HomeMy WebLinkAboutWorkshop Minutes 01-14-2008BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WnRKSHOP ON SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
Date: January 14, 2008 Convened: 9:00 a.m.
Adjourned: 11:25 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman, Joseph Smith, Paula A Lewis, Charles Grande, Chris
Craft, Doug Coward
Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County
Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County
Attorney, Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director, Michael Brillhart, Growth
Management Director, Peter Jones, Planning Manager, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy
Clerk
School Board representatives: Katherine Hensley, School Board member; Marty Sanders,
Governmental Issues
Planning and Zoning Members: Susie Caron, Consuela Smith, Pam Hammer, Stephanie
Morgan, John Knapp, Brett Reynolds, Craig Mundt, Brad Culverhouse(absent);
Katherine Henseey
Opening remarks were made by Peter Jones, SLC Planning Manager and then turned over
the discussion to Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Sanders gave a history on the legislative adoption of Senate Bill 360. He informed
everyone present he had a meeting with the School Board in October as well as the City
of Port St. Lucie and the City of Ft. Pierce.
Mr. Gene Boles, ACIP Director, Center for Building Better Communities -University of
Florida advised those present he was presently working with St. Lucie County and the
School District in complying with the mandate on School Concurrency.
Mr. Boles gave a presentation (attached) and addressed the Board's questions.
Mr. Boles advised the Board that with regard to number 4 on the illustration provided
which read: Adopted a definition of "financially feasibility" that strengthens the
structure of the mandatory Local Government's capital improvement elements and ties to
the School District 5 year work plan, this indicates that THE FUNDS NEEDS TO BE
COMMITTED.
He also advised the Board that the agency that builds the schools is not the agency that
requires concurrency. It is also required to have a jointly adopted level of service defined
as "utilization of school". The method of school concurrency may be different for each
school, it cannot have a different level of service for St. Lucie County than for City of Ft.
Pierce. It must all be the same. The School Board is a major player. They cannot adopt
one standard in Ft. Pierce and another in Port St. Lucie that is not uniformity as required.
There is a five year plan required level of service to meet standards. May 1, 2008 is the
target date to adopt school standards. He advised the Board the ratio of school age
children is declining around the state. The present plan adopted in October anticipated
two times as many students as the Fish Kind report presently made. There is a different
20 year outlook presently as opposed to the prior outlook due to reduction in estimated
students. The plan continues to change as new information is received.
Ms. Hammer, P & Z member requested the material be updated so they are aware which
is the old plan as opposed to the new plan.
FISH: stands for Florida Inventory of School Houses
Ire .~~.s ~~
A discussion was held on portables. Mr. Sanders advised the Board there are permanent
structures made out of mortar and brick and these are not re-locatable. The program
capacity includes portables. The re-locatables will not count toward concurrency
however the concrete structures do count towards meeting concurrency.
Com. Coward expressed his concerns with how the school concurrency would or may
require schools outside the urban service boundary.
Mr. Craig Mundt, P & Z member questioned at what time the concurrency area would be
required.
Mr. Boles stated the concurrency service area is what would be looked at when a
developer presents his proposal. It is permissible to use the district wide schools for the
first 5 years. They have looked at choice zones and community based planning areas
however they feel choice areas may be too large and are recommending 7 concurrency
service areas.
Com. Coward stated he would like full cost accounting applied and challenged the School
Board to work with the County on obtaining this information and it should be the full cost
of the impact. He asked what was the concurrency limit in the development process.
Mr. Boles stated concurrency does not provide the students, but allows for student
capacity. When a developer comes in and receives a Certificate of Concurrency, he has a
reservation for a certain amount of students, but this amount will not stand forever. If the
developer does not complete the reservation after a certain period of time, the reservation
goes away. DRI's are not subject to school concurrency. Other developers are not vested
against school concurrency.
Com. Coward questioned how long the vesting would be valid if a site plan is waiting for
market conditions. When does the developer make his contribution.
Mr. Boles stated they would not be vested. They would only be vested when they start
spending the money.
Com. Coward expressed concern with the money not being there before the houses are
built.
Mr. Sanders stated it would be the gross taxable value. There is a 2 mil capital used and
a portion is dedicated to new capacity with impact fees.
Com. Coward stated they would be basically taking out a loan anticipating future tax
monies coming in.
Mr. Knapp, P & Z member asked what if the scenario did not play out and the
commitment had to be there before.
Mr. Sanders stated it had to be an approved financially committed source, i.e. it had to be
" financially feasible".
Com. Coward questioned who's money they would be committing. He believes they
would be committing existing taxpayer's money and he felt they needed to have new
development pay all covered costs up front.
Mr. Boles gave an example of concurrency and when it would apply.
Ms. Pam Hammer, P & Z member addressed various corrections neeeded (typographical)
in the document.
No action required for information purposes only.
The meeting was adjourned.
2