Laserfiche WebLink
capacity the developer gets the opportunity to negotiate with the school district and the applicable <br />local government and that all three parties needed to agree. <br /> <br />Discussions ensued regarding impact to the County, changing boundaries for <br />development, who has the final responsibility to make decisions on changing school boundaries, <br />and whether the County or municipalities have any input in decision-making. <br /> <br />Ms. Mills <br /> noted that there was no set legislative method for the adjustment of the <br />capacity to enrollment at a school that is being impacted by a residential development. <br /> <br />Dr. Craig McGarvey <br />, School Board member, in response to comments from <br />Commissioner Lowther on whether the District was involved with plans prior to development, <br />stated that the school board and elected officials had not met nor have they discussed the <br />documents as presented. They were not ready to recommend any approval from the School Board <br />at this point. Dr. McGarvey found “major problems” with the draft report as presented and called <br />it a “developer’s dreamboat and a taxpayer’s nightmare”. He said the School Board would neither <br />be able to come up with the level of service as defined in the document, nor would they have <br />enough money in the coffers to have a 5-year capital plan that would meet the capacity that the <br />developers would need. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger <br /> informed Dr. McGarvey that Mr. DeYoung had not finished <br />his presentation and asked that he continue his arguments afterwards. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. DeYoung <br /> continued his presentation explaining the availability standard, <br />school concurrency benefits, and the proposed school concurrency implementation schedule. He <br />September 26, 2006 <br />5 <br /> <br />Joint Concurrency Workshop <br /> <br />