Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Regular_01/09/1992 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (407) 575-6200 FAX: (407) 575-6203 V I L L A G E O V I L L A G E P U B L I C M E E T I N G J A N U A R Y F T E Q U E S T A C O U N C I L H E A R I N G M I N U T E S 9, 1 9 9 2 I. The Tequesta Village Council held a Public Hearing at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, January 9, 1992. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Joseph N. Capretta. A roll call was taken by the Recording Secretary, Fran Bitters. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Joseph N. Capretta, Vice- Mayor Ron T. Mackail, William E. Burckart and Earl L. Collings. Edward C. Howell was not in attendance. Village Officials present were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, and Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk. John C. Randolph, Village Attorney, was also in attendance. ~J II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as submitted. III. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE LEADING TO CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT Village Manager Bradford explained that this subject matter began in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ordered school segregation as illegal. Through that began the actions and activities of School Boards across the country to find ways to adequately integrate their school system. In Palm Beach County the first court ordered school busing plan to achieve proper integration percentage took place in the 1970's. Initially, goals were achieved rapidly. As time has progressed and communities have expressed their disdain for busing, the School Board has searched for ways to alleviate that problem so that hopefully communities would become naturally integrated and long- distance busing would become unnecessary. Recycled Paper • village Council Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 9, 1992 Page 2 IV. REVIEW OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, TOWN OF JUPITER AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WITH THE PALM BEACH COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Bradford explained that the Palm Beach County School Board has suggested an Interlocal Agreement between communities whereby each party makes certain agreements, and in return, the School Board promises not to bus students who fall within the area covered by that Interlocal Agreement. Another variable is that such an Agreement has been signed by other cities (such as Riviera Beach) in Palm Beach County. Beginning the next school year (August or September, 1992), Riviera Beach students will no longer be bussed to any other schools, which means that an already low percentage of black students in Jupiter Schools will only become worse. However, no one can say with certainty when the School Board will • require Tequesta or Jupiter students to be bussed outside the five mile radius called 'neighborhood schools'. With Jupiter/Tequesta local schools falling far below the required 10~-40~ black population within the schools, in time the School Board will be faced with the decision as to whether or not to bus Tequesta students. Therefore, the Tequesta Village Council is seeking suggestions from Tequesta residents in order to find a way to avoid long-distance busing. An avenue at this time appears to be the signing of an Interlocal Agreement with the Palm Beach County School Board. Mr. Bradford explained further the goals and objectives of the Agreement, adding that the Agreement would be for a period of five years, with provisions for monitoring Tequesta, Jupiter regarding the points of the Agreement, with a termination provision included. Mayor Capretta explained that merely building low-cost housing in Tequesta would not solve the problem, since the issue concerns student population percentages and not adult population percentages. (The median home value in Tequesta is presently $155,000.) He felt industry must be encouraged to move to North County in order to encourage working families to move to the area, with affordable housing made available, bus service, etc. , in order to create a climate that would • encourage lower income families to reside in the local area. • Village Council Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 9, 1992 Page 3 ------------------------------- Councilmember Collings noted that the signing of the Interlocal Agreement would only be the beginning of making the Agreement. The objective of signing would be to instantly embark upon this complex and involved program of marketing, selling, developing inter-racial relations so that in five years it would be completed. Mayor Capretta explained that accomplishing the goals of such a program is not something that Tequesta residents could do on their own but must work jointly with Jupiter. V. PIIBLIC COMMENTS Pat Watkins supported the idea of an Interlocal Agreement. Her concern was that, with Tequesta being as limited in • undeveloped area, what significant contribution could it possibly make. Mayor Capretta answered that, although it is true that Tequesta does not have much land on which to build new housing, there are long-range plans to build approximately 600 units in the downtown area. Mr. Bradford added that Tequesta does not stand alone, but that united in this pact with Jupiter and Palm Beach County unincorporated would bring more favorable results. Councilmember Burckart added that a change in attitude toward the situation was needed more than low-cost housing. Helen Cofter asked what legal ramifications there would be upon the signing of the Interlocal Agreement and is it mandatory that the different local organizations (i.e., banks, realtors, etc.) adhere to the Agreement. Mr. Bradford answered that adherence to the Agreement by local organizations would be voluntary. Mayor Capretta pointed out that the Village Council could use their persuasive powers to encourage adherence, but that the community needed to develop a change of attitude. This will be a marketing program, not the law. • • Village Council Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 9, 1992 Page 4 Attorney Randolph stated that Mr. Bradford's answer regarding real estate, banks, etc. was correct, but that there are certain 'teeth' in this Agreement which he felt were mandatory; i.e., the government itself. The Village, upon signing this Agreement, will have to look at its own Codes and Comprehensive Plan to make amendments to incorporate provisions to reach the goals of the Agreement. Also, appearing to be mandatory, is the Agreement statement that 'the Village shall attempt to encourage Developers' to go along with the plan. The Village must create a Developer Agreement which incorporates the goals of the Agreement, which is to be signed by the Developer. If the Developer does not sign that Agreement, those people who are within that Development then will be subject to being bussed. This would also be true of already developed areas which are under Developer control. Bill Hukill, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, stated he • was astounded at the depth of the Village Manager's explanation of the situation and the Interlocal Agreement, and that it was the best explanation he has heard of what the School Board is trying to accomplish. He explained further that the Agreement being reviewed this evening is basically a three-part agreement: 1) that the community will integrate themselves and in return the School Board will "stay off the community's back" for five years; 2) that the School Board will monitor the situation and report quarterly each year; and 3) that at the end of five years the community must have shown some progress. However, the School Board will be monitoring results, not techniques. He also concurred that the community's attitude must change if busing is to be avoided and that Tequesta should join efforts with Jupiter to encourage success in this program. Mr. Hukill stated that if the program adopted by Jupiter and Tequesta is not working, the correction should be made by the community, not the School Board; the School Board does not like to get involved in local government. • Village Council Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 9, 1992 Page 5 ------------------------------- Gail Bjork, does not support the idea of Interlocal Agreements, though she agrees that the Agreement is a lesser evil than busing. She stated that of her many years in the educational field, she had not seen any educational successes come out of integration. Her stance was that if integration is going to work, it must last past graduation. Mrs. Bjork's preference was to see curriculum improved, voluntary methods of integration, and contributions in our text books of blacks and other minorities, which have been censored out for years. She felt there are other ways to approach the segregational problem than having the School Board monitor communities. Monies and time being expended on monitoring the segregation of communities could better be spent on the academic and vocational aspect of education and on the student and improvement of educational facilities. Mayor Capretta agreed that it would be better for students to spend extra time studying each day as opposed to spending that time being bussed to another school location, but felt that the Interlocal Agreement has a better chance for success than busing. Vice Mayor Mackail felt that the Interlocal Agreement was the only alternative at this point and was a step in the right direction. Cheryl Onorato stated she was proud of the resident participation she witnessed at this meeting and stressed that it was necessary for the community to strive for the proper education of the student. Attorney Randolph stated some legal concerns he had: 1) regarding lawsuit, does each party bear their own cost; attorney's fees are not normally costs; 2) the Agreement does not provide for any pro rata share of paying such fees; 3) there is no provision in the Termination clause which would allow a local government to terminate the Agreement. The general consensus of the public was that the Village Council should move forward with the Interlocal Agreement. CJ Village Council Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 9, 1992 Page 6 ------------------------------- VI. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Burckart moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Mayor Mackail seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: William Burckart - for Ron T. Mackail - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Earl L. Collings - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Fran Bitters Recording Secretary ATTEST: J ann Manganiel o Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: