HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/2006
INDEX TO MINUTES OF
JOINT SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP
MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF FELLSMERE COUNCIL
CITY OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES COUNCIL
CITY OF SEBASTIAN COUNCIL
CITY OF VERO BEACH COUNCIL
MAY 3, 2006
1.CALL TO ORDER........................................................................................ 1
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE...................................................................... 2
3.WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS ..................................................... 2
4.CONSULTANT PRESENTATION ............................................................ 2
5.DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ............................................................. 4
6.ADJOURNMENT ......................................................................................... 8
May 3, 2006
1
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
May 3, 2006
JOINT SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP MEETING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF FELLSMERE COUNCIL
TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES COUNCIL
CITY OF SEBASTIAN COUNCIL
CITY OF VERO BEACH COUNCIL
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Joint
Session with the City of Fellsmere Council, Town of Indian River Shores Council, City of
Sebastian Council and City of Vero Beach Council, at the Richardson Center, Indian River
Community College Mueller Campus, 6155 College Lane, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
May 3, 2006. Present were Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger, Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, and
Commissioners Sandra L. Bowden, Wesley Davis and Thomas S. Lowther. Also present were
County Administrator Joseph Baird, Assistant County Attorney Bill DeBraal, Executive Aide to
the Board Kimberly Massung, and Deputy Clerk Maria I. Suesz.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Neuberger called the meeting to order 1:30 p.m.
May 3, 2006
1
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Neuberger led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
3. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Chairman Neuberger asked his Commissioners and the City Council members to
introduce themselves: City of Fellsmere Vice Mayor John McCants, City of Sebastian Mayor
Nathan B. McCollum, Vice Mayor Brian S. Burkeen, Councilmember Al Paternoster,
Councilmember Andrea B. Coy, City of Vero Beach Vice Mayor Sabin Abell, Councilmember
Bob Solari, Councilmember Debra Fromang, Councilmember Ken Daige, and Town of Indian
River Shores Vice Mayor David J. Becker.
Chairman Neuberger acknowledged the following County Staff members who were
present: Community Development Director Bob Keating, Planning Director Stan Boling, Long
Range Chief Sasan Rohani, and County Administrator Joseph Baird.
4. CONSULTANT PRESENTATION
Jeanne Mills
, JD, AOCP, Jeanne Mills and Associates, LC, introduced herself, David
Ms.
DeYoung, AICP of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and Ryan Morrell, AICP, Mamco, Inc.
Mills
gave an overview of SB360 and an update of school concurrency using a PowerPoint
presentation (copy on file). The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has selected Indian
River County as a pilot project community to fast-track draft school concurrency documents. The
first draft is to be completed by June 1, 2006, and is to include several items required for
submission to DCA. Those required documents include the Interlocal Agreements (ILA) with the
municipalities providing a framework for school concurrency, the Public School Facilities
Element, the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and the Capitol Improvement Element.
May 3, 2006
2
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
Ryan Morrel
, Mamco, Inc., provided a technical overview to the data collection and
analysis process, the assessment of current conditions, and the projection of future demands and
requirements. He reviewed school related data, the School District’s Five-Year Capital Facilities
Plan, the process in obtaining municipal data, and data and analysis results.
Ms. Mills
provided an overview of the Public School Facilities Element (PSFE), the
Capital Improvement Element (CIE), and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE).
David DeYoung
, AICP, Kimley-Horn and Associates, discussed the residential review
process explaining the tier level of service, and the service area boundaries for elementary, middle
and high schools. He reviewed school district options of looking at adjacent service areas and
sharing capacity, the availability standard and options provided in the Florida Statutes, and what it
means by proportionate share mitigation.
Chairman Neuberger wanted to know if the adopted level of service could be exceeded.
Mr. DeYoung
responded, that the adopted level of service may not be exceeded. He advised that
the Indian River County School District is proposing 100% for 2008 to 2013 (5 years) as the tier
level of service, and described how the process to tier down to the desired level of service works.
There was a brief discussion regarding Palm Beach County’s School District level of
service.
Mr. Morrel
discussed responsibilities of the School District and their areas of focus.
Ms. Mills
presented the local government responsibilities and their focus on school
concurrency. She said residential development would not be approved until the School District
has determined that capacity does not exceed the adopted level of service in a school service area,
and unless the impact fees have been paid. The local governments will participate in the Interlocal
May 3, 2006
3
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
Agreement as signatories to the agreement, and will adopt a consistent Public School Facilities
Element that would embody the provisions of the Interlocal Agreement. The Capitol
Improvement Element would be updated annually, and the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element (ICE) would be adopted according to the needs of ICE in a local government. The local
government would monitor the school level of service standard since the level of service adopted
may not be exceeded. The School District boundaries would change based on the needs of the
School District to modify those school service areas as new schools come online, or to address that
development which needs to be shifted in order to balance the schools utilization. Mitigation
measures with a developer and the local government will have a binding agreement to address the
issues mitigating the impact of the development.
Mr. DeYoung
concluded the presentation defining the best benefit of school
concurrency to be the awareness by all parties of residential development and how it is going to
impact the County’s schools.
5. DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS
Chairman Neuberger inquired what level of service was adopted by the School Board.
Mr. DeYoung responded that it was decided to use 100%.
Commissioner Wheeler thought the process was conflicting by saying the adopted level
of service cannot be exceeded, yet they can mitigate if they do exceed it. He wondered if the
Mr. De Young
School Board did not follow the plan, if development would come to a halt.
explained that the process is working in other counties, particularly Palm Beach County. If
everyone coordinated and worked together the process would work.
Ms. Mills
Discussion continued and explained the intent of the School District was to
choose the level of service standard of 100% because it was the most reasonable standard to match
May 3, 2006
4
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
the eventual class size reduction of each school. She explained the process followed in Palm
Beach County.
Commissioner Bowden inquired about the School District’s current millage rate, and if
after the class size reduction, the School Board intends to bring forward another bond referendum.
Dr. Dan McIntyre,
School Board Assistant Superintendent, responded that he did not think they
would have a bond referendum anytime soon and he thought the millage rate was between 8 and 9
mills.
Mayor Nathan McCollum,
City of Sebastian, asked who works the formula to
Mr. DeYoung
determine capacity. responded the School District with the consultant use the
standard formula that is in the Interlocal Agreement to determine the student generation multiplier.
Commissioner Davis wanted to be sure that the student generation multiplier was
specifically for Indian River County, and he learned it is.
Andrea Coy,
City of Sebastian Council Member, questioned the current capacity are the
schools. Mr. DeYoung responded that no school is higher than 101%.
Discussion ensued concerning language in the Interlocal Agreement regarding the
selection of school sites. Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that every
year the School District has to send the local governments their 5-year Public Facilities Plan and it
is an opportunity for local governments to obtain input to provide assistance for new schools
locations.
Mayor McCollum
asked for an explanation why the elected official meeting currently
held in June had been moved to August. Director Keating related the change was made because in
August the school board would have the draft facilities plan update.
May 3, 2006
5
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
Vice Mayor Brian Burkeen
, City of Sebastian, questioned, based on the boundaries, if
Ms. Mills
there are schools operating below the level of service of 100%. explained all county
schools except for middle schools are below the adopted level of service. When you analyize a
school, you are looking at the school boundary, the school service area, and the school attendance
zone.
Vice Mayor Burkeen
felt the process was misleading by the way the level of service is
Mr. DeYoung
determined. said breaking it down into the individual school boundaries gives you
a better picture of available capacity. He related that there are five (5) schools currently exceeding
the level of service on an individual basis.
Commissioner Lowther asked if the stand-alone Freshman Learning Center (FLC) at
thth
Vero Beach High School counted towards the 10 through 12 grade figures, and if that brings
Mr. DeYoung
them over 100%. responded that the FLC has a capacity associated with it, and if
you look at it by itself, enrollment versus capacity, it is operating at acceptable levels. If you put
the FLC kids into the high school, the high school would be over capacity because essentially you
are leaving 700 student stations behind; you have to provide for them. Commissioner Lowther
understood this plan could warrant the need for the south county high school at some future place
Mr. DeYoung
in time and agreed.
Vice Mayor Burkeen
inquired when they would receive the new language to the
Mr. DeYoung
Interlocal Agreement, and said by June 1, 2006.
Councilmember Coy,
opined the Interlocal Agreement required only statistics from the
City. She did not see any other requirements and felt this may be a waste of her time. She felt the
opportunity to participate in School Board functions had been available in the past, but the City has
not had the opportunity to make changes. She felt the County’s role was not very different from
that of the City’s, and she asked for an explanation.
May 3, 2006
6
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
Director Keating responded that by executing the Interlocal Agreement each
municipality will be taking on a major part of the system. The two major responsibilities are the
School Board will make sure the supply is there (build schools), and the cities will make sure the
demand is met.
Director Keating said the purpose of this meeting was to get those responsible both
Boards together, receive input, and together try to resolve it at staff level. He pointed out the
Interlocal Agreement has specifics regarding how to change the school service area boundaries
and the Public School Facility Plan. The Cities and the County have essential veto authority over
the School Board’s decisions to making unilateral changes.
Commissioner Wheeler wanted to know whether the School Board or the County decides
what is to be developed. Director Keating said both; the School Board gets to weigh in if the Cities
or the County wants to make any changes to their Comprehensive Plan. This agreement mandates
that the School Board would have to keep up with supplying the school seats necessary to meet the
demand and to maintain the level of service. This is the only aspect of concurrency mandated by
the State where you have different governmental bodies responsible for supply and demand. The
Interlocal Agreement is essentially setting responsibilities on both parties.
Dr. McIntyre
felt there was plenty of time to massage these issues and to address
everyone’s concerns before the final draft.
Councilmember Coy
would like to see more participation considered at all levels so
everyone reaches a comfort zone. She asked that the School Board consider the City input in the
future when decisions are being made regarding the boundaries.
Damien Gillium
, Sebastian, wanted to know who controls the money. Director Keating
said the local government that is issuing the building permit collects the impact fees. The County
transfers the impact fees to the School Board and they have to provide to the County every year
where impact fees are being spent, to ensure they are being spent appropriately.
May 3, 2006
7
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
Peter Seed
, Indian River County Neighborhood Association, said the Association is
enthusiastic about this effort. He wanted to know if age restricted communities are included in the
Consultant’s statistics showing that a retirement community does generate student enrollment.
Mr. DeYoung
responded that it does.
Director Keating stated that Court decisions mandate that we cannot charge impact fees
for kids. We are not looking at secondary impacts. The assumption is they have to live in the area.
He said it was a good idea though.
Mr. Seed
asked if mitigation opportunities are in addition to the developer’s cost for
Mr. DeYoung
impact fees. said they could be if the mitigation option is agreed upon. The impact
fee does get credited against that option, then, the developer may be paying more into the system
then what the impact fees were.
Mr. Seed
asked what the project approval date is based on and whether it entitles the
Mr. DeYoung
developer to reserve capacity; if so, for how long. responded there is a vesting
period that is based on the County’s concurrency management system.
6.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND ARE
HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES
ATTEST:
_________________________________ ________________________________
May 3, 2006
8
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Arthur R. Neuberger, Chairman
Minutes Approved: _________________
ms
May 3, 2006
9
School Concurrency Workshop Meeting