Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/2006 INDEX TO MINUTES OF THE JOINT CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP WITH THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF FELLSMERE COUNCIL, TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES COUNCIL, CITY OF SEBASTIAN COUNCIL AND CITY OF VERO BEACH COUNCIL OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 1.CALL TO ORDER........................................................................................ 1 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE...................................................................... 1 3.WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS ..................................................... 1 4.PRESENTATION OF FINAL SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PILOT COMMUNITY WORK PRODUCTS: ......................................... 3  DRAFT PUBLIC SCHOOL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ................ 3  DRAFT PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT .......................... 3  DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT REVISIONS ........ 3 September 26, 2006 1 Joint Concurrency Workshop 5.DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WORK PRODUCTS ................................................................................................... 6 6.ADJOURNMENT ......................................................................................... 9 September 26, 2006 2 Joint Concurrency Workshop September 26, 2006 JOINT SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Joint Session for the Presentation of the Final School Concurrency Pilot Community Work Products, with the Indian River County School Board, 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 Tuesday, September 26, 2006. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Arthur Neuberger called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Neuberger led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Chairman Neuberger welcomed everyone and asked County Commissioners and City Council Members to introduce themselves. County Present for the were Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger, Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, and Commissioners Sandra L. Bowden, Wesley S. Davis and Thomas S. Lowther. Also present were County Administrator Joseph Baird, County September 26, 2006 1 Joint Concurrency Workshop Attorney William G. Collins, II, Executive Aide to the Board Kimberly Massung, and Deputy Clerk Athena Adams. City of Sebastian Present for the were Mayor Brian Burkeen and Council Member Sal Neglia and City Manager Al Minner. Vero Beach Present for City of were Mayor Tom White, Council Members Bob Solari, Debra Fromang, and Ken Daige. Mayor White introduced City Manager James Gabbard, City Clerk Tammy Vock, City Attorney Charles Vitunac, Director of Planning & Development Tim McGarry and Assistant City Engineer Bill Messersmith. Fellsmere Present for the City of were Mayor Sara Savage and Council Member Cheryl Hampton, City Manager Jason Nunemaker, City Attorney Warren Dill and Goodwill Ambassador Joel Tyson. School Board Present for the were Members Dr. Craig McGarvey, William Hughes, Ann Reuter and Lenora Quimby. Also present were Superintendent of Schools Dr. Pat Prichett, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities Dr. Dan McIntyre, Susan Olson from Facilities Department and School Board members-elect Mrs. Susan Disney-Brombeck and Debra MacKay. Chairman Neuberger acknowledged the presence of Peter O’Bryan, Commissioner candidate. He also acknowledged other County staff members in attendance: Community Development Director Bob Keating, Planning Director Stan Boling and Long Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani. September 26, 2006 2 Joint Concurrency Workshop 4. PRESENTATION OF FINAL SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PILOT COMMUNITY WORK PRODUCTS:  DRAFT PUBLIC SCHOOL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT  DRAFT PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT  DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT REVISIONS Jeanne Mills, JD, AICPDavid DeYoung, of Jeanne Mills and Associates, LC and AICP of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., through a PowerPoint slide show, presented the School Concurrency Final Report as drafted (a copy is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board). Ms. Mills recapped the purposes and necessity of school concurrency, which is to ensure that adequate school capacity would be available to support the impact of residential development. She also provided a brief history of the existence of school concurrency, which dates back to a 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act. She noted that based on Senate Bill 360 by the Florida Legislature, school concurrency is now mandatory in this State. It requires that all local governments adopt school concurrency provisions as part of their Comprehensive Plan by 2008, with the exception of the Town of Orchid, which is exempt. Ms. Mills outlined the penalties for non-compliance with the requirements, and discussed the draft documents that Pilot Project Communities needed to prepare as required by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). She also discussed the School District’s Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan, Municipal Data, Level of Service Standards and presented a Proposed Tier noting that the school district by the year 2010 or 2011 would be able to meet its backlog and would be at a desired level of service of 100%. September 26, 2006 3 Joint Concurrency Workshop Mr. DeYoung continued the presentation stating that the other half of the process would be implementing this into the Land Development Code. He discussed the School Concurrency Components, Public School Facilities Element, Capital Improvements and Inter-governmental Coordination Elements and the Interlocal Agreement (ILA), which he thought was probably the most important document, because it will define the codes by which they will operate. He noted that the School District does not have a Comprehensive Plan or a Land Development Code so all the provisions of school concurrency needed to be laid out in a document where they could rely on it and the ILA would serve as their code. Mr. DeYoung also addressed the residential review process, service area boundaries and how they are defined. He showed a view of the middle school service area boundary map, and discussed the Availability Standard, which states “a local government may not deny a residential application on the basis of school concurrency if adequate facilities will be in place or under actual construction within three years of the anticipated project approval date.” Further, if there were no available capacity in the system the school district would notify the applicant and the local government and allow for the developer to enter into a negotiation process for proportionate share mitigation. Commissioner Davis questioned proportionate share mitigation asking whether that would offset or would those dollars get deducted from the school impact fees. Mr. DeYoung explained that they do get a credit for impact fees and it could be dollar for dollar. The formula set up in the ILA is the actual cost of construction, so the dollar amount provides that mitigation may be higher than the actual impact fee, he said. Mr. DeYoung clarified Commissioner Bowden’s understanding on proportionate share that a developer could buy his way in if there was no capacity. He said if there was no September 26, 2006 4 Joint Concurrency Workshop capacity the developer gets the opportunity to negotiate with the school district and the applicable local government and that all three parties needed to agree. Discussions ensued regarding impact to the County, changing boundaries for development, who has the final responsibility to make decisions on changing school boundaries, and whether the County or municipalities have any input in decision-making. Ms. Mills noted that there was no set legislative method for the adjustment of the capacity to enrollment at a school that is being impacted by a residential development. Dr. Craig McGarvey , School Board member, in response to comments from Commissioner Lowther on whether the District was involved with plans prior to development, stated that the school board and elected officials had not met nor have they discussed the documents as presented. They were not ready to recommend any approval from the School Board at this point. Dr. McGarvey found “major problems” with the draft report as presented and called it a “developer’s dreamboat and a taxpayer’s nightmare”. He said the School Board would neither be able to come up with the level of service as defined in the document, nor would they have enough money in the coffers to have a 5-year capital plan that would meet the capacity that the developers would need. Chairman Neuberger informed Dr. McGarvey that Mr. DeYoung had not finished his presentation and asked that he continue his arguments afterwards. Mr. DeYoung continued his presentation explaining the availability standard, school concurrency benefits, and the proposed school concurrency implementation schedule. He September 26, 2006 5 Joint Concurrency Workshop noted that there was time in the schedule to allow interested parties to get together and discuss matters they are not in agreement with. Mr. DeYoung then invited questions from the Panel. 5. DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WORK PRODUCTS Mr. DeYoung responded to questions from Commissioner Wheeler regarding a gap in the service area (shown on the site map) and said it was a service area covered by bussing requirements and also a part of Oslo’s Boundary. School Board members found numerous errors with the draft report presented. Discussion ensued regarding over capacity, new growth and annual trend, the County’s projections for new developments, and information provided by mortgage brokers and rental agencies as to the number of families going through their agencies. Dr. McGarvey assured the Panel that they would have an agreement in the timeframe required. However, he was interested in having the School Board, County staff and Consultants revisit the draft report before they render any consensus on what they will do. He also wanted to point out that municipal officers have a fiduciary responsibility to all their constituents. He noted that the documents presented did not take into account, in any significant way, the operational cost for the school department and that was a major concern for them to be able to put teachers in place. He again asked the Board to allow them to meet to go over the documents. Chairman Neuberger agreed they could have a sub-committee meeting. September 26, 2006 6 Joint Concurrency Workshop There were further detailed discussions regarding errors in the report and School Board member Ann Reuter agreed that there should have been a workshop prior to the Joint Workshop. County Administrator Joseph Baird reminded that the report presented was only a draft with projections that may not be perfect and this was the time to work together in a cooperative manner to make the necessary changes. There was consensus to have a workshop to look more closely at the document and the Chairman asked for a Motion in that regard. Motion WAS MADE by Dr. Craig McGarvey, SECONDED by Sal Neglia, for School Board members, County staff, and Consultants to meet and go over the draft School Concurrency Final Report. Sal Neglia suggested the School Board meet with its own staff, prior to the next joint meeting, to go over the Report. More discussion ensued regarding capacity and projected developments. Ann Reuter spoke, for the record, expressing that “the FISH capacity that they have been discussing is actually like a traffic signal at 3:00 a.m., … this is what we have to deal with and that is what the State looks at when they decide we need another school." She said it was a reality that they needed to build other schools. (Clerk’s Note: FISH means Florida Inventory of School Houses and is the official standards governing State requirements for seating capacity at schools). Mayor Tom White , City of Vero Beach, knows that Vero Beach is maxed-out but they have some areas like Heritage Preserve that is looking at building 780 new units. He asked if September 26, 2006 7 Joint Concurrency Workshop that would fall under the concurrency referenced in the Report, since they had already submitted Ms. Mills their site plan. responded “No”; they would not be able to by this document. William Hughes , School Board member, spoke about pressure by developers to use adjacent areas to say there is capacity across County line. Discussion ensued regarding school concurrency versus traffic concurrency with the County’s Community Development Director Bob Keating explaining the provision on Page 25 of the ILA (15.6(B), which reads, “The Local Government shall not approve a final site plan for a multi-family residential project or a final plat for a single-family residential project unless the project is vested for school concurrency, ...”. He pointed out that early approval does not give any vesting or exemption. Director Keating suggested there be a consensus at a broad level, because what the Department of Community Affairs wants to see is that pilot communities are in consensus before they cut us the final check. Chairman Neuberger reminded the Panel that they needed a vote for the Motion. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Neuberger clarified the prior Motion and noted there has to be another Motion for Director Keating’s suggestion for a consensus at a broad level. MOTION WAS MADE by Mayor Tom White, SECONDED by Ann Reuter for a broad consensus of the Interlocal Agreement, the Public School Facilities Element, September 26, 2006 8 Joint Concurrency Workshop the Capital Improvements Element and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, under the Proposed School Concurrency Implementation Schedule. Consensus on the draft document should be delayed until after all parties have had another look at the documents. There was further discussion on what was being voted on. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion carried unanimously. 6. ADJOURNMENT ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:28 a.m. ATTEST: _________________________________ ________________________________ Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Arthur R. Neuberger, Chairman Minutes Approved: _________________ BCC/AA/2006 Minutes September 26, 2006 9 Joint Concurrency Workshop