The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: C. W. "Chick" Gregg, Chairman; Thomas J. Windram; Richard Swartz; Michael J. Bakich; and Don Bailey. Others present were: Christopher C. Ford, County Attorney; James C. Watkins, Clerk and Acting County Administrator; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Administrator: Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk: and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
James C. Watkins, Clerk, gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Bakich.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of July 20, 1989, as presented.
Concerning the Minutes of August 1, 1989, Commr. Bailey stated that on Page 4, Line 19, his name was misspelled, and requested that it be corrected.
Commr. Gregg stated that on Page 2, Line 1, Ms. Griffin's first name is Barbara, rather than Margaret, and on Page 15, Lines 19-20 and 24-25, the millage increases referred to were based on a period of three (3) years, and he wanted to clarify this, due to the fact that the present wording gives the impression that the increases occurred over a period of one year - from last year to the present year.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of August 1, 1989 as corrected.
Commr. Gregg, Chairman, presented Resolutions and Plaques, honoring past service on the Pollution Control Board, to Ms. Catherine Hanson and Mr. Jack Dequine. It was noted that the Board had a Resolution and Plaque to present to Mr. Richard Toole for his service on said Board, as well, however, he was not present, therefore, his Resolution and Plaque would be delivered to him.
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Request to approve payment of the following indigent:
City of Eustis for Marcia Barger - $50.00 - District #4
Reports/Private Industry Council
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Cumulative Participant Activity Report, from Private Industry Council, for July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the Sheriff, for a transfer of funds from the Revenue Account, No. 790.06 (15), to the Sheriff's Uniform Account, in the amount of $1,320.00.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Request from Mt. Dora High School, to have a car stop at Fifth Avenue and Donnelly Steet, in Mt. Dora.
Budgets/Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management
Request for Eric Cotsenmoyer, Director of Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management, to present Detailed Work Plan Tentative Budget for Arthropod Control, for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 1989 and ending September 30, 1990.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Mosquito-Aquatic Plant
Request to approve the Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management Fiscal Year 1989-90 Aquatic Plant Control Interlocal Agreement.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Environmental Services
Request for authorization to negotiate a contract for Stormwater Management Ordinance Consulting Services.
Request for reimbursement to Cooper Memorial Library, for July, 1989 payroll, in the amount of $5,137.80.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Emergency Management
Request from Emergency Management Department, for mutual aid agreement, with Seminole County.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Roads-County & State
Request to release a performance bond, in the amount of $60,000.00, for Pine Valley Industrial Park; accept a maintenance bond, in the amount of $2,456.40; and accept the following road into the County maintenance system: Pine Valley Boulevard (3-1255).
Request to accept a Certificate of Deposit, in the amount of $16,000.00, for bonding purposes, to cover the cost of reclamation for the Hook Street Sand Mine (Florida Clay Industries).
Request to grant final approval of Greater Hills, Phase I, and accept a performance bond, in the amount of $1,247,856.00.
Accounts Allowed/Grants/Road Projects
Request to award Project No. 10-89, paving of Merrell Avenue, Southeast Umatilla Community Block Grant Road Lump Sum Project, to Superior Asphalt Company, Inc., in the amount of $29,864.00 - only bid.
Bonds - Mobile Home
Request to approve new mobile home bond for Lee Brockel -Umatilla area - District #5.
Deeds/Right-of-ways, Roads & Easements
Request to execute a deed to Loren D. Dewall and May L. Dewall, husband and wife, to release drainage easement given in September, 1983.
Deeds/Right-of-ways, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following right-of-way deed:
Nina Blowers - Grays Airport Road - #l-7310
Commr. Bailey stated that he had a concern regarding Page 7, of the Conditional Use Permit, under No. 19 - Hours of Operation, regarding a request from Pollution Control Department, to review and approve operating and reclamation plans of Reliable Peat Conditional Use Permit No. 89/5/l-2. He stated that, at the Planning and Zoning hearing, he had asked that there be no hauling on Saturdays, however, the CUP does not show this as part of their hours of operation, therefore, requested that this factor be amended into the CUP, before it is approved. It was agreed upon by the applicant, and noted that it would become a part of the CUP.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the above stated request.
