AUGUST 23, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session with the Lake County School Board and Lake County Municipalities on Wednesday, August 23, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., at Lake Receptions, Mt. Dora, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool.  Commissioner Debbie Stivender was not present, due to another commitment.  Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager; Steve Johnson, Attorney, Lake County School Board; Jerry Cox, Consultant, representing various municipalities; Harry Fix, Planner, Lake County School Board; Tim Green, Green Consulting Group, representing various municipalities; Jim Hitt, representing the City of Clermont; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.  Representatives from VOICE (Voters Organization Involved in Children’s Education), various city councils, various law firms, the local newspapers, and concerned citizens were present, as well.


Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, introduced the members of the panel, at which time he noted that everyone involved with the proposed interlocal agreement had worked very hard and this meeting was a culmination of that effort.


            Mr. Welstead stated that what staff intended to do this date was provide those present with information that they had come up with during the last few months and how they anticipate the projects to work and then go through an outline of the proposed Interlocal Agreement (August 22 edition), which he noted contained all the comments that staff received from the municipalities, all the negotiations that have taken place, and an errata sheet, containing some comments from the Department of Community Affairs.  He stated that he hoped it was a document that everyone would be happy with, noting that, from staff’s perspective, it was as good as they could get, working with all the municipalities and the School Board.  He stated that he did not think everybody was 100% happy with the agreement, but that he did not think anybody was really unhappy with it either.


            Mr. Jerry Cox, Consultant, representing various municipalities, informed those present that the level of service he would be discussing was something that everybody is shooting for and, hopefully, will be achieved in the first five years, with most of it being achieved during the first three years.  He stated that some schools have already achieved their level of service, but there are some schools in the County that are over 200% capacity, as well.  He stated that it is going to take a period of time for it to be accomplished, at which time he presented a slide presentation regarding the School Concurrency Level of Service, as follows:

            Lake County’s Level of Service        

·         100% of permanent FISH capacity.  If dining core capacity is available, in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125% of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations, so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

            School A

·         Permanent Student Capacity – 800

·         Dining Capacity – 800

·         Level of Service – 800

All students should be served in permanent facilities.

            School B – Year 1

·         Permanent Student Capacity – 800

·         Dining Capacity – 1,000

·         Level of Service = 125% x 800 = 200 (in temporary student stations)

Total Students = 1,000

            School B – Year 2  (New wing for 100 students opened)

·         Permanent Student Capacity – 900

·         Dining Capacity – 1,000

·         Level of Service = 125% x 900 = 225

Only 100 students in temporary student stations, because you cannot exceed dining capacity.

Total Students = 1,000

            School B – Year 3  (New wing for 100 students opened)

·         Permanent Student Capacity – 1,000

·         Dining Capacity – 1,000

·         Level of Service = 125% x 1,000 = 250

All students should be served in permanent facilities.

Total Students = 1,000

            Summary of School B

Temporary student stations for Year One – 1,000

Permanent Capacity for Year One – 800

Temporary student stations for Year Two – 1,000

Permanent Capacity for Year Two – 900

Temporary student stations for Year Three – 0

Permanent Capacity for Year Three – 1,000

            School C – Year 1

·         Permanent Student Capacity – 2,000

·         Dining Capacity – 3,000

·         Level of Service = 125% x 2,000 = 500 (in temporary student stations)

Total Students = 2,500

            School C – Year 2  (New wing for 300 students opened)

·         Permanent Student Capacity – 2,300

·         Dining Capacity – 3,000

·         Level of Service = 125% x 2,300 = 575 (in temporary student stations)

Total Students = 2,875

            School C – Year 3  (New wing for 300 students open)

·         Permanent Student Capacity – 2,600

·         Dining Capacity – 3,000

·         Level of Service = 125% x 2,600 = 650

Only 400 students can be served in temporary student stations – Total capacity cannot exceed dining.

Total students = 3,000

            Summary of School C

Temporary student stations for Year One – 2,500

Permanent Capacity for Year One – 2,000

Temporary student stations for Year Two – 2,800

Permanent Capacity for Year Two – 2,300

Temporary student stations for Year Three – 3,000

Permanent Capacity for Year Three – 2,600


            Mr. Welstead addressed the group and presented a slide presentation, giving an example of how capacity determination will occur during this process, noting that, in working with the School Board, the parties had agreed to an alternative scheme for concurrency service areas.  He depicted two mythical plats (consisting of approximately the same number of acres – 387.5 versus 382.8) and discussed how capacity was determined for said plats.  He stated that each one of the plats would generate about the same number of students (Student Generation Rate) per dwelling unit, indicating what that number would be for each plat.  He stated that this is what the School Board’s staff will be doing for every plat and every site plan for a multi-family dwelling request that comes to the County.  He stated that they will have to keep track of every house, noting that, once a development has been assigned to a specific CSA (Concurrency Service Area), that is where it will stay.


            Mr. Welstead gave a brief overview of the proposed Interlocal Agreement, as follows:

            Section 1 – Coordination and Sharing of Information

·         Experience of last 10 months.

·         Fundamental to this and any process like it.  Sets the tone for mutual aid and cooperation for the future.  Commits us to come up with mutually agreeable plans.

