Joint Meeting Minutes between the

Martin County School District,

Board of County Commissioners

and the City of Stuart

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 – 9:00 a.m.

Blake Library

School Board Members Present

Sue Hershey, Chair

Lorie Shekailo, Vice-Chair

Dr. David Anderson

Laurie Gaylord

Nancy Kline

Dr. Sara A. Wilcox, Superintendent

Tom Elfers, School Board Attorney

School Board Staff

Rodger Osborne, J Lisle Bozeman, Hank Salzler, Ruth Pietruszewski

Martin County Commission

Lee Weberman (Chair), Susan Valliere (Vice-Chair), Doug Smith, Sarah Heard, Michael DiTerlizzi, Stephen Fry (County Attorney), Russ Blackburn (County Administrator)

Martin County Staff

Mary Vettel (Deputy Clerk), Nikki van Vonno, Richard Blankenship, Don Donaldson, Bob Denison, Cesar Perez, David Quigley

City of Stuart Staff

Karl Krueger (Vice-Mayor), Jeff Krauskopf , Mary Hutchinson, Carol Waxler, David Collier (City Manager)

Public

Mike Bender (Palm Beach Post)

I. Roll Call

Martin County Commission Chair, Lee Weberman, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll call was taken. The various board members introduced themselves. Sue Hershey, School Board Chair, presided over the meeting from this point forward.

II. Review of Needed Revisions of School Siting Interlocal Agreement and Population Forecast and Review of Lessons Learned in the Last Two School Siting Excercises

Nikki van Vonno, Martin County’s Growth Management Department Director, presented a matrix that basically went through all the sections of the Interlocal Agreement. The document included a status column showing the current standing and a comment column stating the lessons learned and/or if revisions will be needed to the Interlocal Agreement. Nikki stated that the sharing of information is going fine. She commended the School Board’s decision to hire a Capital Project’s Planning Specialist, J. Lisle Bozeman, which has made all the difference in the world. She examined the suggested revisions. Some of the learned lessons she discussed included:

Ø The Technical Advisory Committee’s focus on school siting leaves little time to focus on other issues.

Ø Other issues, such as land banking, infrastructure improvements, and co-location, require other staff not on TAC and involvement of policy makers.

Ø Time frames are difficult to meet.

Ø The TAC Report needs better formatting to be more user friendly to the LRP Committee.

Ø Some redundancy exists in the siting matrix criteria, and transportation criteria must be supplemented.

Ø The selection process for elementary school sites may be overkill at countywide search level.

She explained that the Long Range Planning Process includes the whole community via the LPP Committee. Section 9.3 requires the three jurisdictions to develop a process for identifying land for future school sites. She advised the agencies to implement those procedures as soon as possible.

Bob Dennison, Martin County Parks and Recreation Director, addressed co-location requirements and opportunities. He informed members that presently Martin County Parks and Recreation Department have agreements at twelve different school sites to provide after hours recreation opportunities. They have just finished a fifteen- year Master Plan. The public has encouraged them to work with the School District to provide more opportunities. The

II. Review of Needed Revisions of School Siting Interlocal Agreement and Population Forecast and Review of Lessons Learned in the Last Two School Siting Excercises (Con’t)

programs that the Martin County Parks and Recreation Department have instituted have been retro fits, since they had to provide access after schools were already built. He explained that the best value would be when they could work with the School Board during the design process, so they could address issues, which arise when facilities and infrastructure are shared, such as security and parking lots. He addressed projects that may be on the horizon. He stated there might be some possibilities of sharing infrastructure with Palm City Elementary and Stuart Middle School. The County has determined there is a need for recreational facilities in the Cove road area.

Board members discussed issues. Richard Blankenship, Martin County’s Recreation Superintendent, answered questions about co-location issues with the cafetorium at Port Salerno Elementary school. All agreed individual program needs must be considered. Commissioner Doug Smith suggested making the presentation of the County’s 15- year Master Plan an agenda item, since some of the board members were not familiar with the plan. He felt sharing this information would be beneficial to the joint planning process.

Lee Weberman asked Nikki van Vonno what she wanted the County, City of Stuart, and School Board to vote on at this point in time. She recommended leaving the Interlocal Agreement alone at this time. Significant changes were not needed immediately. Board members briefly discussed the Interlocal Agreement. Dave Collier, City of Stuart Manager, suggested the County have the responsibility of merging data instead of entities using separate reports. Doug Smith asked if we were going to implement a process for land banking. Lee Weberman stated he preferred not to change the make-up of the TAC.

III. Presentation of a Summary of the Recently Prepared Martin County Report to the School Board on Development Activity

Cesar Perez, Martin County’s Economic Specialist with the Growth Management Department, summarized the Growth Development report. He showed slides of the building permits pending and approved in Martin County. Board members discussed the growth in Martin County.

IV. Discussion of the Progress in Developing a Future Land Acquisition Program

Nikki vanVonno stated that at the last joint meeting the County was asked to review the St Lucie County Development Review Process to determine if merging the procedures were feasible. In the analysis, the first item that stood out was that St Lucie County’s impact fee did not include land costs, whereas Martin County School’s impact fee includes both land and capital facilities. County staff does not believe St. Lucie County’s model will suit Martin County’s purpose because of this difference; however, they feel the formula of how they assess school impacts should be helpful to MCSD. County staff has developed a draft procedure called the PUD Benefits Review Process. She explained the requirements and highlighted the joint benefits of the process to the three jurisdictions. She emphasized that PUD is a voluntary process and is subject to negotiation by both parties. Neither party is guaranteed maximum benefits by right. Lee Weberman was uncomfortable with everything being negotiable and subjective, suggesting a tangible chart be made. Dr. Sara Wilcox would like the School Board to be involved in every step along the way, and she would like every one to keep in mind the thought of land banking.

J Lisle Bozeman, Capital Planning Projects Specialist for the School Board, answered questions from board members.

She explained if a land site was not suitable for a school site, the School Board would like to use the formula that is used in St Lucie County. The formula is based on the estimated student generation rate, and it would be the same formula used for each project coming before the PUD. She reported that the School Board is looking at an estimated gap of 87 million dollars for schools needed in the next ten years; therefore, they were looking for monetary contributions or donation of land to bridge this gap. Sue Hershey stressed that we need to get approval on this process to achieve maximum benefits for the three jurisdictions. At this time, the School Board is not participating until the very end of the process. Sue Hershey stressed she desired approval today.

County Commissioner Chairman Lee Weberman asked the Board of County Commissioners for a motion to move forward on this item.

County Commissioner Michael DiTerlizzi moved that we direct our County staff to move forward with the PUD Benefits Review Process and bring it back for final implementation at our next joint meeting. County Commissioner Doug Smith seconded.

Board members continued to discuss the issues. Commissioner Mike DiTerlizzi said new development should pay their way. He wanted to move cautiously assuring that impact fees were not double. Sue Hershey said staff from the County and School Board has spent months refining the process. Growth and development are taking place at a brisk pace, so she was pushing for approval as soon as possible.

County Commissioner Michael DiTerlizzi restated his motion to reflect that the PUD Benefits Review Process be implemented. Seconder agreed, County Commission voted unanimously.

Lorie Shekailo moved to make the same motion on behalf of the School Board, Laurie Gaylord seconded, and the School Board of Martin County’s vote was unanimous.

IV. Discussion of the Progress in Developing a Future Land Acquisition Program (Con’t)

Commissioner Carol Waxler stated that they would like to tailor this to suit the City of Stuart’s processes for approval. It would be brought forth as an agenda item before the City.

City Commissioner Jeff Krauskopf moved to adopt the process. No one seconded. The motion died for a lack of a second.

V. Overview of School Board’s Current Five Year Facility Plan

Rodger Osborne, Director of Facilities for the School Board, provided an overview of the School Board’s 5-Year Capital Budget Plan. The School Board is waiting for the legislature to make crucial decisions on items such as Universal Pre-K and Amendment 9 to determine projects. He said the results of master plans are beginning to be seen.

VI. Review of Technical Advisory Committee’s Recent Activity

Rodger Osborne reported that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is currently working to identify

potential sites for a new elementary school. More than 200 possible sites were identified within the urban services

area before the hurricanes. As of the last meeting on January 6, 2005, the list was narrowed to 30 sites. These sites

are being analyzed through the 27 criteria described in the school siting matrix. A TAC Report indicating the five

Highest-ranking sites will be distributed in early February.

VII. State Requirements for Infrastructure Related to School Construction

Rodger Osborne included several items dealing with infrastructure and state requirements for building a safe environment for students and staff. He talked about the results of legislation over many years. The legislature instituted penalties for noncompliance. SREF (State Requirements for Educational Facilities) is still used as guidelines. In 2001 the state building code became effective. The state statute articulates that jurisdictions shall work together. Board members discussed the off site infrastructure requirements for school site construction, such as sidewalks, turn lanes, and utilities.

VIII. Oral Presentation by City Manager David Collier Regarding City/School Board Coordination on J.D. Parker Project

Dave Collier, City of Stuart Manager, stated that the City strongly encouraged the School Board to renovate and build

a new school to benefit the neighborhood and were willing to give the School Board city owned property. The City

spent a million dollars on property, so the School Board would have more flexibility with designing the project, with

the understanding that in the future the city’s Recreation Department would be using land for a youth center. He

stated that it was a unique project, since there are two other schools on the same road. He praised Rodger Osborne as

an outstanding Administrator and Sue Hershey as a School Board member, also former Mayor of the City, for going

above and beyond.

Russ Blackburn, County Administrator, answered the Commissioners questions on the Tenth Street funding request

submitted last year by the City to the County for approximately $300,000. Tenth Street is not a County road. Impact

fees cannot be used on city roads, unless the city road is named. Therefore, in order to use impact fees, the

Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended or appropriating another source for the funding would have to

happen to honor the City’s request. The Board of County Commissioners, on a split vote, decided not to go forward

with the issue at that time. Commissioners decided the item would be brought back to the board at a later date.

IX. Oral Presentation of Traffic Improvements Needed Adjacent to Existing County Schools

Don Donaldson, County Engineer, discussed the challenge of controlling traffic near school sites. School Board, City, and County staff has diligently worked to solve problems. He stated that significant progress has been made solving neighborhood problems.

Open to the Board

Sue Hershey

Asked if there were any burning issues.

Don Collier

Wanted to know if any issues to change the Interlocal Agreement would be addressed. He suggested that the TAC committee should draft a policy of how adjacent property owners would be handled.

Sue Hershey

Summarized items for staff to consider.

q Expanding TAC membership

q Oversight redundancy

q Combining data

q Continue co-location discussions

Open to the Board (Con’t)

Sue Hershey

Invited everyone to join her today at 1:00 p.m. for the Dedication of the Advanced Clarke Learning Center, a joint use project between the School Board and Indian River Community College, where juniors and seniors attend school in a hi-tech innovative learning environment.

There being no further business School Board Chair, Sue Hershey, adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m.

_______________________________

CHAIR (Sue Hershey)

_______________________________

SECRETARY (Sara A. Wilcox, Ph.D.)