Included in the motion was approval and acceptance of a bond, in the amount of $43,246.26, for same.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Commr. Bailey questioned whether a request from the Pollution Control Department, to purchase off State contract, nine (9), computer work stations and one (1) file server, at a cost not to exceed $60,000.00, was something that was really needed and whether it had been budgeted, to which Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board and stated that it had, in fact, been budgeted for approximately one and a half years. He stated that the request had been put off for a number of reasons, one being due to a lack of work space, which is presently being addressed.
On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the above stated request.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Commr. Gregg brought to the attention of the Board a request for approval of funding, to be taken from the Recreation Funds (of which a portion would come from District I and a portion from District II, for the Cities of Leesburg and Fruitland Park, based on per capita in each district), through Interlocal Agreements with the Cities, as follows:
City of Leesburg - $27,647.00 - To be used for the development of the Ski Beach area of Venetian Gardens, to include picnic areas, boat docks, water ski area, parking areas and restrooms.
Funding from District I : $19,130.00
Funding from District II: 8,517.00
Total Funds: $27,647.00
City of Lady Lake - $16,336.00 - To be used for picnic tables, park benches, playground equipment, and lighting on ball fields and other recreational equipment.
City of Fruitland Park - $11,217.00 - To be used for restoration of current ball field facilities, Recreation Activities Coordinator, and new recreation playing field.
Funding from District I : $10,552.00
Funding from District II: 665.00
Total Funds: $11,217.00
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the above stated request.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 9:20 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1O:OO a.m., for a Public Hearing concerning an Emergency Services Council Ordinance.
At 1O:OO a.m. the Chairman announced that the time had arrived for a Public Hearing regarding an ordinance amendment, establishing a member of the Board of County Commissioners as a member of the Emergency Services Council.
Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Director of Health and General Services, appeared before the Board to explain the request and answer any questions there might be from the Board. He stated that approximately two years ago the County created its Codification Manual, and at that time, reviewed the County's ordinances. He stated that they updated an ordinance pertaining to the County's emergency response, and recreated the Emergency Services Council, which consist of thirteen (13) members, of which one member represents the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that the request this date is to clarify the ordinance and to appoint a member of the Board as a designated member of the Emergency Services Council.
At this time, Commr. Gregg recommended that Commr. Bakich be the designated appointee, to serve on said Council, representing the Board of County Commissioners.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, the Board approved the appointment of Commr. Bakich to serve on the Emergency Services Council, representing the Board of County Commissioners.
Commrs. Bakich and Swartz were not present for the discussion or vote.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, the Board then approved Ordinance No. 1989-10, amending Ordinance No. 1988-5, establishing a member of the Board of County Commissioners as a designated member of the Emergency Services Council, as read by title only.
Commrs. Bakich and Swartz were not present for the discussion or vote.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board adopted Ordinance 1989-10, as follows:
PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 11-16 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COUNCIL: PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commrs. Bakich and Swartz were not present for the discussion or vote.
ORDINANCES/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and explained the purpose of having this workshop regarding the Frontage Road Ordinance. He then turned the floor over to Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, to discuss and answer any questions there might be from the Board.
Mr. Szunyog appeared before the Board stating that work on the Frontage Road Ordinance was started approximately one and a half years ago, for purposes of curtailing access to major highways, and in doing so, preserve the ability of said highways to handle large amounts of traffic. He stated that frontage roads are not the only answer to the kinds of objectives that the County wants to meet -there are other innovative factors that, if proposed by developers and meet the purpose and intent in the spirit of the objectives of the Frontage Road Ordinance, would be allowed, rather than sticking directly to a frontage road configuration. The ordinance, as it stands, covers various aspects of frontage road designs. It sets up design standards for frontage roads and, also, standards for the connection of intersection points and between intersection points on the major highways. These access standards are based on speed along the major highways, as well as the types of uses that take place along said highways - for instance, there are different standards for a residential development, that would have frontage road access, than from a commercial or industrial type of development, in terms of the kinds of traffic that use those access points. He stated that the technical aspects are contained in the tables within the ordinance. He stated that there are provisions for remodeling, rezoning, or change of use, as well as setback requirements, requirements for landscaping (depending on what jurisdiction the frontage road lies within, whether it be the City or the County), and a provision for variances to the ordinance. He informed those present that the cost of constructing the frontage roads would be borne by the property owners, and maintenance of said roads would be the responsibility of the County.
Mr. Szunyog stated that one of the major aspects of the proposal is that it needs to be an intergovernmental effort - in that the Cities, that front on the major highways, and the County need to work together to jointly adopt an ordinance, in some form, in order to maintain control interjurisdictionally. The main purpose of the ordinance is to promulgate performance standards and requirements which will govern access to the County's major highways, with the primary objective of maintaining the carrying capacity of said highways, by limiting access points and providing for some type of frontage road, where appropriate.
Discussion occurred regarding the ordinance, at which time Commrs. Gregg and Swartz questioned Mr. Szunyog regarding several aspects of the ordinance.
Mr. Homer Royals, Mayor of the City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and encouraged them to adopt the ordinance, as he feels it is vital to identifying and solving some of the problems that might occur in the future. He feels that it would be a move in the right direction for the County to adopt said ordinance.
Commr. Swartz questioned those representatives present from the City of Eustis as to how likely, from this ordinance, the County will see the type of access roads that are in front of Lowe's and the Lock-Safe of Eustis storage facility on Hwy. 441, in cases where there are no lakes or other factors to interfere.
Mr. Mike Stearman, City Manager of the City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and stated that the type of access roads alluded to by Commr. Swartz will, in fact, be the type of roads in the majority of cases. He stated that, of course, in some cases, physical environmental restraints will have to be looked at, as well as physical restraints in the already built environment that is present between some of the urban areas. He noted that, if the Board puts the ordinance in place, then certain problems (which were discussed) will be avoided, as the areas begin to urbanize out, thereby, giving the County more flexibility. If this is not done now, then the County will be faced with a serious problem in the near future.
Mrs. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that, before the new Board was elected, there was a different proposal that was circulated, however, never formally adopted, that was similar to the proposal before the Board this date. She stated that there were a number of discussions with staff and Board members, at that time, regarding some of the very issues that the Board raised this date, with regard to grandfathering provisions, concerning those property owners that have a piece of property that is very shallow in depth, but very long. By the time the property owners set back with all the commercial setback requirements and then take fifty feet (SO') off, as well, this would leave them with an undevelopable piece of property, which then raises a legal issue that, if the government regulation completely restricts the owner's ability to develop the property, this would be a classic example of a "taking". She stated that she does not feel this is what the Board wants to do, nor is this something that the property owner wants. She continued discussion regarding possible litigations, as well as landscaping requirements.
Mrs. Bonifay further stated that this ordinance talks about some innovative alternatives, however, really does not specify what those alternatives are, or sets them up and says if you follow X, Y and Z, and develop plans, and have engineering drawings done, that met said criteria, that this would then suffice for the requirement of the frontage road, if, in fact, this is what is being required of.everyone to do. Another issue she touched on was landscaping - in that every developer would have to go to all fourteen municipalities and determine what their landscaping requirements are. She stated that a consistent, unified approach to the landscaping would be more desirable, from an aesthetic standpoint. She stated that it certainly would help a developer coming into the County from another county or from out of the State. This would also help the County to achieve concurrency among those parties involved. She also discussed a concern she had regarding the variance procedure.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing several clients in the Lake County area who would be affected by said ordinance, appeared before the Board stating that, in looking at said ordinance, he was concerned about the fact that nowhere in the ordinance does it contain specific wording requiring a developer to put in a frontage road, nor does it say that one has the right to use other innovative techniques. He suggested that staff might want to work on this aspect of the ordinance.
Mr. Richey stated that his clients would not be able to utilize the parcels they presently own, if, in fact, mandatory frontage roads, as set forth in said ordinance, were in effect. He discussed grandfathered pieces of property, and stated that, in his opinion, these parcels of property should receive credit. He stated that the County needs to get the traffic off the major roads, however, clearly needs flexibility to deal with this problem other than straight frontage roads. He stated that the Board could, today, instruct staff to establish criteria in present commercially zoned property, and establish the criteria that is consistent with everything that was discussed this date, and it could be done tomorrow.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Homebuilders Association, appeared before the Board stating that said ordinance was done with the purpose of controlling access to the major arteries and increasing traffic flow. It was not, necessarily, the intent of anyone to have ribbons of concrete adjacent to existing roads. She stated that this is not always necessarily better or safer, and while the County needs limited access, limited access and frontage roads are not always synonymous, and would encourage the Board to look at this aspect. She also discussed the technical aspect of the ordinance, as well as stated a concern she had regarding landscaping.
Mr. Stearman reappeared before the Board and stated that he hoped the Board would follow Mr. Richey's advice and direct staff to move forward with putting together technical aspects of addressing questions which were alluded to this date and not get in a position where the ordinance will lag another year, as it is extremely important for all concerned - the developers, as well as the Cities and the County. He stated that if he had anything to ask the Board, on behalf of the League of Cities, it would be that the Board act promptly.
Commr. Gregg directed Mr. Szunyog to coordinate with Public Works, as far as the design criteria, in developing the new draft of the Frontage Road Ordinance, at which time Mr. Szunyog stated that Public Works has been involved with the ordinance and realizes that there are some problems with the technical aspects of it, which need to be, and will be, worked out.
Commr. Gregg also briefly discussed the landscaping aspect of the ordinance.
Mr. Swanson reappeared before the Board stating that staff is dealing with two separate entities - one the present and the other the future. He stated that they are also dealing with a level of service that the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Comprehensive Planning process, is stating that the County must show for each one of the arterials identified in the ordinance. Said levels of service will be established by this Board, and, perhaps, the level of service can be one of the thresholds that are tied into establishing when, where, and what type of frontage road would be necessary. He reiterated the fact that frontage roads are designated to remove traffic from the main artery, and when staff is talking about a main artery, they do not necessarily mean for the entire length of the artery. Frontage roads are more defined as certain lengths, where average daily traffic volumns may be higher in front of certain shopping centers, or commercial establishments, than in front of other areas, so it is the intent to get traffic off of the artery. He stated that the State indicates this can be done in one of three ways, or perhaps all three ways, being: frontage roads, reciprocal parking or easements: signalization; or construction of various other arterials approximately one mile from the affected site, to direct traffic from said area. He stated that staff is looking at a couple of areas where there may be some points of interruption, therefore, good planning design or engineering design will come into play. The County certainly does not have the funds to cross a lake, therefore, hope to control the points of access through the various areas alluded to.
Mr. Swanson stated that, as far as grandfathering in is concerned, feels that the County has to recognize those areas which the County is presently dealing with, find some type of solution to remove traffic from the main artery, and still accomodate the owners of said areas. He stated that the concurrence of management, as the State has outlined in their Comprehensive Plan, will bring the issues alluded to together, and it is encumbered on both the developer and the County, as well as various cities, to come up with a regulation that all parties involved can live with and still keep within the guidelines of the State.
Commr. Bakich stated that he feels the County is heading in the right direction, however, feels the need for a more concise, defined ordinance, so that all the players coming in might know the rules, rather than having to guess what the rules might be.
Commr. Swartz questioned the County Attorney, Chris Ford, regarding the legality of the ordinance, at which time Mr. Ford stated that the new draft of the ordinance needs to be reviewed carefully by the new attorneys coming on board, before taking action on it.
Further discussion occurred regarding the ordinance, at which time Commr. Gregg stated that he felt it was the consensus of the Board that staff come up with a workable ordinance that would be favorable to the developers, the attorneys, and the engineers - to have some criteria of what they need to do to meet the requirements. He stated that it is to the best interest of the County, as well as the developers, to have a Frontage Road Ordinance.
Commr. Swartz questioned the time frame involved for staff to incorporate some of the questions and ideas alluded to this date, and get back to the Board with a draft ordinance, for a public hearing, to which Mr. Swanson replied approximately 45 days.
Commr. Gregg stated that, at such time as the Board schedules another workshop regarding the Frontage Road Ordinance, that staff supply the Board, as well as all the municipalities, with a copy of the draft ordinance one to two weeks in advance, in order to enable them to have a chance to properly review it, so that the next time the Board meets, all parties involved will be familiar with it and the way it is written.
No action was taken regarding it at this time.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At l0:55 a.m. the Chairman, Commr. Gregg, stated that the Board would recess until 2:00 p.m., for a workshop regarding the selection of a solid waste landfill site.
Commr. Gregg gave opening remarks, stating that this was a workshop, at which time the Board would hear a presentation from the County's consultants. He stated that those present in the audience were welcome to listen, however, the Board would not be receiving any input from them at this time.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board stating that approximately one year ago, in December of 1988, the County signed a consent order, with the Department of Environmental Regulation, to close the County's existing landfills, primarily the Astatula Landfill. In response to the consent order, the Board appointed and established a Solid Waste Management Advisory Board, to assist the Board in planning for, and implementing, solid waste management programs in Lake County. The major responsibility of said Board, in recent months, has been to work towards the selection of the location of a new solid waste management facility, which will provide adequate space for solid waste management programs and operations for a minimum of twenty (20) years. He stated that the purpose of this workshop is fourfold, being: (1) to present the status of a new solid waste management facility siting study, which has been prepared by the County's consultants, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, and Environmental Management & Engineering, and has been reviewed and participated in by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Board: (2) to describe the siting process itself: (3) to present a short list of candidate sites (the Solid Waste Management Advisory Board has undergone a lengthy process to look at a large number of potential sites, and has narrowed them down to a point where they feel comfortable in presenting to the Board a list of viable sites for further study); and (4) to request the Board's direction for the final phase of the siting study, which is the actual final short-listing of sites to be further evaluated (detailed evaluated) -sites in which there would be geotechnical and environmental testing studies done, in order to be able to come back to the Board with a final ranking of the sites, and request their authorization to initiate the final selection and purchase of the sites, in order to ultimately permit and construct, to meet the requirements of the consent order.
Mr. Findell introduced members of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Board, that were present at the meeting, as well as the consultants from Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan. He then turned the floor over to the consultants for their presentation.
Mr. David Deans, P.E. and Vice President, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, appeared before the Board to discuss the process which was followed and the considerations that were made concerning the location of sites for the future solid waste management facility. He stated that he brought with him two specialists - one being a wetlands and wildlife specialist, Mr. Chips Windel, and the other being a hydrogeologist, Mr. Larry Phelps, to answer any questions there might be from the Board..Mr. Deans stated that they could not come to a consensus of three (3) sites, therefore, are bringing five (5) sites to the Board rather than the requested three. He then discussed the process of facility siting, in particular, landfill siting, stating that they want the landfill to last for a minimum of twenty (20) years and not be located in any area of critical concern, such as the Green Swamp area, the Wekiva River Basin, the Ocala National Forest, etc. He stated that the site has to be large enough to have a 200 ft. buffer between the property line of the site and any development on the site. They also need to stay 200 ft. from any wetlands that would be on the site, or adjacent to the site. He stated that they are also looking, to the best of their ability, for compatible land uses, as no one wants the landfill next to their house, their business or their farm. They would also like the landfill to be within twenty (20) highway miles from the waste-to-energy facility, however, if it has to be located further away, this will be acceptable, although it will cost a little more money. He stated they would also like the landfill to be located at least 1,000 ft. from any residential development. He stated that they did not think they would be able to find a single property owner with enough land necessary for the landfill, so when they found an area that was a potential candidate, they felt they were going to have to take several parcels of land to come up with a site large enough for the landfill, therefore, the sites had to be contiguous. He stated that they had to have a 500 ft. setback, from the property line of the site, for the landfill cell, where solid waste will be deposited. He stated that they need over 500 acres for said site, to get the twenty years, under the conditions that have been established. They also have to stay between 5-10,000 ft. from the runways of the airports in Lake County. He identified areas in Lake County that, for various reasons, would be unsuitable as the landfill site.
Mr. Deans stated that they have gone through the process of elimination, starting with approximately 44 sites, which was reduced to 22 sites, and then further reduced to 12 sites. Today, the Board will reduce the list even further to 5 sites..Mr. James F. Schnelle, Jr., P.E., Environmental Management & Engineering, appeared before the Board and explained how they came up with the criteria system for evaluating landfill sites, stating that said system (Absolute Criteria) is contained in their report, which was given to the Board prior to this meeting. He then reviewed said criteria with the Board. He stated that the 22 site list got reduced to 12 just by applying the Planning Parameters, updated zoning actions, and the Absolute Criteria. At this point, they developed 25 site screening parameters, to evaluate the remaining sites (called a second level screening process), which were sites C, I, N, P and Q on the aerial map being used to evaluate the sites. He discussed and supplied information regarding each of the five sites with the Board, and then turned the floor back over to Mr. Deans.
Mr. Deans reappeared before the Board stating that they are at a point in the process where they can either select a site, or come up with a short list of sites for more detailed and comprehensive evaluation, to find out which of those short listed sites would be the better of the bunch for development, from an overall cost technically, environmentally, and socially. He stated that they have in their contract an assignment to study up to three (3) of the five sites in this kind of detail, to help the Board with their final decision. He stated that they could study three of the five, five of the five, or one of the five sites - whatever the Board wished them to do.
Commr. Bakich injected that he could not stress enough the fact that the Committee's sole purpose was to come up with the five (originally three, however, had difficulty doing this) best technical sites, in terms of land best suited for this type of use. He stated that they paid no attention to the cost of land, but more to the value of it, in terms of its technical use towards the landfill.
Commr. Windram questioned the fact that site K had been removed from the list of viable sites, stating that he would like to see it left on the list, for further consideration.
A brief discussion occurred regarding site K, at which time Commr. Bakich stated that the reason it was removed from the list was due to the large amount of wetlands on the property.
Commr. Bailey suggested shortlisting the proposed sites down to five, with site K as an alternate site.
Commr. Swartz stated that he, too, would like to see site K left on the list, as it gives the least amount of impact, as well as the fact that it would have the 20 year useful life requirement.
Commr. Gregg questioned whether, after the consultants go through the detailed analysis, they would have a true picture of the cost of developing and operating each site, to which Mr. Schnelle responded that they would.
Commr. Bailey then questioned Mr. Schnelle as to how soon he would be able to come back to the Board with a quote, to which Mr. Schnelle replied 2 to 3 months.
At this time, the Board discussed and ranked the five (5) sites, being sites C, I, N, P and Q, and noted that it was the consensus of the Board to leave in site K as a potential site, for further consideration.
It was the consensus of the Board to delete sites P, N, and I, leaving sites C, Q, and K as sites to reconsider, with the majority of the members agreeing that site K would be the best site overall.
It was noted that the direction the Board is taking, this date, does not necessarily mean that the other sites may not be reconsidered at a later date.
Commr. Gregg informed those present that a public hearing would be held, before any final decisions are made, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see each of the Board members actually view the potential sites in person, before making any final decisions. He also stated that he would like to have staff go along, as well, to answer any questions the Board might have, regarding said sites.
Mr. Findell was directed to schedule said outings.
No further action was taken at this time.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m., on a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously.
C. W. "CHICK" GREGG, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK