Mr. Minkoff clarified that
this is not a zoning issue.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, representing the City of Fruitland Park, reminded
everyone that the Interlocal Agreement is not being voted on today.
Because the School Board will continue their discussion on
this issue, Commissioner Hanson noted that there is agreement to move to the
next issue.
V. DE MINIMIS
SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Welstead stated that the current agreement specifies
that four or fewer lots in residential subdivisions are de minimis. What that means is that, if someone comes in with four
or fewer lots, the students generated from those lots would still have to be
counted in the concurrency equation, but they could not be stopped from
development and they are not subject to proportionate share mitigation. A
number of cities have mentioned the possibility that four units may be too
small. One reason cited is that infill or community redevelopment may create a
need for smaller subdivisions that do not have a huge impact.
Mr. Cox stated that the cities want to ensure that the small
builder and the development of the infill is not shut down. He commented that,
per school district staff, ten houses would generate two elementary students,
one middle school and one high school student. Forty houses would generate
eight, four and four students. He asked how that can be mitigated. He stated
that the cities are looking for a solution.
Mayor Nancy Clutts, City of Tavares, agreed and stated that
the City of Tavares is looking to put forward a priority in redevelopment and
infill and is trying to provide incentives while not stretching out its service
area.
Commissioner Cadwell asked if there is a way to distinguish
what infill would be because there may be pockets in the cities where they want
to redevelop where de minimis might
be different than extending nontraditional city limits. He remarked that the
County has considered de minimis, by
practice not policy, to sometimes be ten, twelve or ever four depending on where
it is and what the capacity was in the surrounding area. He asked if there is
another way to determine what de minimis
would be for a city while including a cap. He remarked that he does not have a
problem with four, in general, if there is some logic to it but he feels that
infill should be looked at differently.
Mr. Fix stated that he would not want someone be able to
split a five-acre lot because it would be considered de minimis and have that set off a trend in that area. He stated
that would be very different from an infill situation. He added that he would
not want a developer to be able to divide a property into many different tracts
and be able to come under a threshold. He acknowledged that that is not the
intent of the discussion. He stated that the School Board has to be cognizant
of the fact that they have to look to those levels of service within that
concurrency service area.
Attorney Leslie Campione, representing the City of Umatilla,
opined that the discussion is about two numbers. De minimis could be one number and the other number could be an
infill allowance. She stated that it would seem to make a lot of sense if the
School Board could figure out how to deal with level of service, and, if that
was based on a number per unit and a proportionate share mitigation formula, and
the dollars would be put up without having to build the whole school.
Mr. Minkoff reminded the audience that whatever number is
chosen, the kids have to be accounted for and there has to be a place for them
to go to school. He stated that doing de
minimis still counts for everyone else in the School Board’s capacity
calculations. He stated that they could clearly write something in the agreement
that says the School Board and a city could agree, for areas of urban infill, to
come up with a higher number and keep that outside of this agreement. The
infill could be handled by an agreement separate from this one.
Mr. Cox stated that they are not asking for exemption from
school concurrency but are trying, hopefully through the mitigation program or
something, to come up with a number so that, under a certain number of lots,
the developer could pay their fair share and go ahead and build. He explained
that they would like to have the de
minimis number higher to encourage infill. Mr. Cox remarked that they are
looking at, perhaps, 40 homes at least and they would not be opposed to raising
the de minimis number. He reiterated
that the big concern is to make sure the builders who are doing the infill can
continue to build and will not be locked out because they do not have a project
big enough to pay mitigation.
Mr. Minkoff explained that a DCA comment that has been
incorporated into this agreement requires coming up with a proportionate share
calculation. He referred to Section 5.6 Mitigation Alternatives in the
agreement. He stated that language could be included such as any development
that is 40 units and less, for example, could pay proportionate share and go
whether or not it was on the five-year capital plan. He stated that he does not
know if an annual cap should be looked at because, if there were a lot of
these, the money may not be there to build the schools and these 40-unit
developments could be spread throughout the county where overcrowded schools
could be created in some cases. A lot of exemptions could create a lot of
problems but that could be included in the mitigation section.
Mr. Strong stated that he does not want to go to 40.
Mr. Cox explained that they are not asking for an exemption
for 40 homes. They are asking to ensure that they will be able to build by
paying the proportionate share. He suggested that the fee would have to change
each year based on construction costs. Mr. Cox stated that ten 40-house
developments throughout the county would generate enough money for the School
Board to be able to build something somewhere and would help with the impact.
It may help accelerate a project that is in the second five-year plan.
Mr. Johnson remarked that this would be the same as an exemption
from the concurrency. He stated that, in proportionate share mitigation, the
ultimate number they want to pay is the cost per student station under the DCA
formula and the impact fee is the cost per student station also. It would be
the same number theoretically. He stated that what Mr. Cox is asking is for
these 40 units to come in and, regardless of whether there is capacity, pay
proportionate share, which is the impact fee, and the students come into the
system and the developer is allowed to build. He remarked that he does not know
the School Board’s opinion on that.
Mr. Minkoff agreed with Mr. Johnson in that proportionate
share is not supposed to be more than the cost of students. He stated that,
theoretically, proportionate share should the same as the impact fee. He
suggested that it would be easier if language is included that says if a
municipality or the County developed a redevelopment plan that they could enter
into an agreement with the School Board to have the de minimis number higher or to do proportionate share payments for
those. He remarked that, if 40 or less is included in the agreement and
proportionate share can just be paid, every subdivision in Lake County would be
40 lots.
Regarding infill, Mr. Johnson suggested that the cities and
the County give the School Board an inventory of the number of lots and a map of
those areas so that the School Board can respond as to whether that is
reasonable.
Mr. Minkoff stated that this may be an issue that has to
come out of this agreement. What this agreement may say is that all parties
agree to work on different numbers for areas where we are doing infill. We do
not want to delay concurrency for two or three months while infill issues are
worked out. He suggested that one solution may be to put in language that says
we will all agree to come up with a different standard for infill by January 1
or some date.
On a motion by Commissioner Pool, seconded by Commissioner
Stivender and carried unanimously, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners,
the Lake County School Board and the Lake County Municipalities approved to insert
language in the Interlocal Agreement that says all the parties would agree to
work together to define where infill projects are necessary or beneficial,
within municipalities and in certain areas of the County, and to come up with a
different way to do proportionate share for new development in those infill
areas.
VI. OTHER ISSUES
There were no other issues.
VII. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Minkoff stated that the plan today is not to go over the
Interlocal Agreement. The core group of attorneys has been working on the
agreement and the drafts have been sent to all the city attorneys. The draft
presented today is almost the final draft and written comments or questions are
requested from the cities before the August 23 meeting. The goal is to have
everyone at that meeting agree to take the agreement back to their councils for
approvals. He stated that they will try to send out today’s changes to the
participants by July 31.
VIII. DISCUSSION OF AUSUGT 23 MEETING
Mr. Welstead stated that the meeting on August 23 is for
this body as well as all elected officials so that everyone has a common
understanding of what is in the Interlocal Agreement.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
__________________________________
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK