With the contract for Mascotte coming up for renewal, the discussion centered on how to transition the teachers and supporting staff from district employees to non--district employees. If not done properly, there is a possibility of loosing teachers/staff to district schools and thus jeopardizing Mascotte Charter A rating status.
The discussion highlighted all of the board members’ sincere concern for student learning and the need to support lake county charter schools. All of the members appeared to be leading the legal aspects of contract renewal vs. have being lead by board’s attorney. It has been my experience that an attorney’s responsibility is to protect their client (in this case the lake county district school administration) irrespective of whether the “deal” (contract) can be a win for all of the stakeholders. This is the significance of leading legal council vs. being lead.
It has also been my experience that when a CEO (or other responsible person) says finances are not the issue, there needs to be an immediate review of what is being charged for all services rendered.
In this case the principle of Mascotte Charter is that CEO, and this is an opportunity to review what services are actually being provided vs. what the district is charging for those services.
The superintendent and board members seem to be sensitive to the unique issues and requirements associated with Mascotte Charter.
The solution to bring as many lake county charter school contract closer to the same end date, then have as many participate in the contract negotiation to resolve the employee issues is a good direction to proceed. If this approach is not taken, Mascotte would set the precedence for all lake county charter schools without them having input.
The impact fees for the county have increased from ~$1,200 in 2001 to ~$9,300 today, and are believed to be a adding to the current construction slump
By suspending these fees, it is hoped that this will help lake county construction industry and the related jobs connected to the construction of homes and commercial buildings.
New building permits in Lake County are in the single digits. Neighboring counties have experienced new building permits at a doubledigit rate.
Several homebuilders / developers commented that six months is not enough time. Because of the time it takes for site development, architectural design, obtaining quotes, obtaining financing, etc, 6 months is not enough time to take advantage of the suspension. The suspension should be from 12 to 22 months.
The board proposes suspending the fees for six months starting April 1.
Within this suspension period, the board will have reviewed the impact fee study currently being compiled by an outside consultant.
Current positions of board members:
Debbie Stiivender: She is not a supporter of impact fees. Agrees to suspend fees for 6 months now. After the 6 months it may be possible to extend another 6 months. It may also be possible to reduce the fees below the current $9,300.
Rosanne Brandeburg: Agrees to suspension for 6 months, to review if extension is possible beyond the initial 6 months and a possible reduction in fees after the suspension period.
Kyleen Fischer: Agrees to 6 months suspension.
Tod Howard: Agrees to 6 months suspension, which should force current study to be completed and develop direction to address longerterm solutions. Jim Miller: Believes 6 months suspension is not long enough. Agrees with the public comments given. The suspension should initially be 12 months. The 6 months is not long enough for builders / developers to take advantage of this suspension. Also believes fees should be reduced after the suspension period ends.