Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/06/2003 J (w/School Board) May 6, 2003 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY WORKSHOI' Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 AM May 6, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein in WORKSHOP SESSION, met on this date at 9:00 AM in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Board of County Commissioners: Chairman Tom Henning Frank Halas Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Jim Coletta District School Board Members: Linda Abbott, Dick Bruce, Pat Carroll, Kathleen Curatolo, Steven Donovan Speakers & Staff: Collier County Staff: Jim Mudd, Joe Schmitt, Marjorie Student, Margaret Wuerstle, David Weeks, Norman Feder, Diane Flagg, Bob Tipton School Board Staff: Dr. Dan White - Superintendent, Jim Simms - Associate Superintendent for Operational Services, Ashley Lupo, Beverly Grady, David Lasanski, Michael Kirk, Amy Taylor Page 1 Joint Board of County Commissioners and The District School Board of Collier County Workshop Agenda May 6, 2003 9:00 a.m. Collier County Board of County Commissioners Boardroom 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL 34112 1. Introduction and Opening Remarks - Joe Schmitt, Jim Simms a. Overview of requirement for coordinated and comprehensive joint planning for school facilities planning b. Brief overview of current 90-day agreement and timeline to finalize final interlocal agreement 2. Existing and Future Schools Report - Collier County Public Schools Staff (CCPS} a. Locations of Existing Schools/Plans for Expansions b. Schools under Construction and Opening Dates c. Future Schools - Locations and Estimated Year Open 3. Local Coordination and Public Involvement - Collier County Public Schools Staff (CCPS) & Collier County Staff (CCS) a. Overview of Coordination Agreement - CCPS b. Role of School Board Representative to Planning Commission - CCPS c. Land Acquisition Process- CCPS d. Shared Data and Coordinated Planning for Future Schools - CCPS & CC$ e. Advanced Capital Improvement Coordination - CCPS & CCS 4. Proposed School Board Review Process a. History and Background/Overview of the 1996 IA - CCPS & CCS b. State Statutes and School Board Authority - CCPS c. State Statutes Giving Local Authority to Review - CCS d. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review- CCS - e. Public School Future Land Use Map Series - CCS ' f. Site Plan Review- CCPS & CCS · Changes from the 1996 Interlocal Agreement · Time Frame Se School Speed Zones a. County Issues b. CCPS Issues c. Coordinated Resolution May 6, 2003 Mr. Henning called the meeting to order at ---9:00 AM. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. I. Opening Remarks -Joe Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator, introduced his staff. Pursuant to State statute 1013-33, the respective staff of the county and the school board initiated a cooperative effort to develop an interlocal agreement. March 1st, 2003 is the mandated deadline for the adoption of an interlocal cooperation agreement by the BCC and the Collier County School Board. In February 2003, both boards approved an interim agreement for the unincorporated area of Collier County; it was designed to sunset on May 26, 2003. The subsequent negotiations to develop an optional element, that defines the procedure and criteria for comprehensive planning review and approval of future school developments within the county was a difficult task. The respective staffs have worked on developing and negotiating the corollary agreement; an interlocal agreement for planning and site plan review approval process. The county felt strongly that a section dealing with site plan review must be included in the interlocal agreement. DCA permitted the submittal of an interim local agreement to meet the requirement defined in F1 State Statute 1013-33. To ensure compliance and meet the established timeframes, the revised interlocal agreement is due to the DCA on May 26, 2003. The school board is scheduled to approve the interlocal agreement on May 15, 2003 and the BCC is scheduled for approval on May 27, 2003. DCA approved the May 27, 2003 date for approval by the BCC. The purpose of this workshop is to review the highlights of the agreement, to air concerns, and provide the respective staffs with guidance for approval later this month. -Jim Simms, Associate Superintendent for Operational Services, introduced his staff. Mr. Simms expressed his thanks to the BCC and the Collier County Staff. He stated that both staffs are continuing to work on the language of the agreement, but agree on the principals. The school board staff objective is to maintain the flexibility of the past, enabling the school board to respond to rapid growth and deliver schools when necessary, within the rules and parameters set out by the county. Page 2 May 6, 2003 II. Existing and Future Schools Report - Collier County Public Schools Staff (CCPS) -Michael Kirk reviewed three maps with the school board and the BCC; existing schools, schools under construction, and future schools. Currently there are 22 elementary schools, 8 middle schools, and 5 high schools. The school district is undergoing an aggressive construction campaign to address the student population growth within the county. They are currently building 2 high schools; High School BBB in the OrangeTree area and Golden Gate High School.just south of Golden Gate City. The