·         Section sets up quarterly joint staff meetings, to share information, talk about developments in the pipeline, potential school sites, opportunities for collocation, etc.  Lists information to be shared, including zoning and land use changes, building permits, etc.

o       County committed to help smaller communities in reporting.

·         Creates Educational Concurrency Review Committee.

o       Elected officials or citizens.

o       Review progress and discuss items of mutual interest.

o       Evaluate agreement and recommend changes.

·         Co-location and shared use – early commitment to work together on this.

·         Shared use of existing facilities.

·         Co-location opportunities for future capital projects.

o       Advise potential partners and cooperate, to save resources, where possible.

            Section 2 – Planning Process

·         Educational Plant Survey – review by all parties, opportunity to comment to school staff for consideration, incorporate CSAs.

·         Annual requirement for School Board, new importance for all parties, 5-Year Facilities Work Program must be financially-feasible and adopted by each city and county, as part of Comprehensive Plan.

·         County and cities must create and adopt Public Schools Facilities Element to Comp Plan.

o       DCA has reviewed draft and is doing final tweaks.

o       Planners have been part of review process.

o       Not necessarily verbatim, but consistent.

o       Consider doing next round of Comp Plan amendments.

·         Recognize need to place schools in different places throughout county and cities – land use in Comp Plan should reflect it.

·         Where do schools go?

o       List of 14 criteria essential to current requirements levied by State.

            Section 3 – Zoning Categories

·         Early discussion again – Cities and county reserve right to govern zoning and require rezoning, if necessary, through public hearing process.

            Section 4 – Site Design/Development Plan Review

·         Like site selection, basically parallels current statutory requirement.

            Section 5 – School Concurrency Implementation

·         First section defines what are considered to be “major amendments” and process to make the changes, including how an amendment must be proposed and timelines for consideration by all parties.

o       Lack of response is deemed consent.

o       Disputes must be handled by statute.

·         Comp Plan amendments necessary to implement must be considered by end of year.

o       Changes to Land Development Regulations and any other necessary requirements should also be made as soon as Comp Plan amendment is approved.

·         Schools Five-Year Plan must be updated annually and incorporated into Capital Improvement Element of each city and county.

·         Level of Service Standards.

o       Discussed earlier – must be adopted as policy by School Board and in each city/county Comp Plan.

·         Conversion charter schools counted automatically.

·         Non-conversion charter schools counted, if built to SREF standards and money is covered, in case of failure.

·         CSAs, potential amendments to boundaries must go through amendment process, nothing to do with attendance zones.

·         What is subject to concurrency?

o       Lots of Record and recorded plats don’t need to meet it – they are vested.

o       Multi-family, if existing, or final site plan has been approved, doesn’t need to meet it.

o       Age restricted communities don’t need to meet it.

o       DeMinimus subdivisions must be counted, but not subject to proportionate share.

o       Projects determined to be vested don’t need to meet it.

o       EVERYTHING ELSE residential must meet it.

·         Applications for all go to School Board for determination

o       Fairness, keep only one (1) master list.

·         School Board has 30 days to review and make determination.

o       Yes, it meets LOS.

o       No, mitigation is or is not acceptable options.

o       If no mitigation, county/city will not process.

o       If mitigation possible, School Board and applicant negotiate.

·         Capacity calculations reviewed:

o       Kids in seats

o       Vested development

o       Concurrent development

o       Applicant

            Mitigation Alternatives

·         If School Board determines mitigation acceptable in year 4 or 5 (or beyond), they can negotiate with developer or applicant - 90 day period.

·         Could be:

o       Payment of proportionate share

·         SGR x DU x Cost/Student Station – Available capacity.

o       Build capacity.

o       Build school.

o       Open-ended.  Possibilities for mitigation.

            Sections 6, 7, and 8

·         Boilerplate on delegation of responsibilities, termination of the agreement (automatically renews), dispute resolution.


            At this time, various individuals in attendance questioned the panel regarding concerns they had about the proposed interlocal agreement.

            THE WAY FORWARD

            Representative Allen Hays addressed those present, stating that he was very proud to hear the interaction that occurred between them and the panel and their demeanor, noting that that was the whole purpose of the pilot project – to get the six or seven counties involved in the process to come up with a plan that can be used as a model to other counties around the State and that is exactly what they had before them.  He stated that he deeply appreciated the many, many hours that had been put into the proposed agreement and thanked those involved for making it happen.  He stated that Lake County can be proud.

            Mr. Welstead suggested that those present take the proposed interlocal agreement to each of their cities, talk to their attorneys, consider it, and make it a reality in September, noting that that is the way forward for the County.

            Commr. Cadwell encouraged them to remember the process that the panel has gone through.  He stated that he felt the plan before them this date was as good a plan as could be brought forward at this time and encouraged them to approve it.

            It was noted that a sample template has been developed that they can utilize and that, if they were to consider the agreement by December 31st of this year, they will have met the intention of the agreement - it does not mean that it has to be approved, but that it has been considered.

            The Chairman thanked everybody for all their hard work during the process, noting that it has been an interesting one and she feels a very successful one.


There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.




                                                                        CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN