Minutes
SPECIAL
COMMISSION MEETING
The City Commission met in special joint session with the Board of Leon
County Commissioners (
Superintendent Montford
called the meeting to order at
Superintendent Montford
acknowledged the provision of refreshments by Leon County Schools Food Service,
noting that the selection of snacks and the November menu, were indicative of
changes in the school cafeterias. He invited the City and
County Chairman Thaell
announced that he had been asked to find out if there were any objections to
rescheduling the November 24th Intergovernmental Agency (IA) meeting
to another date, looking at a date prior the Thanksgiving break, and there were
no objections.
City Commissioner
Lightsey requested that the IA meeting be scheduled as a stand-alone meeting,
rather than one to be held at the end of another meeting.
Superintendent
Montford ascertained that there were no changes or additions to the published
agenda.
SENATE
BILL 360 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND FUNDING ACT
(GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION)
Item 1 was a staff review of key features of Senate Bill 360, the
Infrastructure Planning and Funding Act (2005 Growth Management Legislation)
(distributed in the agenda materials and retained on file in the Office of the
City Treasurer-Clerk). An agreement provided by The Florida Department
of Community Affairs (FDCA) for a grant, in the amount of $17,000, was
presented for acceptance and approval, for the staff to proceed with preparing
a first draft of an interlocal agreement for the new public school facilities
element, school concurrency, and local intergovernmental coordination requirements,
and allow the attorneys to proceed with the selection of a legal consultant to
provide assistance through the process (Option 1 as presented by Planning).
Comprehensive
Planning Manager Fred Goodrow reviewed the item and advised that timelines had
been established, including adoption of the agreement of the respective
boards/commissions by May 2006 and final approval of the grant acceptance by
City
Commissioner Lightsey moved to authorize the signing of the grant agreement and
School Board Member Bowen seconded the motion. The motion was rescinded
pursuant to advice from the attorneys that separate votes were required.
On
behalf of the City, City Commissioner Lightsey moved to authorize the
signing of the grant agreement as recommended and upon second by City
Commissioner Gillum, the City Commission vote was as follows:
AYE: Commissioners Marks, Lightsey
and Gillum
NAY: None
ABSENT: Commissioners
Katz and Mustian
On
behalf of the County, County Commissioner Sauls moved a like motion and
upon second by County Commissioner Rackleff, the vote of the
AYE:
NAY: None
ABSENT:
On
behalf of the School Board, Board Member Varn moved a like motion and
upon second by Board Member Bowen, the vote of the School Board was as follows:
AYE: Board Members Costigan,
Varn, Lewis, Bowen and Crumpler
NAY: None
STATUS OF CURRENT EDUCATION ELEMENT
Item 2 was a Leon County Schools (LCS) staff review of the
current Education Element of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Goal,
Objectives, and Policies (distributed in the agenda materials and retained
on file in the Office of the City Treasurer-Clerk).
Dr.
Jon Cramer presented the item as a review of the interlocal agreement, which
had been in place since June 1998, addressing level of service (LOS) in terms
of planning and growth, and the involvement of schools with the City and the
County. He advised that the agreement included analyses of data and educational
plant surveys, existing and future developments and related problems,
population projections and trends, and stated that the elements within the
interlocal agreement were very consistent with new legislation on growth
management.
Commissioner
Lightsey ascertained from Mr. Goodrow that the language in the Education
Element, along with any amendments, would go into effect
Board
Member Lewis brought up a situation relating to a dilapidated service station
that needed to be cleaned up more often, as it was not an acceptable
environment for the students of nearby
Director
of Planning Wayne Tedder advised that Item C.2. Attachment B provided a recap
of the gaps remaining between Senate Bill 360 and the Education Element (retained
on file in the Office of the City Treasurer-Clerk), and he confirmed that
staff would track those issues.
AYE: City Commissioners
Marks, Lightsey and Gillum;
NAY: None
ABSENT: City Commissioners Katz and
Mustian, and
Mayor Marks
requested that the attorneys indicate when separate votes were needed, and
brief discussion ensued indicating that separate votes were needed on
contractual matters.
City
Commissioner Lightsey briefly discussed her understanding that the state
planned to issue some model policies and procedures for calculating concurrency
and fair share issues, and local governments would need to make those policy
decisions from an array of options. Mr. Tedder advised that a consultant had
been retained to work on developing some model intergovernmental agency interlocal
agreements as well as the Education Element. He stated that the interlocal
agreement draft was anticipated to be ready in January 2006 and the concurrency
agreement thereafter.
On
behalf of the
HIGHLIGHTS OF
Item 3 was a staff report on the highlights of the Leon County
Schools (LCS) School Plant Survey. The staff’s recommendation was to
authorize staff to advertise the 2005-2010 Educational Plant Survey for a
public hearing and adoption on
Mr. Paul
Byrd, LCS Director of Facilities and Operations, reviewed the five-year survey
and recommendations for new schools and their locations. He advised that the
School Plant Survey established that LCS was in compliance with the
Constitutional Amendment for Class Size Reduction and established a level of
service (LOS) of 18 students per classroom for grades pre-Kindergarten through
Third Grade, 22 students for grades Four through Eight, and 25 students for
grades Nine through Twelve, and determined that the projections for growth in
Leon County were met until 2010-2011, noting that any issues with the
projections could be addressed as they arose. Mr. Byrd clarified that gave a
Power Point presentation depicting data on enrollment trends.
Discussion
focused on factors contributing to population shifts in the schools, including
the No Child Left Behind Legislation.
Additional
discussion focused briefly on the School System being unable to complete its
capital improvement plan with the revenues generated and being (-$70 million)
short on school construction costs.
Board
Member Bowen moved to accept the report on the
AYE: City Commissioners
Marks, Lightsey and Gillum;
NAY: None
ABSENT: City Commissioners Katz and Mustian,
and
NEW SCHOOL
CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENT
Item 4 was a staff update on new school concurrency requirement to
provide a mechanism for coordinated planning between the City, the County, and
the School District for the construction of schools in order to provide
sufficient student capacity when and where needed, with the interlocal
agreement and the prospective Public Schools Facilities Element requiring
options for proportionate-share mitigation (presented by LCS and Planning).
Mr.
Goodrow presented the item, and advised that the School Board must agree to
mitigation agreements worked out by the developers and local government.
City
Commissioner Gillum left the meeting at
Discussion
focused on process and the need to wait for some guidance from the FDCA.
Discussion
continued relating to infrastructure issues. Commissioner Lightsey suggested
that when looking at the map, staff need to look at vacant developable land
absent all public land, and she noted the City had already implemented waivers
of fees.
Board
Member Lewis recommended that the School Board staff put together a document
looking at mitigation needed for land development for schools.
Superintendent
Montford confirmed with Mr. Goodrow that Planning staff could provide a map
of vacant parcels that included buildable lots.
Mr.
Goodrow clarified that the direction to the staff was to review three PASS
projects and three different area of the County, provide a map of vacant land
and a copy of the affordability study.
Mayor Marks
added a request for the staff to provide an analysis of what each government
entity could do to address these issues, their responsibilities by law or
otherwise, and if any of that would be jointly.
City
Commissioner Lightsey requested that the staff provide an analysis of
countywide revenue analysis on an impact fee, as a fair share mitigation where
there is existing deficiency, looking at building permits and calculate what
could have been raised had a school impact fee been in place the past couple of
years.
Mr. Goodrow
advised that by statute, FDCA would annually look at the LOS for schools, pro
rata share mitigation, the whole program as looking toward achieving capacity
in the school system, how capacity would be maintained, and how and what data
was being collected, and the capital improvement element, although the FDCA
review would allow flexibility. He advised that School Board staff would bring
back information on the varying LOS.
Superintendent
Montford noted the use of classroom cottages to expand the schools, similar to
former portable classrooms.
OTHER ISSUES FROM THE JUNE MEETING
Item 5 was a review of issues brought forward from the June
meeting, including a downtown school, sidewalk priorities, a new southside high
school, crossing guards, and after school programs.
After
School Program
Board
Member Crumpler discussed the loss of future funding for the After School
Program due to 21st Century funding becoming depleted and stressed
the need to work together to address that issue as an urgent countywide
problem. He moved that the Chair of the School Board, the Mayor, and the
County Commission Chair appoint two people to come back to this joint group in
90 days and discuss those issues where the City, the County and the School
Board could work more collaboratively, and suggested that some of the
concerns and breakdowns ranged from transportation to impacts and problems
associated with the three entities not stepping up to the plate and looking at
this from a community standpoint.
There
being no quorum, Board Member Crumpler asked for consensus direction that this
group be appointed and charged with bringing back a recommendation on how to
address this problem.
Mayor Marks
suggested that the newly-formed Oversight Committee, Item 6, be given that
added charge, as opposed to starting another new committee, and that an
additioinal person be appointed to the Oversight Committee. Board Member
Crumpler indicated he would support that suggestion.
Discussion
ensued relating to the need to address the issue of funding and expanding the
after school programs, making sure the funds were used most effectively and
where the funds could be obtained when the School Board rank out of federal
funding for the program in two years.
School
Board Chair Costigan expressed concern with the workload being assigned to the
three-person Oversight Committee, which had been appointed to oversee the
interlocal agreement. Discussion continued in this regard and whether it would
be in everyone’s best interests to have each entity appoint two people to
inventory what was being done and what would be done when funding was depleted.
Mayor Marks suggested that an additional person be appointed to the Oversight
Committee.
School
Board Chair Costigan agreed with Board Member Crumpler that a representative
from the Parks & Recreation Department and the Library should be on the
Committee since they were invested in this program.
Sidewalk
Priorities
Board
Member Crumpler thanked both the
School
Board Chair Costigan explained that her only concern with a downtown school was
with the impact on the population of existing schools, and she noted that this
would require a collaborative effort.
Superintendent
Montford observed that there were a lot of possibilities for acquiring the
Caroline Brevard building, one of the buildings that the State planned to
dispose of as surplus property, and he noted that the County had first option
on acquiring that building.
Mayor
Marks opined that the Caroline Brevard building would be ideal for a school for
performing arts, grades 1-12.
Superintendent
Montford advised that the State Department of Education might be interested in
using that building to house a “model classroom” for the state, which would
help with the funding.
Brief
discussion focused on targeting a new southside high school for school reform
or signature programs.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ACTIVATION
Item 6 was a review of the status of the Oversight Committee to
monitor implementation of the interlocal agreement between the City, the
County, and the School Board. Since the June 2005 meeting, the following
appointments were made to the Oversight Committee and the staff was scheduling
their first meeting before the end of the year:
City of
Superintendent
Montford thanked these three members for agreeing to serve on this committee
and he distributed copies the School Board appointee’s resume (on file in
the Office of the City Treasurer-Clerk).
School
Board Chair Costigan suggested that consideration be given to appointing
another citizen to this committee.
Superintendent
Montford directed the staff to select a date for the next City-County-School
Board joint meeting.
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
Approved:_________________________
Cliff Thaell,
Chairman
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Bob Inzer, Clerk of the Circuit
Court