construction for Middle School BBB will begin in the next few months. The final two schools under construction in the Golden Gate area are Golden Gate intermediate centers north and south. Sable Palm Elementary School is also currently under construction. Over the past four years the school board has obtained several sites for land for future school use. The 2002 capital plan identifies the need for 8 new elementary schools, 5 new middle schools, and 5 new high schools over the next 20 years; 4 of these are currently under construction. In addition the school board has commitments from the Parklands PUD and the Sable Bay PUD to provide land for 2 elementary schools. At this time the district staff is actively pursuing the acquisition of the remaining property needed to provide school sites, identified in the capital plan for the next 20 years. Mr. Kirk reviewed the future schools map, which provided the number of schools needed in specific areas. The school district hopes to complete in the next 2-3, the acquisition of lands for the next 20 years. -Donna Fiala asked about the donated land from Sabal Bay and ifa second elementary school would be built next to Avalon Elementary School. Mr. Kirk explained that Sabal Bay has a commitment to provide land for an elementary school, but the CCPS has been discussing the possibility with them to acquire additional lands for a middle school. -Mr. Halas asked what obligation the county had in providing utilities to proposed future school sites. Mr. Kirk stated that they do a site development feasibility study for every site they acquire. In this study they deal with utilities, water and sewer, storm water, roads, and the entire equation. The CCPS has met with the county staff to discuss the sites. Mr. Halas asked about the water and sewer supply for the school Page 3 May 6, 2003 off 18th. Mr. Kirk stated that for this particular school, they will have to build their own treatment plant to provide water and sewer. III. Local Coordination and Public Involvement - Collier County Public Schools Staff (CCPS) and Collier County Staff (CCS) -Amy Taylor, CCPS, stated that thc two main issues to consider arc proactive and reactive. The school board can be very proactive in land acquisition; they have been able to acquire -80% of their needs for the next 20 years. Thc process is reactive in thc sense that the "population has to be there". Thc school board does not have concurrency; controlling development based on the accessible public facilities. Therefore the school board must be reactive in building public schools. Due to this, the school board ensures that there is a public process and a consistency review & compatibility determination for surrounding uses. Amy Taylor reviewed some of the current situations and how the CCPS plans for future schools. There has been a 2.3% county-wide increase in student growth from 2001-2002. Using this percentage, the state determines the need for schools. A 7.5% increase in student growth for elementary schools has occurred in the Golden Gate rural area. This is a significant number, which the district needs to respond to with the opening of new schools. A 5% increase in student growth has occurred for middle schools. A 5.65% increase in county-wide student growth for high schools has occurred; Gulf Coast and Barron Collier have had the highest growth. The student enrollment and state projections determine the need for new schools. This information is also supplemented with county approvals, county population, dwelling unit projections, and census data. The geographic location of the schools is determined by a location analysis; which includes county development approvals, county population projections, student enrollment, and existing school projections. A site development feasibility analysis is determined by reviewing the cost, availability, size, infrastructure needs, and the county and state regulations. The agreement includes a component on the role of the school board representative on the CCPC, which is a requirement of the state. The agreement has an inclusive two-way communication, in terms of the land acquisition process, as well as shared data and coordinated planning for future schools with the Page 4 May 6, 2003 county, and advanced capital improvement coordination. The components of the coordination agreement are part of state policy; Chapter 163 and Chapter 1013. The major objective of the agreement is the coordination between local governments and the school board. The goal of the agreement is to meet the challenges of the rapid population growth. Recently the BCC and the school board approved a non-voting member to sit on the CCPC, representing the school board. This role includes review and providing recommendations on rezoning, comp plan amendments, development proposals, the impact of proposed residential development on existing and planned school capacity, compatibility of proposed adjacent developments, and to make recommendations on any impacts to adjacent school facilities. The coordination agreement will also establish an informal site evaluation committee with a representative from Collier County to assist in the land acquisition process. The site feasibility evaluation is similar to the current process. Land availability, size, location approximate to residential development, compatibility, availability of other public facilities and services, safe access, environmental issues, and joint use opportunities are considered when reviewing the feasibility. The comprehensive plan consistency review is the final step prior to acquisition. This review is one of the links to the second interlocal agreement on site acquisition, planning, and development. The local coordination agreement also establishes specific timelines for sharing data. This allows for any major issues to be determined early on in the process. Advanced Capital Improvement coordination is also prior to site acquisition. This includes a joint determination at the consistency review of infrastructure improvements, what needs to be done to facilitate the school site, off- site & on-site, timing an location of improvements, and the entity responsible for the improvements. IV. Proposed School Board Review Process A) History and Background/Overview of the 1996 IA -Amy Taylor stated that Collier County is one of the few counties in the state of Florida to have fulfilled their state requirement for an interlocal agreement. She reviewed the 1996 interlocal agreement. It establishes school location criteria, Page 5 May 6, 2003 limited site plan review, and a 30 day review period. The new agreement addresses, improves, and enhances on all of the original criteria. B) State Statutes and School Board Authority -Ashley Lupo, School Board Attorney, reviewed the state statutes. The 1996 interlocal agreement stated that schools were considered permitted and permissible uses, consistent with the comp plan, and the LDC regulations. The LDC and the comp plan were not amended to include this, so this will be corrected in the new agreement and will also detail where the schools are allowed and considered permitted & permissible uses. Schools under the statute are provided to locate approximate to residential areas and are encouraged to use elementary schools as a focal point for their development. The DCA has stated that the conditional use process is not consistent with the obligation to provide schools in a timely manner, which is the rational behind placing the permitted locations for schools into the new agreement. The state statute is particular about the site plan review process; what schools may and may not be reviewed on. The county cannot deny the school board application based on the adequacy of the site plan related to the school, but they can propose reasonable development standards. The internal autonomy and site plan are set forth in the state statute. The school board is also regulated by the state regulations for educational facilities, (ESRA), and their own regulations. That autonomy goes to expanding a school site; the expansion is limited to the off-site impacts, not to the internal impacts. This is provided for in the interlocal agreement. Some of the concerns during negotiations were about the statutory requirement that state the school board can request the county to maintain sidewalks within a 2-mile radius of a school facility. The CCS and CCPS have come to an agreement that provides funding through impact fees in order to alleviate some of the county's burden in providing this off-site infrastructure. In the 1996 agreement the school board was required to provide the sidewalks, but the new agreement differs due to growth and infrastructure challenges. The school board will come up with the sidewalk plan to allow safe access from adjoining larger roads. -Linda Abbott asked for more elaboration on the sidewalk plan in the new interlocal agreement. Mr. Simms stated that there is a consultant, jointly employed by the Page 6 May 6, 2003 county and the school board, to review school impact fees. The Florida statute requires the county to provide sidewalks within a 2mile radius of schools, unless the school board agrees to do so. The agreement that was reached on the staff level is to recommend that impact fees construction of sidewalks may be appropriate for the county. The consultant informed them, that he could distinguish the amounts appropriate for sidewalks. Mr. Simms stated that the Clerk of Courts supports this concept and there is a mechanism to accomplish this. -Kathleen Curatolo asked if the school board would provide the sidewalk design and then provide this as a recommendation to the county. Norman Feder, Transportation Department, stated that they would look for ajoint plan between the school board and the county based on the availability, setting priorities, and the plans for sidewalks. -Linda Abbott stated that the school board will soon be considering their budget and asked how long this type of plan would take and when the costs would be known. Mr. Feder stated that they have provided some dollars already and the school board staff was provided with some preliminary assumptions and estimated costs, which will help the consultant and developer with the impact fee formula. Linda Abbott asked for regular update so that they could see how it is proceeding. Mr. Feder stated that he would do so. -Mr. Coletta asked about the sidewalks intended for Desoto Rd and Everglades Blvd and if they intend to meet the needs at least on one side of the roads. Mr. Feder stated that they are looking at this and at the higher volume facilities, major collectors & up; they would like to ensure sidewalks as quickly as possible. Mr. Coletta asked if there had to be a direct benefit to those providing the impact fee. Mr. Feder replied that the LDC requires sidewalks throughout and the school is considered a public benefit. He added that they will need to consider these sidewalks from "a degree proportionality" to the overall community issues. -Mr. Donovan asked about developments already improved that are denying safe access through pathways. Diane Flagg, Transportation Department, stated that the LDC amendments address sidewalks in the multi-family areas and the widening on local, arterial, and collector streets. She explained that in order to connect PUD's, it is required to be listed in the PUD document. Some urban developments have Page 7 May 6, 2003 allowed throughways, while others have not. In order to affect this, there would have to be a policy decision requiring this in the PUD approval stage. She clarified that they cannot force existing, or "closed out", PUD's to allow throughway access for the schoolchildren. Mr. Schmitt agreed with this and added that they could only require the PUD to come back for an amendment if they do so through a legal action. Mr. Feder stated that the PUD process may allow staff to review an individual PUD for modification, if it is found that certain essential links need to be addressed. -Linda Abbott asked that this information be brought to the attention of the CCPC. -Mr. Donovan asked if a sunsetted PUD denies access to a safe pathway for schoolchildren, then where would the liability fall for a child hurt by having to use a busy street as a pathway. Mr. Feder stated that if a PUD is sunsetted, then there is no PUD and it could be addressed when any new development came in. Mr. Simms stated that if a safe pathway cannot be established, then busses will be provided for the children; "safety first". -Ashley Lupo stated that the school board was in a bind because of their obligation to provide schools in correlation to growth and not always being considered a permitted use. She felt that they have come to a good solution in reviewing the need for them in PUD's; beginning and sunsetting. There will also be a provision to amend the LDC, to allow a PUD to be re-opened for the addition ora school, but not all of the PUD components will be up for review as the case is now. These LDC amendments will be proposed in the 3rd LDC amendment cycle. Mr. Schmitt added that due to the interlocal agreement, they realize that there are going to be required amendments to the LDC and staff is committed to make this happen. -Amy Taylor stated that they had FDOT approved planning funds for the Golden Gate and rural areas to do a rural pathway plan. They will be working with the county on this and it will relate to bringing down the impact fees used for connectivity. This will also address public facilities and therefore a relationship can be established with the other public facilities providers. -Mr. Halas stated that some of the sidewalk interconnectivity issues will be addressed in this LDC amendment cycle. Mr. Donovan felt that the safety of school Page 8 May 6, 2003 children was a paramount issue that must be kept in mind. Linda Abbott stated that they must also consider the fiscal impact of bussing and that this is a time sensitive issue because of the fiscal impact. -Mr. Coletta agreed with Mr. Donovan and Linda Abbott. Mr. Coletta believed that the infrastructures needed to be in place before they moved forward with construction. He asked that the schools not open before sidewalks are built or busses were provided for safety. He also asked that the school board inform the public if the pathways were not established before the schools were built. -Mr. Halas stated that the problem is with right-of-way issues and that they do not have the proper space to allow sidewalks and widening for bus routes. -Kathleen Curatolo added that they can't hold off the construction of schools because of the surrounding infrastructure requirements, since the growth in the county is so rapid. Mr. Henning stated that the BCC demands infrastructure requirements to be dealt with before construction, but they do want to work with the school board to meet the demands in a timely fashion. -Mr. Donovan stated that he would like to see the BCC and the school board meet more often to address these issues, so they don't become political problems. -Ashley Lupo continued with her presentation. She pointed out that the statute also requires the school board to follow the Florida building and fire prevention code. The school board is considered exempt from the local amendments to the Florida building or fire codes. In the agreement the school board, in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, has agreed to an architectural compatibility review for specific criteria in elementary and middle schools. For high schools, there will be a limited but mandatory review to ensure compatibility with the surrounding communities for architectural standards. In the new agreement, the school board agreed to pay for the placement of traffic signals, but there will be a cost sharing if other developers will be using the signals as well. Ashley Lupo explained that the 1996 agreement did not have enough specifics, so this agreement is an attempt to build schools and meet the needs of growth, while allowing compatibility, consistency, and off-site improvements to infrastructure capabilities at the time the schools open. Page 9 May 6, 2003 Public Speakers 1) Peter Lilianthal, member of Pathways Advisory Committee, stated that they are concerned with bike and pedestrian movement throughout the county. MPO is a volunteer organization with a system to identify needs and prioritize where sidewalks should be placed. He encouraged the BCC and the school board to keep in mind that this interlocal agreement is to fix the problem from this day forward and asked that they direct a portion of impact fees to the MPO pathways committee. He added that Amy Taylor would be a welcome member of the MPO pathways committee. Mr. Lilianthal cited a specific example where the MPO pathways committee sees a need for improvements. -Amy Taylor stated that the MPO pathways committee concerns have been heard and the school board is currently pricing those improvements. She added that the new interlocal agreement will define where the school board will be responsible for off- site sidewalk links, through the use of impact fees. -Mr. Itenning asked if it was correct to say that there is no funding mechanism through the school board to put in the off-site improvements. Mr. Mudd clarified that whatever is directly surrounding the school is the school boards responsibility. Once the school is built, the county becomes responsible for everything else. He explained that the problem is a funding mechanism, because the transportation impact fees are to be used to satisfy a volume of traffic. In the current proposed impact fee adjustment, the impact fee will also be able to be used for the sidewalks that offer safe passage for schoolchildren. -Mr. Coletta asked that they consider recommended infrastructure requirements before the schools are constructed. A ten minute recess was taken ~10:30 AM. -Ashley Lupo returned to her presentation and added that in the agreement they tried to come up with a school board review process. In the prior agreement the school board was reviewed under the SDP criteria in section 3.3 of the LDC, limited to certain aspects. In this agreement there is a process before site acquisition, where the Page 10 May 6, 2003 school board will come in for a consistency determination. Then, after site acquisition and before construction, the school board will have a pre-application meeting with the county staff and they will have a school board review process. This will be set forth in the new agreement. C) State Statutes Giving Local Authority to Review -Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, stated that when she first began working with Collier County, she found that the review of school facilities was "all across the board". She did a survey of some of the larger counties and found that some counties did no review, limited review, and full blown review. She felt that this and the requirements of the Growth Management Law were the reason that the legislature "flushed out" the legal requirements for coordination of review between school districts and local governments. The provision in the statute for this authority is found in 1013.33 paragraphs 10-15. Paragraph 10 reviews the coordination with the school district on comp plan, land development regulation, and consistency matters. The statute sets two procedures for review. The first procedure has to do with consistency review of the comp plan that takes place for a potential educational facility site. The school district is to provide written notice to the local government, the local government then determines if the site is consistent with the land use categories and policies of the GMP. Paragraph 4 of the proposed agreement, discusses this process and expands upon it. This is not the final, (formal), consistency determination. The statute requires that as early as possible, but no later than 90 days prior to the start of construction the school district must request from the local government, in writing a determination of consistency with the county's GMP and comp plan. The local government has 45 days to advise the school district of any problems. If the site is found consistent, then the construction may begin and no further review is required. If no determination is made by the local government, then the site is deemed to be consistent. The local government cannot deny the site if it is consistent with the land use policies & categories of the local comp plan and the LDR, however the local government may impose reasonable development standards and conditions, as well as determine site plan adequacy as it relates to environmental Page 11 May 6, 2003 concerns, safety & welfare, and effects to adjacent properties. In the proposed agreement, paragraphs five and six outline this procedure. The statute states that the local government cannot impose standards and conditions which conflict with the statute, with Florida Building Code, unless it is mutually agreed to by the parties in the interlocal agreement. The county and the school board have mutually agreed on some differences from the Florida Building Code. The statute also provides for an alternative process for site plan review, if mutually agreed on by the school board and the county. The county and the school board have made adjustments to this process, which are outlined in the interlocal agreement. The statute also states that existing schools are deemed consistent with the GMP, however in regards to expansion, the local government can place reasonable development standards on the expansion, so long as there is no conflict with the Florida Building Code or this chapter. Exceptions to this rule are listed in the statute. Marjorie Student summarized that this information was the basic state statutory authority that gives the local government the ability to review and coordinate with the school district on school sites. She added that the planning staff will address specific proposed requirements in the proposed interlocal agreement. D) Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review -David Weeks, Planning Services Department, stated that the comprehensive plan consistency review consists of reviewing a piece of property to determine only that it complies with the locational criteria. The county has 19 sites that are currently owned and undeveloped for use as future sites. They have substantiated consistency of those sites with the exception of 3 sites in the Rural Fringe Area. With the exception of the 3 sites in the Rural Fringe Area, the county will amend the future land use map to identify the other 16 sites as consistent with the locational criteria and the GMP. The county also intends to amend the LDC zoning regulations to identify what zoning districts allow or prohibit schools and by what means. This will be placed in the comprehensive plan and the zoning requirements will need to be amended to match this. The county also intends to amend the LDC regarding PUD's in three different ways. The first amendment would be that whenever a PUD goes through the sunsetting process, the school board staff would advise the BCC whether Page 12 May 6, 2003 or not it is appropriate to put a school use in the PUD. A second amendment would state that whenever a PUD is before the county for approval or an amendment, then the consideration shall be given as to whether or not a school or school related facilities should be added to the PUD. The third amendment would restrict a PUD from opening for other considerations, when it is opened for a determination of adding school related facilities. Out of the 19 sites, the county must consider the locational criteria and the zoning districts. Of those 19 sites, 4 need additional zoning approval, 2 of the sites need an amendment to a PUD to add the uses, and 2 transportation facilities would require conditional use approval by the BCC. Mr. Weeks then went on to discuss future sites, those the county has yet to acquire. He stated that this consists of making sure the site is consistent with the locational criteria & the GMP and that it is consistent with the zoning regulations. This specific process is listed in the interlocal agreement, which is a joint effort between the BCC staff and the School district staff to meet and provide information and ultimately for the county staff to write a letter of consistency. This process is also intended to define other concerns that may be seen at that time. E) Public School Future Land Use Map Series -David Weeks stated that they will create a future land use map series as part of the future land use element of the county. The county will add the map series to identify the 19 sites previously discussed and amendments will be made for additional sites as acquired. The public becomes aware of the process when the school board has its public advertised hearing for approval to acquire the site and the county's public hearing to amend the future land use map series in order to add the new school site. After both of these hearings are complete, they will become a part of public records. F) Site Plan Review -Margaret Wuerstle explained that they divided the school uses into two categories. The ancillary facilities, or transportation related, would be permitted in the more intense zoning districts; C-4, C-5, and the industrial zoning districts. The transportation uses would be prohibited in the single family zoning districts; SF 1 - SF6, mobile home, travel trailer/recreational/campground, golf course, and Page 13 May 6, 2003 conservation districts. They would be permitted with a conditional use in all other zoning districts. The second category is the educationa! plants; the school structures themselves and their accessory uses. These uses would be prohibited in the residential tourist, the golf course, conservation, travel/trailer, Business Park, and industrial zoning districts. They would be permitted in all other zoning districts; however the county will do an informal compatibility review for the high schools. These districts will be made consistent with the GMP amendments that will go forward. -Amy Taylor added that the urban area will be a particular challenge with regards to where the schools will be allowed and PUD's. Property suitable for school sites is becoming more and more scarce. The majority of sites acquired in the last few years are agricultural or estate zonings, where they are already permitted uses. The agricultural zone districts are rapidly diminishing. Small school legislation could affect them if they need to build smaller schools in the urban area. Solutions provided for this in the proposed interlocal agreement are the sunsetting provisions, limited PUD amendment review to school facilities only, and a provision to maintain the option to consider changing the LDC and the GMP to permit schools by right within existing PUD districts. Mr. Schmitt noted that the last option pointed out was the most legally contentious. Mr. Schmitt proposed that they meet on this annually to review the development in Collier County with regards to schools. -Mr. Coyle stated that he is still unaware of the disagreements between the CCS and CCPS and he felt this was important to know before a decision was made. Mr. Schmitt stated that the disagreements are only technical in nature, mostly pertaining to language, but the CCS and CCPS have agreed on the principals. Amy Taylor added that they all agree on the on-site review aspects; landscaping, environmental review, storm water review, building setbacks, the compatibility review, and the state fire code review. They also agreed that the school board and ESRA have authority internal of the site. The technical aspect referred to by Mr. Schmitt is how to establish the review process and the language used to do so within the interlocal agreement. Another issue that is still being considered is maintaining the option to permit schools by right within existing PUD's. Mr. Coyle stated that he would like Page 14 May 6, 2003 the differences clarified before they make a decision. Mr. Simms added that the question is not whether they agree on the issues, but whether or not the words accurately display their intent. -Donna Fiala felt that it was appropriate and essential to meet annually. -Linda Abbott agreed. She also appreciated the comments of Mr. Coyle and felt that further meetings and a "final agreement" could help clarify these differences. She asked for another joint meeting to be scheduled prior to the impact fee study going before the BCC in September 2003. Mr. Schmitt stated that he fully supported this proposal and would look into this scheduling. -Mr. Schmitt stated that the technical differences of opinion will not push back the construction dates. -Amy Taylor reviewed the final slides of the presentation, which outlined the next steps that they will be taking and the amendments to the GMP, the Future Land Use Element and the LDC. She suggested that an update on this information may be an appropriate topic for the next joint meeting. Mr. Mudd noted that a 1995 interlocal agreement was entered into with the school board and the county, but the LDC and the GMP did not change. This is one of the main concepts within the new interlocal agreement. V) School Speed Zones -Bob Tipton, Traffic Operations Engineer, provided the BCC with a handout. Transportation operations performed a study of the traffic school zones and other safety measures concerning the schools. The study never proposed eliminated any school crossings. The county considers the school crossing guards the safest measure for controlling pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Two other controls are traffic signals with exclusive pedestrian features and school zones with reduced speed limits. The county was concerned about six locations, because of the redundancy in control features being used. The problem with the redundancy was that some people felt the redundant control measures were made illegal, unenforceable, and lead to a lack of stringent enforcement. The county has been assured that the legality if fine and that the enforcement of the control measures will be stringent at all locations. Given total Page 15 May 6, 2003 enforcement, the county transportation department has no objection to the continued redundant safety measures as long as everyone is aware that there are some costs; delays, etc... Another issue is that school zones are speed zones and need to be formally created, implemented, and documented. There is no tolerance for any speed past the school speed zone. The transportation will bring an official resolution before the board that addresses the lack of formality. Once the board addresses this, transportation will be able to formally document the school speed zones. Mr. Feder clarified that they were not looking to take away any school site; they were only raising the question of redundancy. Now that they know they have the ability to enforce redundant control features, they recommend that the areas be documented formally. -Mr. Coletta stated that the residents of OrangeTree are requesting a school speed zone for their area and a yellow blinking light to warn of the slower speed. They would also like the remainder of Oil Well Rd to Everglades Blvd to be lowered from 45mph to 35mph. Mr. Feder stated that they will be looking at the six zones already in question and that any new school zones they will bring before the BCC to establish the zone. For the decrease in speed on the second site, he stated that they will do a required study to determine the need and ability. -Mr. Coyle stated that he was not convinced that redundancy results in a failure to enforce or a disrespect to obey the laws. He was against removal of these items and stated that he would have liked to have coordinated with the school board on the legalities before they created "such a public outcry". He recommended that they leave them like they are and ask the school board if there are any other desired areas for school zone designation. -Mr. Henning encouraged the staff to look for alternatives to schoolchildren crossing major roadways; he supported looking into zoning districts within the school districts. -Kathleen Curatolo agreed with Mr. Henning and added that an incident like this leads to the brainstorming for more opportunities for safety. -Mr. Halas asked in locations of high density traffic, if there were sheriff deputies assisting the children across the roads. He was informed that if the area is designated a high hazard area then a school crossing guard is provided. Page 16 May 6, 2003 -Mr. Halas asked the school board if they thought the enforcement of speed zones was adequate. Mr. Bruce and Mr. Donovan felt that there were areas where they were not adequately addressing safety needs. Mr. Coletta felt that blinking lights could help solve this issue. Mr. Donovan agreed, but added that enforcement was another key element. Kathleen Curatolo felt that they needed to discuss the issues with the sheriff's department. Mr. Coletta suggested that they invite a representative of the sheriff's department to their next joint meeting. All agreed. -Mr. Mudd clarified that they are not making any changes to the redundant areas. He also pointed out that the six areas reviewed were reviewed due to citizen concerns. He agreed that enforcement was an important issue and stated that he would add this to the September 2003 agenda. Public Speakers A) William Kerrigan, resident of Point Sienna Village, passed around photos of dented guardrails to the school board and BCC. He addressed the schoolchildren walking from Point Sienna. He stated that they did not have a deceleration lane at one place, because the school board would not allow the property to use a particular entrance. He understood that this was to prevent the schoolchildren from using Airport Rd, but he feels that they need to go down Coach House Lane in order to keep the kids off of Airport Rd. -Mr. Donovan stated that in this area and other areas of the county they will agree that improvements have to be made. He believed that the interlocal effort will help to resolve these problems. B) Bob Krasowski, representing the Zero Waste Collier County Group, stated that he was present to address the county's material discard; solid waste. The county has been looking over the last few years to address the life of the landfill. He stated that one of the largest generators of waste going to the landfill was the school board. The new school board has shown a desire to create an effort to address this situation. Recently a workshop was held with the Zero Waste Group, the cooperation of the Page 17 May 6, 2003 county, funding from the state, and the help of the school board for use of the development center. Mr. Krasowski appreciated all parties involved in this workshop. He suggested a cooperative effort between the county, the school board, and the Zero Waste Group. He had a videotape of the previous workshop and stated that he would make copy that he would provide to the county for accessibility by the BCC and the school board. -Linda Abbott stated that she visited a military base last year on her superintendent visits. At the base, they built a building and did the recycling primarily of paper and cardboard. They also hired someone to monitor the stock market and sell their recycled paper and cardboard for a profit; they capitalize on their waste. She felt that it was a good topic for discussion between the two boards. Mr. Henning stated that this may be something for the private sector to take a look at. -Mr. Mudd added that there are a total of 38 schools, 17 of which recycle; -44,000 tons of trash is produced and only 2,000 tons are recycled. Mr. Mudd noted that the BCC has a non-residential pact with the Chamber of Commerce and if they are not successful in the voluntary program, then the BCC has stated that in January 2004 they will enact a mandatory non-residential recycling program, which would impact the schools in Collier County. -Mr. Krasowski noted that if they segregated the waste materials in the schools, then an enormous amount of waste could be diverted. He agreed that Linda Abbott's suggestion was a good issue to look into. He also encouraged the school board to take the matter into their own hands rather than through a private business, which would help save on the cost of recycling. VI. Discussion Between the BCC and the School Board -Pat Carroll stated that she was impressed with the presentation and the unity of the two agencies involved in this agreement. She felt that the agreement would be resolved and be a positive working force in the future. -Linda Abbott stated that she was pleased with the interlocal agreement effort. -Kathleen Curatolo agreed with the comments of Pat Carroll and Linda Abbott. Page 18 May 6, 2003 -Donna Fiala agreed that the best approach was a joint approach; "united we stand, divided we fall". -Mr. Donovan also felt that this was a good workshop and looked forward to more efforts in the future. -Dick Bruce commended Mr. Mudd and the staff of Collier County for a job well done. -Fred Coyle agreed with all previous comments. -Jim Coletta stated that he had several questions he would pose to staff in a letter and he would bring the responses forward at the next meeting. -Frank Halas thanked the two boards for their joint effort and expressed that their greatest concern in this group is the safety and well being of the school children. VII. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at -12:15PM. ATTE-ST::..~ ""~ : :. :4 DWI~T i~. BRO~, ~ERK Board of County Commissioners Board of Zoning Appeals/Ex Officio Governing Board(~pe~~c~Un:er Its Control Chairman Tom Henning O'~ · , signature on15. These minuies apl~roved by the Board on 5- 2q - 0 3 as presented ~ or as corrected **No court reporter was present at this meeting. The minutes were transcribed from the materials provided: Agenda packet, videotape, and audiotapes. No copies of the slide presentation, handouts, photos, etc.., were provided.** Page 19