Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoint Meeting Minutes 06-09-2008BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Joint Meeting with School Board on School Concurrency Date: June 9, 2008 Tape: Convened: 3:03 p.m. Adjourned: 4:25 p.m. Commissioners Present: Joe Smith, Chairman, Paula A Lewis, Doug Coward, Chris Craft, Charles Grande Others Present: Carol Hilson, Chairperson, School Board; Troy Ingersoll, School Board; John Carvelli, School Board; Kathryn Hensley, School Board; Judi Miller, School Board; Michael Larulon, Superintendant of Schools; Faye Outlaw; Assistant County Administrator; Dan McIntyre, Assistant County Attorney; LeeAnne Lowrey, Assistant County Administrator; Peter Jones, Planning Manager; Mark Satterlee, Director, Growth Management; Lauri Heistermann, Deputy Clerk 1. Opening Remarks Carol Hilson, Chairperson for the School Board made the opening remarks. She introduced Marty Sanders. 2. Summary of Process to Date (Element Adoption Requirements) Commissioner Smith, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners introduced Peter Jones, Planning Manager. He asked Mr. Jones to give an overview. Marty Sanders stated that the School Board had received a document early this morning, from the Board of County Commissioners and stated that it had not been distributed to the School Board members due to the lack of time for review. He stated that he felt that the discussion needed to be based on the broader policy issues. Commissioner Smith, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners asked Mr. Jones to review the broader policy ideas. Peter Jones, Planning Manager addressed the Board. He stated that the idea of the meeting is to try and present some of the issues that the Board of County Commissioners dealt with at the public hearing on May 20, 2008. The issues concern the locations of schools outside the Urban Service area and establishing rigorous criteria for siting the facilities should they occur outside the Urban Service area and discussing innovative ways for capturing both initial costs from developers when required with regard to school facilities. Through the mitigation process the development interest would either pay for or put money towards financing future school facilities. If this was to occur outside the Urban Service area the concern then would be the long term service costs that are provided by the County. He addressed strengthening language regarding land use planning between the Board of County Commissioners and the School Board to make sure that when schools and facilities are placed outside the Urban Service area that there is clear direction. He stated that the document discusses staff approval of site plans and mitigation plans brought forward by the School Board. He stated that staff does not ~.~ ~~ ~.~ approve plans. The final approval works through the Board of County Commissioner. Marty Sanders stated that we are talking about school concurrency. School concurrency is looking to make sure that public facilities are available and concurrent with the development impact on the public facilities. The issues regarding operational costs become very problematic for the School District because of the state constitution which requires that the School District provide a uniform free and appropriate public education system. He also stated that Statute 163, which authorizes school concurrency, speaks to capital facilities. He informed the Boards that the Planning Director responded to DCA that the anticipation of school concurrency was only for capital expenses and not for operational expenses. The Statute also points out that if you have impacts from school mitigation, the mitigation has to be used by the School District for capacity enhancement and not for operations. He stated that the School Board has some real concerns about operational costs. He stated that this is one of the few instances where two public bodies are adopting the same thing for the same purpose where there are different roles. The statute on the interlocal agreement and school concurrency indicates that we have to acknowledge both the School Boards constitutional and statutory authority obligations to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a County wide basis and the land use authority of local governments. This goes back to the School District being charged with providing a free and appropriate uniform education system and the County is charged with land use regulations. While schools are not the only issue in re-aligning the land use regulations, one of the factors that should be considered by the Board of County Commissioners is development approval. In 10.13.371, schools are exempt from any local ordinances. The only ordinances that schools have to abide by are those that have been accepted through the interlocal agreement process. In 2003 the School District, both cities and the County entered into an interlocal agreement on how to operate on sharing information. The Statute requires that a process be established for sharing information. Carol Hilson, Chairperson asked the Board for specifics so that the School Board could direct staff. Commissioner Grande stated that he had received an updated draft document. He referred to page 3. Marty Sanders informed the Board of County Commissioners that the School Board did not have the document since it was such a large document to comprehend. Troy Ingersoll requested that the School District allow the Board of County Commissioners to address their concerns even though the School Board did not have the document. Commissioner Grande stated that he believed that the School Board already had a member on the Planning Agency. He stated that he wanted to verify that this meets the requirements with providing the School Board with development applications. Kathryn Hensley stated that Mr. Sanders also sits on the pre-app meetings. She stated that she did not believe that there was any difficulty sharing information. She stated that there is also more direct inter-activity. Commissioner Grande addressed mitigation banking with designated areas relating to School Boards and rights to sell residential capacity. He reviewed the document that addressed the creation of mitigation banking within designated areas based on a construction of public school facilities in exchange for the right to sell capacity credits. He stated that this needed to be consistent with the County's TDR program. Marty Sanders stated that this is actually required under statute 163. He outlined the statute, appropriate mitigation options including land contribution, construction, expansion or payment of land acquisition construction of a public facility are the creation -2- of mitigation banking based on the construction of a public school facility in exchange for the right sell credits. This Comprehensive Plan element is different than many of the other Comprehensive Plan elements. Both the Statute and 9J5 have specific requirements that states exactly what must be in the public school element. Commissioner Grande addressed the safe route to school concept. He stated that they had discussion about changing from single route to multiple route which is referenced on page 23. He addressed new development in the area of a school which is required to provide sidewalks on any roads that lead to a school. He stated that he did not feel that it was practical to channel kids to the road that has a sidewalk Kathryn Hensley stated that the sidewalk issues have also been discussed at TPO meetings and it is a very important issue. Commissioner Craft stated that there is a development inside Lakewood Park that took place. He stated that there is only one sidewalk that runs along Ft. Pierce Blvd. He asked if Commissioner Grande was suggesting that the developer, under the rules proposed, would have had to construct sidewalks on all roads that a child could potentially take on the way to school. Commissioner Grande stated new developers should provide sidewalks. He stated that the impacts should be paid for upfront. Kids walking to school have an impact and they should have safe routes. Commissioner Craft concurred. He stated that he was suggesting that in a case of a small development and they are required to put 10 miles of sidewalks in, because of all of the routes that a child could potentially take from there, the County may not get any of the sidewalks at all. He stated that he felt that sidewalks were extremely important, but we also need to make sure that the County is being responsible. Commissioner Grande stated that it should apply to new developments. He stated that he was not suggesting that existing developments go back and put in sidewalks between themselves and the schools. Marty Sanders stated that the County Code currently requires that new development put in sidewalks. He stated that the intent was that if schools were within a mile of the development they provide sidewalks so that the kids do not have to walk through the grass. 3. School Facilities Element a. Strengthen Language Regarding School Location Policy Commissioner Coward stated that there has been nothing but positive relationship with the School Board. He stated that the effort that the School Board has taken is in the right direction. He stated that the only thing that the Commissioners are asking for is to strengthen the language as much as we legally can. b. Establish Rigorous Criteria for Siting School Facilities Outside Urban Service Area Judi Miller asked for input on this item. Commissioner Coward stated that the budget crunch has forced the County to re- asses the way we do business. He stated that right now the County is having a problem trying to keep up with the demands inside the Urban Service Boundaries. He stated that if you double the geographic area were you have to provide services the County will never be able to pay for the services in an efficient way. He stated that what the County is trying to do is to establish rules that say that they -3- want the schools inside the Urban Service Boundaries. There are a few exceptions were it may make sense, which are specifically laid out, which are properties owned prior to 2001, Ag related programming and where there is large comprehensive community based planning. He stated that the schools should remain inside the Urban Service Boundary with the exceptions outlined. The mode of operation is to build the schools in the urban area which is the most cost efficient. Dan Harrell, Attorney, School Board stated that the problem with uniformity is that the District does not control where development occurs. If residential development occurs outside the Urban Service Boundary, that generates students, the District must provide for them. The School District can not charge the residential units at a differential rate for services. Commissioner Grande stated that if you site schools outside the Urban Service Boundary, it would be inviting development to move outside the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that the concept would be to discourage residential development outside the Urban Service Boundary. Carol Hilson, Chairperson, School Board asked Mr. Sanders to inform the Board of County Commissioners on how school sites are chosen. Marty Sanders stated that language exists in the Comprehensive Plan that states that schools can only be placed outside the Urban Service Boundary if the school was owned prior to a date certain, agricultural curriculum type schools and schools that would service students primarily outside the Urban Service Boundary area. He stated that the School Board believes that they really should match schools in proximity to the residential housing site. John Carvelli stated that they may have a parcel of land that meets the criteria for use for a school, but it may be outside the Urban Service Boundary, but it may be more feasible to build the school there than it is to pay three times the cost for one half a mile east of the Urban Service Boundary. He asked Mr. Harrell what their role was as a School Board for site selection. Dan Harrell, stated that the School Board, although it has a great deal of latitude in siting of construction, it is subject to the Comprehensive Plan. To build a school outside of the Urban Service Boundary, it would have to fall into one of the 3 criteria as outlined above. The School District would bear the burden of a site mis-location. John Carvelli asked when you would evaluate the time to adjust the boundary. Commissioner Coward stated that during his 10 year service the Board of County Commissioners have never moved the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that they have done Comprehensive Land use planning, such as the TVC that allows for better planning. Kathryn Hensley stated that they had done a survey within the Urban Service Boundary which determined that there was sufficient land for future growth. She stated that she had no intention to intentionally place schools outside the Urban Service Boundary. Discuss Innovative Method for Capturing Initial Capital Costs from Development When Required But Also Long Term Operational Costs Judi Miller stated that she was thinking in terms of operational costs such as transportation and if we get into circumstances where there is a good sized development. She requested more information on how exceptions would be -4- made. Commissioner Coward stated that education must be provided to all kids equally, but he does not believe that you have to build schools inside and outside the Urban Service Boundaries. From a pure economic necessity, the County has limitations on what we can do. The Comprehensive Plan established by State Law that we will build urban services inside the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that he did not understand why the School Board did not have the ability to say that future schools would be built inside the Urban Service Boundary. Every student in the County has equal opportunity to attend the schools in locations where they should be. He stated that he did not feel that it should be up to existing tax payers to subsidize bad growth. He stated that if there is a cost associated for transportation those individuals should have to pay it. He stated that he did not feel that individuals who live inside the Urban Service Boundary should have to subsidize the costs. Judi Miller stated that the uniformity issue is a problem relative to utilizing different formulas. She stated that she did not feel that it was legal for the School District to charge different rates of impact. Commissioner Coward suggested that the way they have been doing business in the State has not come close to only capturing the cost of new development. While the State law may currently say this is what you should be looking at, that does not mean that the Board collectively should not be looking outside of that box to see if there are other real alternatives for the County to fully capture the cost of growth. He stated that most of the cost associated with growth is operational. He stated that there is also a locational aspect as well. He stated that the fire department located outside of the Urban Service Boundary costs the local resident a considerable amount more that the department located within the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that the Board has an obligation to efficiently provide these services. He stated that there is no obligation to spread these services outside the Urban Service Boundary for a few at the expense of the tax payers. He stated that out of an economic necessity we can not afford to build outside the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that they need to be as strong as they can and be cutting edge at looking at ways to parade the rules. He stated that if they have to, petition the legislature to change the rules. Kathryn Hensley stated that there is always room for discussion and petitioning. Carol Hilson stated that Mr. Harrell, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Ball will need time to review the information because the law is very specific. She directed staff to work on the review process and re-convene at some point in time. Kathryn Hensley stated that the Boards agree on the philosophy. She stated where there may be a lack is the understanding of the technicalities from the other entities. d. Strengthen Language Regarding Land Use Planning Collaboration Between County and District. Commissioner Coward stated that he would like to strengthen the language as much as we can, consistent with the philosophy and state law. Troy Ingersoll asked Commissioner Coward if he had a specific idea on how to strengthen the language. Commissioner Coward stated that staff had provided some draft comments in the document provided which reflect the Board of County Commissioners views. He stated that it just makes it clear that they do not want schools outside the Urban -5- Service Boundary as a general rule, but they do recognize that there will be exceptions. Michael Lannon, Superintendent of Schools stated that Document A is 56 pages long and is full of technicalities and legalities. There are positions that fit the needs of the Board of County Commissioners and positions that fit the needs of the School Board. He stated that we need make sure that we are acknowledging each other. He stated that this gives us a basis to add to what we previously had. He recommended that it be provided to staff and legal staff for review of the recommendations. Commissioner Craft asked how school choice would fit in. Michael Lannon, Superintendant of schools outlined the re-design of the student assigrunent plan and stated that they would also have to look at growth. He stated that both boards need to work together to set policies and procedures to establish the budget and mission as prescribed by the law as well. Carol Hilson stated that some of the school zones are shared zones. She stated that they have to follow the growth. Kathryn Hensley stated that no matter what is put on paper, if the Boards work in concert like they have, this will ensure that the County will move in the direction that they all want it to. The language that is put in place needs to be specific, but not restrictive. Commissioner Grande read the paragraph that addresses virtually everything, It reads schools shall not be located outside the Urban Service area described in policy 1.1.51, unless the school is to be located on property owned by the School Board on or before January 1, 2001 or it is demonstrated that it is primarily for students living outside the Urban Service area or if the schools curriculum focuses on agricultural uses consistent with those found in St. Lucie County. He stated that he felt the frame work is already there. Kathryn Hensley stated that the Boards need to understand what agricultural based programs are and how broad it really is. Commissioner Coward stated that the existing policy is titled schools located outside the Urban Service area. He stated that what the headline should be is schools shall be discouraged outside the Urban Service Boundary. He also commented on the legalities. 3. Interlocal Agreement (Approval Authority) 5. Next Steps (Revision and Board of County Commissioners Transmittal) Marty Sanders stated that they have heard from both Boards on the direction. He stated that the planning staff of both the School Board and the County can work on a document and obtain advise from legal counsel on what may be problematic and then come forward with a unified decision on what it should look like and maybe pick a date certain in July for the public hearing. He stated that within the next week or two they will work with legal staff and have it back before the Board of County Commissioners in early July. Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director stated that this has been a good exercise in understanding how both Boards work together. He stated that his staff will make every commitment to work as hard as they can with Mr. Sanders and staff to get this together and get it in order. -6- Commissioner Smith thanked the School Board for having the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners are happy to work with the School Board to facilitate the education of the kids as well as the greater good of the community. Commissioner Craft informed the Boards that he and Troy Ingersoll sat on the Read to Succeed Committee and they were trying to update the Library at Westwood High School. He invited everyone to attend the luncheon to be held on August 6, 2008 at noon in the school media center. He asked everyone to send him an e-mail so that they could place them on the host committee list. Commissioner Smith stated that himself, Carol Hilson, Kathryn Hensley and some others have been working on different ways to provide single source funding for School Resource deputies, whether it is through local dollars or state dollars. Kathryn Hensley suggested asking the local residents to tax themselves for the safety of the children. She stated that they had made a federal case out of it and asked them to look at homeland security money. Right now there is nothing definitive because they will be OK for next year. She stated that they had looked at the idea of going out for a referendum and the timing would be essential. John Carvelli stated that as we move forward as a whole community rising, that we work together to get more people involved in schooling and more political authority behind what is happening in schools in Florida. He stated that this is international competition. He stated that what happens to the boys and girls of this County will lead to the better quality of life for all citizens in this County. Kathryn Hensely stated that she did not feel that they had to meet just because there was an issue to discuss. She stated that because they all talk to each other individually it is a good idea to have a public discussion and the public is not used to seeing to bodies work together so well. -7-