Agenda - 06-26-2003-9C - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 3 June 25, 2003 challenge would be successful. The most likely challenge would come from a developer in the school district where Schools Adequate Public Facilities is in effect who is denied a CAPS. The essence of the claim would be that developers that are not in the school district where CAPS is in place can develop without the restraint of CAPS and that that is unfair and that there is no rational basis for having a Schools Adequate Public Facilities program in one school district of the County and not in the other school district. Another possible source of complaint, both political and legal, would be from parents of children in the school district where there is no Schools Adequate Public Facilities program complaining that their school system is being left behind in facilities because their school system facilities are not driven by MOU and ordinance requirements that the schools be built and that that requirement, although not legally enforceable, is politically enforceable insofar as the other governments participating in the SAPFO-driven school construction program will bow out if they determine that Orange County does not have the commitment to fund schools as required by the MOU. I know that you are looking forward to getting SAPFO underway. I know also that school planning has already benefited by the work that has been done in getting SAPFO to this point and will continue to benefit thereafter and particularly after the implementation of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Program. However, I urge you to proceed with the implementing ordinances in Orange County's planning jurisdiction only when all of the governments are on board. Very truly yours, GLEDHILL, HARGRAVE & PEEK, P.C. frey ~. Gl~hill GEG/lsg xc: Craig Benedict John M. Link, Jr. lsg:letters\bdofcomschoolsadegpubfacimplementation.ltr