Joint Meeting Minutes between the

Martin County School District,

Board of County Commissioners

and the City of Stuart

Monday, June 27, 2005 – 1:30 p.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 (Director of Facilities & Planning), J Lisle Bozeman (Capital Projects/Planning Spec), Ruth Pietruszewski (Clerk to the Board/Asst. Sec. to Superintendent), Cathy Brennan (PIO)

Martin County Commission

Lee Weberman (Chair), Susan Valliere (Vice-Chair), Sarah Heard, Michael DiTerlizzi, Stephen Fry (County Attorney), Dan Hudson ( Interim County Administrator)

Martin County Staff

Mary Vettel (Deputy Clerk), Nikki van Vonno (Growth Management Director), Lisa Wichser,

City of Stuart Staff

Karl Krueger (Vice-Mayor), Jeff Krauskopf , Mary Hutchinson, Carol Waxler, David Collier (City Manager), Stephen Fry (Interim City Attorney), Monica Graziani (City of Stuart Development Director)

Members Absent

Doug Smith (County Commissioner)

Public

Kelly Tyko (Stuart News), Ivan Chosnek

.

Call to Order by the School Board Chair and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States

Sue Hershey, School Board Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Board members from the City of Stuart, School Board of Martin County, and Board of County Commissioners introduced themselves.

Sue Hershey requested that a moment of silence be observed for Tony Dattalo, 83, a dedicated community volunteer who passed away over the weekend. Tony was well known from Vero Beach to Stuart for helping people and well-liked for his warmth, kindness, and good-heartedness. His nickname was “Tony Baloney” because of his jokes.

Adoption of the Agenda:*

A. Additions, Deletions or Amendments to the Agenda

B. Approval of the Agenda

Lee Weberman made a motion to approve the agenda

Sue Hershey requested that she read a letter (COPY ATTACHED) from Suzanne Stout first, and requested it be recorded in the minutes. Suzanne could not attend the meeting because of her work schedule. Her letter asked the County to change the rules for sexual offenders residences in Martin County to the fullest extent, not just for offenders with “conditions,” but for all persons having earned the title of sexual offender.

Lee Weberman made a second motion to accept the agenda, Lorie Shekailo seconded, and the motion carried unanimously

1. Open to the Public No representation

2. Recognition:*

A. Recognize Ivan Chosnek for Land Contribution for New Middle School

Sue Hershey recognized Ivan Chosnek, stating that he was exemplary. He provided the Martin County School District with land for a new middle school site. It was with great appreciation and thankfulness that the School Board presented him with a plaque for donating 28.9 acres of land in May 2005.

3. Update on the Growth Management Bill-(COPY ATTACHED)

Nicki van Vonno and J Lisle Bozeman presented an overview of Senate Bill 360. Nicki van Vonno spoke first

apprising Board members that the Governor had signed the bill, and the legislation was now state law. A summary

of the SB 360 titled “A Pay As You Grow Plan for Florida’s Future” was included in the board packets. The summary gave highlights of the legislation. It was primarily concerned with School’s transportation and water, and how these necessary public facilities are handled in terms of concurrency. Also included in the packet was a document to assist the Boards in their review of the statutory requirements resulting from SB 360. Another document listed the requirements that will require specific action by the local governments and School Board and listed the deadlines for theses activities to be completed. Nicki identified the legislative changes and the new requirements. She briefly went over the items. A number of commissions and task forces had been established in this legislation. She pointed out that there were deadlines to when the committees have to be appointed. Nicki emphasized the importance of the School Concurrency Task Force and mentioned that it needs to be monitored. County staff suggests they be involved. Nicki strongly suggested that Martin County’s model be presented to that commission. Orlando and Palm Beach County’s models are the two most heard about at the meetings where school concurrency is discussed. She said a critical committee to pay attention to was the Impact Fee Review Task Force. Nicki stated that impact fees right now are done based on case law. There is no enabling legislation in the State of Florida, but that could change depending on the recommendations of the task force. She summarized the changes that require local government or School Board action, so that the entities could meet the new statutory requirements. There was an emphasis on water supply, so there were various changes to further link water supply planning with comprehensive planning.

J. Lisle Bozeman stated that legislation provides for an 11 member School Concurrency Task Force that is being

appointed now and will meet until the report is due in December of this year. This task force is required to report on

the processes and procedures used to implement school concurrency. They will review the requirements for school

concurrency and recommend how to ensure that schools are built and available concurrent with demand. She explained that two kinds of planning processes are going on. One is out of the Department of Community Affairs and the other is out of the Department of Education. One of the issues she thought everyone should think about is gaining input on getting a procedure that is efficient for us to use and also allows us to meet concurrency in Martin County. The task force will examine the methodology and processes for funding construction of public schools. School facilities must be in place or under construction within 3 years following approval of an application for site plan or final subdivision. SB 360 requires that a level of service be established jointly with the schools, County, and the City. Currently we do not have a level of service requirement in the Comp Plan. This has to be formalized. Along with that, we have to adopt the Public Schools element in the Comp Plan and update the Interlocal Agreement. The SB 360 provides new funding sources. One of the funding sources is “the Classroom for Kids Program,” which was designed to help districts meet the class size reduction amendment. Another funding source established was the “High Growth District Capital Outlay Assistance Grant Program.” This was designed to help districts with high growth areas; unfortunately, with the calculations used, Martin County School District does not meet the criteria to be eligible for the funding. J.Lisle addressed two main issues coming out of SB 360.

Ø The first issue was that there should be some input from all jurisdictions in the County related to the School Concurrency Task Force into how they merge the population projections together, and the procedures that are used for calculating concurrency. The Deptartment of Community Affairs and the Department of Education use different ways to calculate population. DCA bases projections on BEBR, which is based on census data. DOE establishes theirs on COFTE, which is based on full time equivalent students (FTE). This is the main formula that determines school funding and approval for new schools. These two methods do not always come up with the same numbers.

J.Lisle stated that our Interlocal Agreement is working well. From meetings she has attended, she has found that our model is working better than any other, including Palm Beach County and Orange County. She asserted that ours is more appropriate for smaller counties.

Ø The second issue she brought to light was how infrastructure outside of the school property itself is going to be funded. That will depend on if the Task Force requires that this be part of a capital improvement program process, or if it’s to be paid out of another public school’s element process.

Commissioner Sarah Heard asked J. Lisle to comment further on the Florida Impact Fee Review Task Force. Sarah asked if this was a statewide body that would be making determinations about methodology about how much impact fees were collected and how they were collected, or would it be left up to local jurisdiction. J.Lisle responded that to her understanding, their first effort would be to collect information on what every one in the state was doing. They will look at processes and methodologies, but she was not sure if they would be telling local governments how they should be modeled. They are looking to see if they want statewide legislation, so they may come up with a single legislative model that will tell us how we have to formulate our impact fee programs. Currently impact fees are governed by case law.

3. Update on the Growth Management Bill (Con’t)

Sarah Heard replied that we need to keep an eye on it, since it could have an enormous impact on Martin County. Lee Weberman asked if this would trigger any imminent Comp Plan amendments in 2006, or will most of them happen when the next report comes around in 2008. Nicki van Vonno answered that in terms of the school concurrency, one of the things that is supposed to happen, even though the deadline is December 2008 to have that all in place, they are going to establish a schedule for local governments to follow in terms of when they have to submit their plan amendments. At the latest, we will have to have it all done by 2008. The amendments regarding concurrency, in terms of the capital improvements element, have to be done by 2007, so those will definitely occur outside of the cycle of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Dr. Sara A. Wilcox informed Board members that she received an e-mail from Vern Crawford, who works with Palm Beach, Okeechobee, and Treasure Coast School Districts, that the Governor vetoed the funding on the School Concurrency Review. Vern wasn’t sure how that would affect the committees. The Governor also vetoed the High Growth funding. Sue Hershey asked if we needed any action on any of these items today. Nicki van Vonno and J. Lisle both answered no to her question.

4. Martin County School District Impact Fee Study Timeline and Update on Contributions for Mutual Benefit (CMB) (COPY ATTACHED)

J.Lisle Bozeman included a tentative timeline for the 2005 school impact fee update in the Board’s packet. She reported that the District had contracted with Dr. James Nicholas to do the study. He has been provided with most of the data he needs to carry forth the study. He expects to have a draft the week of July 25^th. His final report is expected by September 2^nd. The impact fee ordinance drafting and final approval and adoption of the fee schedule by the School Board are expected October 7^th. Adoption of the revision of the school impact fee ordinance by the Martin County Board of Commissioners is expected on Oct 31^st, with implementation soon thereafter. Besides updating the impact fee schedule, Dr. James Nicholas has been asked to do an in-depth study of student generation rates and a long historical analysis. J.Lisle asked if Board members had any questions on impact fees. There were no questions.

J.Lisle went through the timeline and described some of the things being done with Contributions for Mutual Benefit (CMB). After the January 18^th joint meeting, School Board staff met with City and County staff to work out procedures and types of information that was needed to be provided both to the City and County commissioners to help them determine what kinds of impact new developments had on the School District. A form was developed, which was included in the Board packets, which answers all the questions that were presented that either the City or County wanted to know related to school capacities and impacts on the School District. Along with that form is the calculation of CMB for those developments that do not meet the requirements to request a land donation. The same form is used with the County, identical with the exception for the City project numbers where it asks for County project numbers. The difference in the two calculations sometimes occurs, and this is in the City and the County, if a development occurs within in an area that has the infrastructure already established, there is a line in the formula that talks about unimproved land. That line is struck out. The PUD process has been implemented at both the City and the County level. The City’s process takes place pretty much concurrently with the staff’s review. At the County it is a separate process. Certain elements are still trying to be worked out with the PUD process, but they are minor. With the application form that comes into the City and the County, there is a school impact sheet that is given to the developers. It is sent to the School District. The School District completes an impact statement and returns the form to the City or the County. The form follows the development review process throughout the rest of the procedures.

Sarah Heard asked J.Lisle if she anticipated any changes being made in the new concurrency legislation relating to District wide capacity. J.Lisle responded that the District wide capacity will not be influenced, and how we determine capacity at our schools won’t necessarily be changed. The procedures that the state uses, COFTE and BEBR, may make some modifications in the way we move forward with capacity calculations. Nicki van Vonno advised Commissioner Heard that the statute requires that concurrency be applied District wide. Nicki explained that you can have a tiered level of service. The school’s level of service (LOS) has to be set jointly by the local government and by the School Board. She stated that you could have a District wide LOS, but within 5 years after adoption, your concurrency must be based on an area that is less than a District wide basis. Lee Weberman asked if the forms were being used yet. Nicki replied that they were not being used yet, since the form was just finalized. Lee felt it was a good tool. Sue Hershey agreed that it was a good idea. Jeff Krauskopf asked if everyone was square on the numbers. He had heard a couple of times that there were empty blanks that the numbers weren’t being filled in. J. Lisle replied that the first form received did have empty spaces in it. Since then the form has been corrected and finalized. Mary Hutchinson asked about the change in the numbers on the form. J.Lisle answered that the difference was the allowance for infrastructure. A discussion took place on how the funds would be collected and tracked. Mayor Michael Mortell requested surety that the rules are clearly understood by everyone.

5. Review Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Process (COPY ATTACHED)

Nicki van Vonno presented the status report on the Interlocal Agreement. This tool was developed to monitor progress and make sure all the requirements of the Interlocal Agreement are met. She concentrated on a few sections of the report. TAC focus on school sitings left little time to focus on other issues, such as land banking, infrastructure improvements, and co-location. Other staff from jurisdictions should be involved with TAC for their expertise. Her observation was that TAC committee members did not have a clear understanding of their role and the process that they were charged with. She commented that the time frames in the Interlocal Agreement were not realistic and gave Board members examples.

6. Future Development Projects in Martin County-(COPY ATTACHED)

Sue Hershey announced that the School Board had finally signed the Port Salerno Elementary cafetorium over for the County to use for senior programs, and youth and adult recreation. Nicki van Vonno, Martin County Growth Management Department Director, used a power-point presentation to exhibit a series of color coded maps of the developments that are under review. She explained the key to the color coding on the maps. Monica Graziani, City of Stuart Development Director, critiqued and reviewed the developments with the Board. She reported the number of units of each project under review and discussed the different geographic areas.

7. Discuss North County Transportation Connectivity-(COPY ATTACHED)

Lisa Wichser, Martin County Engineering Department, gave background on the north county transportation connectivity. Residents in Windemere and Vista del Lago had requested improved access to US-1. Complaints had been generated by the back-up of traffic at Felix A. Williams Elementary School. Faculty and parents wanted improved access to Baker Road. DOT said they would permit a traffic light on US-1 in that area, if the County had a four way approach. Alternate corridors would relieve congestion. Lisa gave a visual presentation of the areas. She described phase I and phase II of the project.

• Phase 1
• Connect Vista del Lago to Windemere Drive
• Signalize the US-1 intersection at Windemere Drive
• Phase 2

o Connect Windemere Drive to Green River Parkway

o Provide access to Felix A. Williams Elementary School

She outlined the options to accomplish the goal.

Phase I Options

• Option A
• Connect Vista del Lago to US-1 through the North Stuart Baptist Church property at Windemere Drive
• Option B
• Re-align Windemere Drive and connect Vista del Lago to US-1 through

ü North Stuart Baptist Church property

ü Tri-Mar (Tuckers Cove) property

ü Lyng property

Phase 2 Options

• Option A

o Connect Windemere Drive to Felix A. Williams Elementary

• Option B

o Connect Felix A. Williams Elementary to Green River Parkway

• Option C

o Connect Windemere Drive to Green River Parkway

Lisa requested direction from the Board to see if they were agreeable to do both phases. She asked if there was a preference on options A or B, with phase I, or A, B, or C with phase II. Carol Waxler wanted to know what time frames they were looking at with regards to the phases. Lisa answered that they would be meeting next month on applications on phase I. Staff needed direction, so they could move forward on those projects and obtain a right of way. Jeffery Krauskopf stated that it looked like option A would be less expensive than option B. Lisa answered that the entire connection was estimated at $5 million with right of way from Vista Del Lago to Green River Parkway. Out of that she guessed between a quarter to a third of that would be for Option A, Phase I. Lisa expected A to be less expensive than B. Board members asked questions and discussed the options and phases with Lisa. Lisa was looking for a commitment that Board members wanted to look at this as being an alternative, and the connection would go from Vista del Lago to Green River Parkway with or without a connection to Felix. A. Williams. Mayor Michael Mortell stated that at the past meeting at the City of Stuart they had already addressed the issue of having a connection all the way to Green River Parkway. He believed it was a unanimous vote by his commission. David Collier, City Manager, warned if there wasn’t a commitment from the jurisdictions to spend money for right of way acquisition, these options may disappear and become impossible. Lee Weberman said he was supportive in committing to connect from Vista del Lago to Green River Parkway, and he felt comfortable in asking his Board members how they felt. Mike DiTerlizzi informed Board members that part of that right of way already exists to the east of the Tri-Mar property. He has heard that the church had plans for expansion. He suggested that the Board have meaningful discussions on the realignment on the east side of US-1. Lee asked Mike his opinion on going from Vista del Lago to Green River Parkway. Mike answered yes to his question. Mike stated he would prefer option B, understanding the wishes of the church. Sarah Heard said Mr Lyng needs to be invited to the table and see how he feels about his property being cut in half. Lee asked Nicki if a formal vote was needed.

Mike DiTerlizzi moved approval of the conceptual connection from Vista del Lago to Green River Parkway, Susan Valliere seconded, and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0 .

Sue Hershey asked if both options provided access to Felix A. Williams. Lisa answered yes to her question. Stephen Fry requested Mayor Mortell to confirm that the City did want a connection from US-1 to Green River Parkway. Mayor Mortell answered yes and confirmed that the City wanted that connection. Sarah Heard suggested trying to obtain a donation for the right of way. Mike DiTerlizzi asked the School Board’s feelings on the school site proposed

7. Discuss North County Transportation Connectivity (Con’t)

by the Tuscawilla property. The development was coming before the County Commission tomorrow. Sue Hershey stated that the School Board would be very appreciative of a land donation, because the District could not build the schools on what funds were received from the State or the impact fees. Lee Weberman said the land was being called elementary school site, and he felt that title was very limiting. He asked if there would be any problem if they changed the name to just school site or school property. Dr. Sara A. Wilcox said that would work very well. Lee stated that the documents the Commissioners had stated that the School Board must accept the property. Lee informed School Board members that somewhere after the discussion tomorrow, the School Board would have to take some type of formal action. He said we will work out the details tomorrow. Sue Hershey informed Lee that the Long Range Planning Committee had already approved this property as their first choice, and it had already been Board approved. Mike DiTerlizzi asked School Board members if they had any discussions about the joint use of facilities with Parks & Recreations. Dan Hudson answered that they had done planning. Susan Valliere asked what the acreage requirements were for school sites. Nicki van Vonno gave the school siting standards for the size requirements. The technical standard for elementary schools is 20 acres with a minimum of 10 acres; the technical standard for middle schools is 40 acres with a minimum of 20 acres; the technical standard for high schools is 60 with a minimum of 35 acres. Lee Weberman stated if they do research on a sexual predator ordinance, they will be sure to alert the School Board and Sheriff’s Office. Susan Valliere asked School Board members if they were contemplating a sales tax. Sue Hershey answered that a workshop was scheduled on August 2^nd to look at alternate funding sources, and the School Board must look at all alternatives. Lee Weberman asked if the School Board planned to do anything before next year’s primary or general elections. Lorie Shekailo stated that the Board has made no decisions.

Mike DiTerlizzi moved to adjourn the joint meeting.

There being no further business School Board Chair, Sue Hershey, adjourned the meeting at 3:37 p.m.

_______________________________

VICE-CHAIR (Lorie Shekailo)

_______________________________

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

.