Laserfiche WebLink
noted that there was time in the schedule to allow interested parties to get together and discuss <br />matters they are not in agreement with. Mr. DeYoung then invited questions from the Panel. <br /> <br /> <br />5. DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WORK <br />PRODUCTS <br /> <br />Mr. DeYoung <br /> responded to questions from Commissioner Wheeler regarding a gap <br />in the service area (shown on the site map) and said it was a service area covered by bussing <br />requirements and also a part of Oslo’s Boundary. <br /> <br />School Board members found numerous errors with the draft report presented. Discussion <br />ensued regarding over capacity, new growth and annual trend, the County’s projections for new <br />developments, and information provided by mortgage brokers and rental agencies as to the number <br />of families going through their agencies. <br /> <br />Dr. McGarvey <br /> assured the Panel that they would have an agreement in the <br />timeframe required. However, he was interested in having the School Board, County staff and <br />Consultants revisit the draft report before they render any consensus on what they will do. He also <br />wanted to point out that municipal officers have a fiduciary responsibility to all their constituents. <br />He noted that the documents presented did not take into account, in any significant way, the <br />operational cost for the school department and that was a major concern for them to be able to put <br />teachers in place. He again asked the Board to allow them to meet to go over the documents. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger <br /> agreed they could have a sub-committee meeting. <br /> <br />September 26, 2006 <br />6 <br /> <br />Joint Concurrency Workshop <br /> <br />