A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 6, 1990
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 6, 1990, 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: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; Thomas J. Windram; Richard Swartz; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; and Don Bailey. Others present were: James C. Watkins, Clerk; Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
James C. Watkins, Clerk, gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Windram.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commn. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of February 6, 1990, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of February 13, 1990, as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of February 20, 1990, it was noted that the following changes needed to be made:
Commr. Gregg requested the following changes:
On Page 27, Line 9, the sentence should reflect "they are not - permitted to land spread" rather than "they are permitted..."
On Page 34, Line 16, the name Bill Parisian should be changed to Joe Parisian.
On Page 34, Line 22, the name Foreign Properties should be changed to Horne Properties.
Commr . Bailey requested that additional language be added to his motion, as follows:
On Page 28, Lines 2 through 5, his motion included not only to disallow the hauling of manure on weekends, but also to disallow any maintenance that would create an odor or fly problem during the.weekends and holidays.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not have any changes, however, wanted to remind staff that, on Page 16, Line 31, as a part of passing the PUD alluded to, there was a requirement that the County would reserve or release site and facility obligations within six months, and wanted to make sure that staff was analyzing that, with regard to the fire station site, the Sheriff's substation site, and to make sure that the School Board understands that they have six months from the date the PUD was passed (February 20, 1988) to review it.
At this time, Mr. Watkins, Clerk, suggested that rather than approving the February 20th Minutes, as the secretary will be going back to the tape of said meeting and adding additional language, to postpone action until said Minutes can be brought back to the Board for the Board to either agree, or disagree, with said language.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board postponed action regarding the Minutes of February 20, 1990 until the Board Meeting of March 13, 1990.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/RESOLUTIONS/FIRE PROTECTION/PERSONNEL
ANIMAL CONTROL/MAINTENANCE/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
At this time, Commr. Bakich, Chairman, made the following presentations:
Resolution to:
Mr. Chuck Morgan, Fire Fighter, for service above and beyond the call of duty.
February 1990 "Employee of the Month" Plaque and Savings Bond:
Mr. Arthur L. Carter, Animal Control Officer, Animal Control
Plaque for, 10 Years of Service to the County and Retirement:
Mr. Glenn Timmons, Personnel Director, Personnel Division
Plaque for 5 Years of Service to the County:
Mr. Dale A. King, Maintenance Specialist, Building Maintenance
Plaque for 10 Years of Service to the County:
Ms. Teresa Dunham, Director of Housing, Section 8 Housing
Ms. Patricia A. Goff, Planning Technician, Planning
Department
Mr. Marvin M. Schmidt, Certified Building Inspector,
Building and Zoning
Mr. Guy G. White, Chief Zoning Technician, Building and
Zoning
Plaque for 15 Years of Service to the County:
Ms. Frankie L. Thorp, Director, Animal Control, Health and
General Services
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED
Request for payment of Warrant No. 117688 through Warrant No. 118152, for the following accounts:
General Revenue Landfills
Private Industry Council Fine & Forfeiture
Northwest Fire District County Transportation Trust
Mosquito Control Animal Shelter Trust Fund
Revenue Sharing
Mt. Plymouth Fire District
Law Library Countywide Fire District
Aquatic Weed Capital Outlay
Pasco Fire District Bassville Fire District
Countywide Library Emergency 911 Fund
Paisley Fire District Miscellaneous/Gas Fund
Section 8 Northeast Ambulance
Northwest Ambulance South Lake Fire District
Northeast Hospital Road Impact
Municipalities/State Agencies
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Intent, from the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Planning and
Public Transportation Office, regarding the upgrading of an existing limited airport, known as Tilden Groves Airport,
located 3 miles southwest of Winter Garden, to a private airport.
State Agencies
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice before the Florida Public Service Commission, regarding an application of Lake Utility Company, Inc., for water and sewer, certificates in Lake County.
Audits/State Agencies/Water Resources
Request to acknowledge receipt of St. Johns River Water Management District Annual Financial Audit, for FY 1988-89.
Municipalities/Ordinances
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinances 213-M and 218-M, from the City of Clermont, regarding municipal
annexation of approximately seventy vacant acres of property into the corporate city limits.
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges
Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment, for Matthew Maynard Jackson, Marvin D. and Willie Mae Jackson, in the amount of $50.00 - Case No. 89-107-CJ.
CLERK'S OTHER BUSINESS
The Board acknowledged receipt of For Your Information item, being the Clerk of Court's Fiscal Year 1989 Preliminary Year-end Report.
At this time, Mt. Jim Schuster, Finance Director, responded to a question by Commr. Swartz as to whether staff would be bringing back some budget amendments to effect the changes in the actual year-end budget, stating that Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Director of Administrative Services/Budget, for the County, has been provided with a copy of said report and will be working on budget amendments, noting that the excess funds will be brought forward into Contingency, unless the Board decides otherwise. He stated that a correction needs to be made to his memorandum, regarding the Landfill Enterprise Fund, noting that the correct figure carried forward is $3,290,000.00.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, requested that Tab 9 be excluded from the Consent Agenda, as it needed to be taken care of separately.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
County Employees
Request to approve certificates for employees with one and three years of service.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request to approve the agreement between Lake County and William T. Lindemann, P.E., as well as a request to
encumbers $70,000.00, in a blanket purchase order, for his services regarding a threshold inspection.
Accounts Allowed/Environmental Services
Request to purchase one 1990 diesel cab and chassis, fon dump body installation, from Boebinger's International, at a cost
of $51,757.37.
Accounts Allowed/Environmental Services
Request to purchase one fourteen yard aluminum dump body, to include installation and PTO, from Transtat Equipment,
Inc., at a cost of $11,560.00.
Accounts Allowed/Environmental Services
Request to purchase one 1990 diesel truck tractor, with fifth wheel, from Boebinger's International, in the amount of
$54,907.48.
Accounts Allowed/Libraries/Municipalities
Request to purchase three Bibliofile workstations: one each for Eustis, Mt. Dora and Cooper (Clermont) libraries, from
LSCA Grant No. DLIS-89-I-02-F-05, for automation, in the amount of $22,320.00.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for State Aid Agreement, between the State of Florida and Lake County, for fiscal year 1989-90, in the amount of $91,743.00.
Planning & Development/Subdivisions
Request for preliminary plat and construction plan approval of Lake Hiawatha Estates.
Accounts Allowed/Roads-County & State/Subdivisions
Request for final approval of Sugar Ridge Subdivision; acceptance of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, in the amount of
$18,424.00, for maintenance: and acceptance of the following roads into the County maintenance system: Cynthia Lane
(3-2344), Leatrice Drive (3-2224), and Floratine Circle (3-2345).
Accounts Allowed/Roads-County & State/Subdivisions
Request for final approval of Lake Dalhousie Estates; acceptance of a Certificate of Deposit, in the amount of $41,815.10,
for maintenance; and acceptance of the following roads into the County maintenance system: Quails Run (5-7078), Heron
Drive (5-7179), Sable Way (5-1078A), Timberlane Drive (5-7180), and Eagles View Circle (5-7279).
Bonds - Mobile Home
Request for approval of new Mobile Home Bonds for the following:
Jack Foley - Fruitland Park area - District No. I
Adrian Loper - Eustis area - District No. 4
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request to award Project No. 4-90, Golf Links Avenue and Dillard Road, to Trac Roadbuilders, Inc., in the amount of
$134,511.00, and to execute the contract.
Roads-County & State
Request to accept a portion of Jefferson Street (3-1369), a portion of First Avenue (3-1368), and Adams Street (3-1368B)
into the County maintenance system.
Deeds/Right-of-Ways, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Right-of-Way Deeds:
For Road Projects:
Roy C. and Lois J. Uptagrafft - Florida Boys Ranch Rd. (2-0729)
Bruce M. Peters - Griffin View Drive (l-7212)
Paul W. Bryan - Fletcher Road (5-7972)
For Site Plan:
The Florida Georgia District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - C-455
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/INSURANCE
The County Manager, Al Thelen, stated that, regarding Tab 9,.the Insurance Committee had met yesterday, due to staff looking at an April 1, 1990 date, to affect any changes, in terms of companies and provisions.
Mr. Gerry Jacobs, Risk Manager, appeared before the Board stating that staff had requested proposals in January of this year, to which they had a very good response (approximately 15). He then stated that staff was proposing a self-insurance program for the County, which is similar to what the County presently has, noting that the County would be responsible for the first $50,000.00 of claims on each individual during the year. In addition to reinsurance, over $50,000.00 per individual, the County would also have an aggregate stop loss insurance at 125% of expected claims. He stated that the company being recommended for reinsurance is Sun Life Insurance. He also stated that the claims processing would be handled the same way as it always has, as far as employees are concerned, and that the lowest quote staff received regarding Term Life Insurance was from Standard Life Insurance therefore, was recommending that it be placed with them. He stated that a new contract would have to be renegotiated with PCS, Inc., regarding the prescription card service that the County presently has, or go with a backup proposal that staff received from Mailscripts/Medi-Met.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the insurance packet, covering such things as out-of-pocket expense for prescriptions name brand drugs versus generic drugs; and in-house
care versus out-patient care.
Mr. Jacobs then stated that the Group Term Insurance that employees presently have is $lO,OOO.OO, and he recommended that said figure be increased to $20,000.00, per individual, due to inflation, which will cost $3.70 per month, per individual.
At this time, the Chairman, Commr. Bakich, stated that the Board would have to continue the discussion regarding the insurance program later this date, as they would have to stop for a Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING - ROAD CLOSING
Petition No. 588 - Gregg L. Harvison - Eustis Area
No one present wished to discuss this request with the Board. It was noted that the proper proof of publication was on hand as it appeased in the January 25, 1990 and February 1, 1990 editions of The Orlando Sentinel, The Lake Sentinel.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to vacate a roadway in the Eustis area, as advertised in Petition No. 588, by Gregg L. Harvison.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/INSURANCE (CONT'D.)
Mr. Bob Mericle, American General Insurance Company, appeared before the Board stating that his company has handled the County's insurance plan since 1978, and felt that they have done an excellent job in doing so. He stated that the changes which are being proposed can be implemented by any company, even American General, should the County decide to stay with them. He stated that what it all comes down to is a difference of $14.16.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time several Commissioners commented, however, Commr. Bakich stated that the County has a committee, being the Risk Management Committee, to review such matters, and felt that adequate review has been given to the issue and that the Board should move forward with the request.
Mr. Jacobs, Risk Manager, stated that he felt the County would have the same excellent service, if not better, for less money, if the Board approves the request before them this date.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to renew the County's Group Life & Health Plan, as presented to the Board this date, to become effective April 1, 1990, as recommended by the Risk Management Committee.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGETS/OUTDOOR RECREATION
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, gave a brief summary of this request, stating that approval of said request would increase the grant to the Astor Lions Club by $3,125.00, thereby, enabling them.to pay their impact fees, and that the request for a contribution to the Mote-Mottis Steering Committee, in Leesburg, to relocate and preserve the Mote-Morris House, is a request that the County has had for some time, noting that if the Board approves it, staff is saying that the Recreation - Federal Revenue Sharing Fund is an appropriate place from which to take said funds, however, it can also be taken from the General Fund - Contingency Account. He stated that Ms. Anderson, Director of Administrative Services/Budget, for the County, indicates that even after the $8,125.00 is taken from the Recreation - Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, there would still be approximately $95,000.00 left in said account, for recreation purposes.
Ms. Lauren Stokes, Chairperson for the Mote-Morris Steering Committee, appeared before the Board to answer any questions the Board might have regarding the request.
Commr. Swartz questioned the fact of using Recreation funds for said project, at which time Mr. Thelen, County Manager, stated that he felt Revenue Sharing Funds designated for Recreation could be used, however, there are other funds that can be used, as well. He stated that the main issue is whether o r not the Board wishes to fund said project.
Commr. Windram suggested funding the project from other than the Revenue Shaning Fund, due to the fact that Revenue Sharing is the only money that has been appropriated for recreation, which he feels is an inadequate amount of money to start with.
Commr. Gregg stated that he had no problem with the funds being taken out of a fund other than the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board appaoved a request for $3,125.00 to be transferred from the Recreation - Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, to the Aids to Private Organizations Account, to cover the cost of impact fees for the Astor Lions Club.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for $5,000.00 to be transferred from the General Fund - Contingency, to the Aids to Peivate Organizations Account, for the Mote-Morris House project, with the understanding that said money will be returned, should the contract not be executed, and that the agreement be with the City of Leesburg.
COUNTY MANAGER/ORDINANCES
Discussion occurred regarding a request to approve an ordinance establishing the position of the County Manager and his duties and responsibilities, at which time Mr. Watkins, Clerk, gave input regarding certain concerns he had regarding the possibility of the ordinance changing any realationships between certain constitutional officers, as they presently exist. He stated that he had a concern with respect to certain financial requirements, noting that there is a very close working relationship between the County Comptroller and the County Manager, and the County Comptroller, as Treasurer of the County, is required to keep certain records and provide certain
reports, noting that, according to this ordinance, the County Manager will also be providing certain reports, and he assumes that the data for them will come from the Comptroller, and is concerned that there might be a setting up of duplicate efforts in the County. He stated another concern he had deals with the function of the County Auditor, with respect to County property, noting that in the ordinance there is a statement taken from the Florida Statutes, regarding the County Manager having responsibility for the Board's property, noting that he feels it should go one level below that to the Department Head.
Mr.. Thelen, County Manager, stated that he does not foresee any change in the way said matters are presently handled.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 1990-5, establishing the position and duties of the County Manager.
COUNTY ATTORNEY/ORDINANCES
A brief discussion occurred regarding a request to adopt an ordinance establishing the powers of the County Attorney.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that there is no statutory requirement for same.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 1990-6, establishing the powers of the County Attorney.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/FIRE PROTECTION/MUNICIPALITIES
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to create a new position of Administrative Aide, for Fire Protection Districts 2 (Paisley), 3 (Mt. Plymouth), and 4 (Pasco), eliminating two part-time positions and creating one full-time position, at an estimated cost for FY 1989-90 of $15,342.00, from existing budgets, to be shared by the districts involved.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board authorized Environmental Services to amend the solid waste contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., to provide closure services for the Umatilla and Loghouse Landfills, at a cost not-to-exceed $91,000.00.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ZONING
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request. Commr. Gregg declared a Conflict of Interest and abstained from the discussion and vote, due to the fact that the petitioner is a client of his, and he was involved in the matter before he was elected to the Board.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding this request at which time the Board members reviewed a site plan of the property involved.
Mr. Bennett Walling, representing Gregg & Associates, Inc., the , appeared before the Board and gave input regarding the petitioner matter.
Mr. Findell stated that Mr. Walling indicated when the project was presented to the Board, the Board was fully aware that there would be no landscaping on the inside of the project, and that the plan was approved, with no landscaping requirement. He stated that staff needs clarification of same.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved a request that the site plan, as submitted, would not need to meet Section 70.40 of Zoning Ordinance NO. 17-88, pertaining to parking requirements, as previously specified in the Rezoning approval dated April 12, 1988.
Commr. Gregg had declared a conflict of interest, therefore, abstained from the vote.
MUNICIPALITIES/ORDINANCES
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, gave a brief summary of what has transpired, up to this point, regarding this request.
Mr. Welton Cadwell, representing the Lake County League of Cities, appeared before the Board stating that the League had no comments at this time, due to the fact that they were unable to bring the matter before their Board of Directors before the meeting scheduled this date. He stated that they intend to bring the matter to the attention of their Board of Directors on Friday, March 9, 1990.
Commr. Swarz informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the Board Office had received a letter from Mr. Mike Stearman, Eustis City Manager, regarding the matter. He stated that if it was the intent of this Board to wait until the League of Cities goes before their Board of Directors for a recommendation to be made to this Board, would suggest that this Board give them the opportunity to do so, by postponing action regarding same until a later date, noting that this was the intent of postponing the matter in the first place.
Mr. Ed Thomas, representing Miller Enterprises/Handy Way Food Stores, appeared before the Board stating that he had met with the League of Cities; Mr. Cadwell; Mr. Thelen, County Manager; and Commr. Bailey regarding the matter. He stated that his firm is very concerned about providing a safe environment for their associates,.as well as the public, therefore, would have no problem in meeting at another time, in order to discuss the matter and come to a conclusion. He stated that, if the Board feels an ordinance is necessary he would certainly like to have the opportunity to provide input, review studies which were done, as well as make recommendations.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board (for informational purposes) that Seminole County would be discussing a proposed ordinance regarding the natter (which is similar to Lake County's ordinance) at their Board Meeting scheduled for March 13, 1990. She stated that their ordinance defines a "late night business" rather than just a "convenience store" provision. She stated, also, that the Board has in their backup packet a report from the Volusia County Sheriff's Department regarding a similar ordinance.
It was noted that further discussion and action regarding the Two Clerk Rule Ordinance would be postponed until the Board Meeting of March 20, 1990, at 10:00 a.m.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/WATER AUTHORITY/ZONING
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and explained this request.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz recommended that the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, as she reviews the language of the ordinances, review some of the types of things that are being proposed, which brought the issue to the forefront.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for authorization to draft and advertise the Lake County Zoning Regulations, to address boat docks and ramps within the County.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and explained this request. A brief discussion occurred regarding this request, at which time Commr. Bakich questioned whether there was an increase in the School Education Impact Fee, noting that the figure was originally $5,000.00, however, it is now $6,500.00, to which it was noted that there was an increase and that the School Board would be made aware of the fact that there is a proposed increase in the contract, and they will be expected to pick up the difference.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to accept the proposed schedule, as presented, for prioritizing the remaining impact fee analyses.
At this time, the Board directed Mr. Swanson to coordinate the new schedule with the School Board, and indicate any increase in fees, in order to make them aware of it.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGET TRANSFERS/REPORTS
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and explained this request.
A brief discussion occurred reagarding the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to authorize an additional $6,700.00, for the impact fee study of the mobile home traffic generation rate, and transfer of same from Contingency to the Board's budget.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGETS/REPORTS/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and explained this request.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested that said funds come from the Fine & Forfeiture Contingency Fund, rather than Board funds.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for authorization of a $500.00 payment, to be taken from the Fine & Forfeiture Contingency Fund, for work necessary to complete the Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board the fact that the County was recently served with a new piece of litigation, which is a second part of litigation that has been pending for some time (approximately two years) in Federal Court, concerning the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Mr. James C. Watkins, and three ex-employees, being Ms. Deremo, Ms. Mills and Ms. Fox. She stated that they recently filed a State court action, with similar counts. The answer is not due for approximately two weeks, and at the moment she is reviewing how said litigation is going to be handled - whether in-house or through the County's labor attorney, who is also handling the Federal legislation. She stated that the suit which was filed in State Court has some defects in it, one being that it addresses Mr. Watkins, Clerk, as a County employee, which he is not, therefore, would be the basis for a motion to dismiss, noting that she will proceed on that basis. She stated she feels this is the reason the complainants named the County in the suit, as well.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that she would get back to the Board on the representation and the status of said litigation at a later date.
No action was needed at this time.
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
AMBULANCES-HOSPITAL DISTRICTS/COMMITTEES
Commr. Gregg brought to the attention of the Board the appointment of the members of the North Lake Hospital District Board of Trustees, stating that he had three (3) names from what used to be the Northwest Hospital District, which he wished to name at this time, being Dr. Maurice Berger (who serves on the present Northwest Hospital District Board); Mr. Ted Bowersox; and Reverend Terry Jackson.
Commr. Gregg then stated that this Board now needs three (3) additional names from what is now the Northeast Hospital District. A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time staff was instructed to put an ad in the paper inviting those individuals interested in serving on said Board, even for an interim basis, to submit their names, at which time the Board will review those names that are submitted and make said appointments.
Commr. Gregg informed those present to keep in mind that anyone named to said Board, at this time, would have to go for election in November of this year.
It was noted that the existing Board is continuing to serve until said appointments are made.
Mr. Thelen, County Manager, recommended that the Board name a date that the Board intends to make the additional appointments, so that interested individuals will know when to respond, at which time the Board suggested bringing said names back before the Board on April 3, 1990.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board tentatively appointed the three individuals named above to the North Lake County Hospital District Board of Trustees; and an ad will be run for those appointments.
COMMUNICATIONS
Commr. Gregg brought to the attention of the Board the fact that he attended the FCC meeting which was held in Orlando last Friday, March 2, 1990, of which was one of three such meetings being held around the country by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He stated the main topic of discussion was whether or not to allow telephone companies to compete with cablevision companies, and whether competition is needed in the cablevision industry. He stated the consensus of said meeting was that competition would be healthy for the cablevision industry and feels they are going in that direction and, most likely, will allow phone companies to get involved in the competition.
Commr. Windram questioned whether it would put more people in competition, or whether it would put more people out, to which Commr. Gregg responded that he did not know what the net results would be. He stated there is one company, that is not a phone company, that is involved in competition in Orange County, which he believes goes by the name of Telsat. He stated that Telsat addressed the Federal Communications Commission and showed them letters from their two competitors in Orange County that, basically, had cut rates in every area of the County they had gone into, to try and force them out, or, at least force them into a deficit position.
Commr. Gregg then stated that some of the discussion going on in the County, at present, with several of the cities is a non-discriminatory ordinance, which would prohibit them varying the rates around their franchise area, for instance, in Lake County, with the Cities of Eustis, Mt. Dora, and Tavares, in that it would prohibit them from charging different rates in those service areas. He stated that he had spoken with the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, regarding it and she is presently in the process of drafting some wording which would include as much of that as possible, although there is a question of legality, however, this is one approach that can be taken to try and attract competition.
Commr. Gregg stated that, another thing is, in reviewing the franchise agreement, there is a requirement in the Lake County Cable contract, that they hold an annual meeting with involved parties, being the cities and the County, and, to his knowledge, they have not done this, not have they ever done it. He stated that he would like to see the Board get with the cities that are involved and ask that an annual meeting be held. He also stated that there is a requirement in said franchise agreement that they perform a survey, if requested to do so by Lake County, and would like to suggest that the County possibly draft a survey and have Lake County Cablevision furnish the Board with all their subscribers, as well as fund the cost of the survey, to find out if they are providing excellent service, as called for in their contract. He stated that he feels the Board will see, from the survey results, what steps they need to proceed with.
It was noted that there are approximately 20 different cablevision services in the area.
Commr. Bakich interjected that he feels the Board does need to start taking a more aggressive stance to the cablevision issue.
Commr. Swartz stated that he agreed with Commr. Gregg's comments, however, felt the Board needs to coordinate with the Cities, as each of the contracts alluded to above are the same, and each of those Cities have the same sights, noting that there is a requirement for each of them to have the public hearing which was alluded to.
It was noted that, rather than hold several meetings regarding the cablevision issue, there should be just one, to which all the companies involved could attend.
Commr. Swartz then stated that he found a discussion regarding wireless cablevision very interesting, and that it appeared to be something that would work in areas where there were less residences per mile, than usual, which seems to be a difficulty for attracting cablevision. He stated that he would like to obtain the names of all the individuals that participate in the wireless cablevision, and direct staff to send out letters, in trying to obtain more information regarding it. He stated that, for a lot less money, homes can have cablevision without having to string wires. Commr. Gregg interjected that being able to share, whether it is wireless cable, o r a company like Telsat, that being able to assure them that the Boand will try to block discriminatory rates, will encourage them to come to Lake County.
At this time, Mr. Thelen, County Manager, informed the Board that the Lake County League of Cities has a committee working on the issue, which will be meeting on Friday, March 9, 1990, and noted that he plans to attend said meeting, at which time he will bring up for discussion, the points which were alluded to earlier.
Commr. Gregg then requested Mr. Thelen to try and coordinate the annual meeting with the Cities, which he discussed earlier. Mr. Thelen stated that he would bring this issue up, as well, at said meeting.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/RESOLUTIONS
Commr. Bailey brought to the attention of the Board a resolution regarding the Governor's program for acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands, and requested that said resolution be approved.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Resolution supporting the "Preservation 2000" Program, initiated by Governor Bob Martinez, as requested by Commr. Bailey.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Commr. Bakich brought to the attention of the Board the issue of an interlocal agreement between Lake County and Orange County, regarding the Wekiva Falls project, and how services for the project would be provided, as well as funded.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time the Board directed staff to work with the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, in coming to a conclusion as to how said project will be handled, and bring a recommendation to this Board at a later date.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:lO a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 11:30 a.m.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/LANDFILLS
Commr. Bakich opened this segment of the meeting, by commenting about the County's contract with Ogden Martin, regarding the waste-to-energy facility. He then questioned the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, as to whether the County did, indeed, have a binding contract, to which she replied that the County did. He questioned her as to whether the County had any escape clauses, on ways of backing out of the contract, to which she replied that there were no provisions in the contract, other than following a course which would have certain impacts to the County. He then questioned Mr. Joe Treshler, General Manager of Ogden Martin, as to whether Ogden Martin was willing to start from scratch and totally renegotiate, or make major renegotiating points, to which Mr. Treshler replied that it was never the intent of Ogden Martin to start from scratch. He read a letter into the record which Mr. David Sokol, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ogden Martin, had written to Commr. Swartz regarding Ogden Martin's willingness to sit down with the County and renegotiate, if necessary, due to a potential waste
shootfall. He stated that Ogden Martin had stated they would be willing to work with the County, then, and that they a r willing to work with the County, now, regarding same, as they would like to see the project be a very successful one and one that the community can be proud of.
Commr. Bakich stated, to those present, that the Board would only take comments from staff and those individuals involved with the project.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, informed the Board that staff started working late last Fall in toying to determine the amount of tonnage waste that could be delivered to the incinerator site, from March 1, 1991 to February 28, 1992, due to the fact that the County has a contractual obligation with Ogden Martin regarding same, noting that the County has to decide by March 10, 1990, whether said amount would be more than the 130,000 tons, as provided in the contract. He stated that it is staff's feeling that the County should work with Ogden Martin, as they have indicated, verbally, that they would allow the County to help them control the waste that comes in from outside. He then referred to a memo from him, dated March 2, 1990, as well as a memo dated March 13, 1990, in which said tonnage is covered. He reiterated the fact that the Board has to take action at the meeting this date, or before March 10, 1990, if they wish to change the 130,000 ton guarantee.
Commr. Gregg gave input regarding the contract the County has with Ogden Martin, stating that it is legal and binding, and felt that discussion regarding whether to trash it or not is
irresponsible, due to the fact that, financially, it is unfeasible and would destroy the County's financial standing. He stated that he did not see any need for the discussion at this time, or has yet to see any need for it. He then commented further regarding the fact of asking for Ogden Martin's involvement, as well as the issue of source separation for waste being brought in from outside the County.
Commr. Swartz then gave input and submitted, for the record, a.folder of letters from concerned citizens regarding the incinerator project. He stated that it appears the Board has two issues to take care of this date, based on staff's recommendation, being (1) to accept the 130,000 tons that is currently in the contract, and (2) to renegotiate certain items in the contract, which staff has listed, should the Board wish to do so. He stated that he would like to see the Board approve the first recommendation, however, leave the second recommendation as part of the contract.
Discussion continued regarding the tonnage commitment, at which time Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services; Mr. Thelen, County Manager, and several Commissioners gave input.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the first recommendation by staff, regarding the incinerator, being to reiterate the provisions of the current agreement which states that the County will deliver 130,000 tons of processible waste to the incinerator for the first year of its operation, from March 1, 1991 to February 28, 1992.
At this time, Commr. Swartz stated that he was not advocating a breach of contnact, however, stated there is a diffenence of sitting down and saying that the County is not sure that the way the contract is structured, the County can survive economically or environmentally, and that he still suppoots doing so, all the way from exploring the possibility of purchasing the facility (as was originally discussed in December of 1988) to talking with Ogden Martin about the County possibly backing out of the contract. He then questioned whether there was any sentiment on the Board of considering either of the two things he alluded to above, in a way that causes the least harm possible to either party.
Commr. Bailey noted that the amendment which Commr. Swartz alluded to, regarding the possibility of the County owning the facility, which was put in the contract in 1988, was his, however, was never exercised. He stated that, in 1989, the County Attorney at that time, Mr. Chris Ford, came to him and stated that the County was not interested in purchasing the facility.
Commn. Bakich stated that, as he recalled the issue, it was to be over a period of twenty years that the County would acquire ownership of the facility, at which time Commr. Gregg interjected that one cannot just analyze the situation, based on the fact that since the County is paying fon the facility, why doesn't the County own it. He stated that the County is not paying the same price, which is something that the County's financial advisors brought to the attention of the Board and the Board had to decide whether on not it was feasible for the County to purchase the facility. He stated that, due to the fact that the facility had investment tax credits carried forward (while it was still allowable) allowed the vendor to receive a tax credit, which they in turn are passing on to the County in a $5 million capital investment, initially, and $5 million over the next five years. This is what blew the deal, as far as the County owning it, in that it became more costly for the County to own it. He then stated that he, for one, is tired of rehashing the same contact over and over again.
Further discussion occured regarding the issue, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned whether there was anyone else on the Board that would want to consider asking Ogden Martin to pursue either evaluating more carefully whether or not the County wants to own the facility, and secondly, whether or not the County would want to renegotiate and decide whether o r not to continue with the entire process that the County finds itself in at this time.
Commr. Windram stated that he would be for exploring the possibility of owning the facility, but not for renegotiating the contract, as well as did Commr. Bakich. Commr. Bailey stated that he would be in favor of pursuing both suggestions, and Commr. Gregg noted that he had stated his opinion earlier.
At this time, Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve staff Recommendations II and III, as listed in the memorandum from Mr. Thelen, County Manager, dated Match 2, 1990, as well as to include amendment Items 1 through 7, which he had earlier distributed to the Board, for their perusal.
The Chairman then called for a vote on the motion, which was defeated, with Commrs. Gregg, Windram, and Bakich voting "No".
A motion was then made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Windram to approve staff Recommendations II and III, as listed in the memorandum from Mr. Thelen, County Manager, dated Match 2, 1990, noting that he would like for staff to look at the issues and get back to the Board with their findings and comments, and let the Board decide whether or not the issue will be reheard again.
Commr . Bailey amended Commn. Gregg's motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, for staff to also review and consider the amendments which Commr. Swartz alluded to earlier, along with recommendations II and III, and bring back to the Board a recommendation on said items, as well as othen items which they would like to be considered for inclusion in the negotiations with Ogden Martin, at a Public Hearing, to be held on April 3, 1990.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment to Commr. Gregg's motion, which was carried.
Commrs. Gregg and Windram voted "No".
At this time, the Chairman called for a vote on Commr. Gregg's original motion, which was carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At this time, the Chairman, Commr. Bakich, stated that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m. for a workshop on the proposed Mining Ordinance.
MINING ORDINANCE WORKSHOP
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ORDINANCES
Commr. Bakich opened this segment of the meeting by informing those present that the Board would be going through the Mining Ordinance, page by page, and clarifying any changes which had been made, up to this point.
At this time, the County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, informed those present of changes which had been made to the ordinance, prior to this meeting. She stated that on Page 1, a new title was insented, for advertising purposes, to more readily reflect the content of the total ordinance. She stated that in the original ordinance, theoe were a number of "whereases" that were added, and findings in the "whereas" section that had been moved to the bottom of Page 1, under Legislative Findings, due to the fact that they are more appropriately in the body of the ordinance, noting that it would go into the Code itself, whereby the "whereases" do not go into the Code.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that on Page 2, some words were changed, however, the essence is the same in purpose and intent and construction of the Code provisions. The "Vested Rights" section that was previously on Page 2, is now on Page 3, and is an incooporation of what Ms. Lustgarten submitted at the workshop two meetings ago, reflecting what the Board had voted on, at the prior meeting, regarding the vested rights of existing mines.
At this time, Commr. Bakich proceeded to go through the ordinance, as follows:
Page 1: No changes.
Page 2: It was noted that language had been added to Paragraph D. Construction of Code Provisions, regarding other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, at which time Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that, in the event the Army Corps o r the EPA had jurisdiction, it was the intent that the County is a Federal agency, with jurisdiction, and that the County certainly could not supersede or override any of their regulations.
Page 3: No changes.
Page 4: Mr. Fred Crabill, Florida Crushed Stone, questioned the Board about Paragraph G. Exemptions. He questioned whether; the installation of utilities would fall under a mining ordinance (if one does not meet that exemption) on minor landscaping projects (which obviously are not classified as mining type things), if one does not meet that exemption, to which Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services, replied that it is not simply a mining ordinance, it is a mining and excavation ordinance, therefore, if it is an excavation, it would fall under the mining and excavation ordinance.
Commr. Swartz requested clarification of Paragraph G. (2.), stating that he would like to have language added that that particular section does not become effective until a date certain, or such time as the County has effectively amended its subdivision or development regulations, to control this type of activity.
Commr. Gregg stated that he would like to add to what Commr. Swartz just stated, in that when someone comes in for an improvement, that they not just have a grading plan, indicating what they are going to do with the land, but that they come in with a building permit and a set of architectural documents indicating what they are going to put in, and, also, that it not be approved just based on site improvements.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that language regard "effective time" is an option that the Board has and could be put into the language of the ordinance, if the Board so choosing.
At this time, Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, that in Section 22-l. General Provisions, under Paragraph No. 2, language be added that this provision not be effective until September 6, 1990, o r until such time as the development regulations are changed to review the type of exceptions that are contemplated in said paragraph.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was defeated, with Commrs. Gregg, Windram, and Bakich voting "No".
Page 5: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that Section 22-2. Definitions had been treated as a separate new section, noting that it was previously incorporated into Section 22-l. She noted that the p ri or definition of "Actively Mined" had been struck, in response to the new definition of "Vested Rights".
Page 6: A new definition of "Lawful Mine" was added, in Paragraph No. 15, as well as a definition of "Excavation", in Paragraph No. 12.
Page 7: A definition of "New Mine", in Paragoaph No. 19, was added. "Tailing storage areas" was added to Paragraph No. 25, "Pre-mining Activity". "Peat and phosphate minerals" was added under "One", Paragraph No. 22.
Page 8: Mining Site Plan and Operating Permit Application, Review and Approval Process has been renumbered as Section 22-3, and the language under A. Mining Site Plan Approval and Operating Permit Requirements was previously submitted to the Board to reflect the new "vested rights" language.
Mr. Fred Crabill, Florida Crushed Stone, requested clarification of the language under Paragraph A. Mining Site Plan Approval... questioning whether it pertained to a "vested" area, to which the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, replied that it did.
Page 9: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that some of the language in Paragraph No. 5, under B. Mining Site Plan Application was changed regarding notice concerning the 150 feet, in that it shall be posted on the public access roads and the County roads closest to the site.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see the provision regarding Zoning, in the Lake County Code, revised to reflect the change in language alluded to above. It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
Page 10: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that Paragraph No. 11. (c.), regarding topography, was amended to reflect the Board's direction to eliminate the one foot interval and contain it at five foot intervals. Also, in Paragraph No. 11. (e.), where it discusses on-site natural and manmade features, it originally stated "within 300 feet", which has now been amended to say "if the information is available on private property, adjacent within 300 feet", which means that one can look at USGS maps o r other agencies which might have information.
Page 11: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that in Paragraph No. 11. (g.), where it discusses the volume of traffic, the language has been changed to read "major access routes in Lake County, including impacted intersections closest to the mining operation and the proposed daily volumes of vehicles hauling the excavated material during the first year of operation".
Page 12: No changes.
Page 13: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that on Page 13, there is a new section, being (i.), under Paragraph No. 14.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, explained the new section, stating that it was language worked out between.staff geologists and representatives of the peat mining industry.
Page 14: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that there was a new section, being Paragraph No. 19. She stated the industry had requested that staff designate that certain information which they provide be confidential, however, the County is not permitted to do so, pursuant to Chapter 119, of theFlorida Statutes, except that there is a process that if one is obtaining a permit from the Department of Natural Resources, one can request that certain information be marked "Confidential", and if the Secretary of the Department makes the determination to do so, it is marked as such, and is not permitted to be disclosed. If this should happen with any information provided to the County, then the County will honor that determination.
Page 15: A change was noted in Paragraph No. 2. (b.), being that the application fees are as established by the Board of County Commissioners, as well as a change in Paragraph No. 4. Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Review, in that prior Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 were combined, and say that the plan will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board of County Commissioners, as a Conditional Use Permit, and noted that all the notice and advertising requirements will apply.
Page 16: No changes.
Page 17: It was noted that the last paragraph on this page, above Section 22-4, pertaining to nonsubstantial amendments, is not complete, as staff did not have said definition the day the ordinance was copied for distribution, however, staff now has said definition.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, gave input regarding said definition, stating that a "non-substantial amendment" would be any change to a previously approved mining site plan, which does not increase the intensity of the land use, or its impact on activities, utilities, circulation, surrounding land uses, community facilities, environment, or other factors directly on indirectly affected. He stated that this is language which comes out of the State Comprehensive Planning legislation.
Page 18: Mr. Steve Richey, Attoerey, referred to Paragraph No. 2. Operating Permit Application Review, stating that should there be an impasse with staff on developing an operating permit, the ordinance should allow for one to come to the Board for final resolve of said issue, as one could get caught in never-never land, if staff turns it down, as there is presently no place for one to go in resolving the matter, and requested the Board to look at said issue before the next meeting. He also stated that everywhere else in the ordinance, it requires staff to do things within 15 to 30 days, however, in this particular situation, it does not state how long one has the right to forward the approval of the conditions or the denial of an operating permit, and, if it is a denial, it does not state where one would go.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, responded to Mr. Richey's concerns.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Richey stated that he felt the final determination of the appeal process should be made by the Board of County Commissioners, rather than the Planning and Zoning Board.
Several Commissioners gave input regarding the matter, at this time.
Page 19: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that in Paragraph No. 3. Zoning, it talks about the mining permit coming through at the same time a rezoning is coming through, in the event that it is necesssary. She stated that she inserted a sentence stating that the rezoning application shall be considered prior to the mining site plan application, for clarity.
Page 20: No changes.
Page 21: No changes.
Page 22: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that Paragraph No. 9. Blasting and Vibrations was originally two paragraphs, which have now been combined.
Page 23: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that Paragraph No. 1. (a.) was amended to reflect the addition of language regarding a 200 foot setback for Residentially zoned property, and that there was a discussion regarding excavated material not being higher than 70 feet, noting that language was added that said the height of the stockpile may be increased or decreased in special situations and shall be addressed in the mining site plan at the time the Board of County Commissioners consider the application.
Page 24: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that in Paragraph No. 4. Security, a requirement that the notice or warning sign must have the name and telephone number of the operator was inserted.
Page 25: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that Paragraph No. 7. Sloping, which actually starts on Page 24 and carries over to Page 25, was previously entitled "Public Safety", however, it really deals with sloping, thus the change in title. She also noted that language in Paragraph No. 8. Phasing was changed and requested Mr. Findell, Director of Environmental Services, to explain said change, which he did, stating that it was changed at the request of the Board.
Commr. Swartz gave input regarding the matter of "phasing" and the language regarding same.
Page 26: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that language regarding available topsoil was added to Paragraph No. 3. (c.), as follows, "When good quality topsoil is available on site, it shall be stockpiled, segregated and retained on site for revegetation during the reclamation process. She noted that it, therefore, becomes a site by site determination. She also noted that language was added to Paragraph No. 3. (d.), regarding time frames being complied with, at completion of the initial reclamation.
Page 27: No changes.
Page 28: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that in Paragraph No. 4. (e.), language was changed regarding access to the site, at which time she nread how the paragraph is presently worded.
Page 29: No changes.
Page 30: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that under Section 22-6. A. Annual Progress Report, language was added to Paragraph No. 6, requiring an update on major access routes, impacted intersections closest to the site and daily volume of vehicles hauling mined materials, as part of the annual report.
Commr. Bakich and staff gave input regarding said paragraph at this time.
Page 31: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that under Section 22-8. Fees, previously there was a list of what the future category of fees would be, noting that they will be adopted by a resolution, which will come before the Board at the same time the second hearing on the ordinance will be heard, however, the category of fees is not listed, as the Board will just adopt them by resolution. She also stated that the variance provision and the appeals provision had been taken out, as those changes will be coming directly to the Board in the future. She also stated that under Section 22-9. Violations and Enforcement, it talks about the process that will be applicable if there are substantial repeat violations leading to revocation, which would be accomplished by the Board of County Commissinners, noting that it does require an advertised public hearing and standard process which would be used for any appeal process. She stated that Code Enforcement has been given the authority to enforce violations and the County has also not precluded using other methods of enforcement, such as going to court, on seeking injunctive relief and/or damages.
Page 32: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated Paragraph B., under Section 22-10. Financial Responsibility was changed to tie the bonding to the phase that was being penmitted, so that one would not have to bond the entire project - it would just be based on phasing.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, stated that he had been contacted by Mr. Al Jahna, E. R. Jahna Industries, Inc., and was requested to question the Board about the portion of Paragraph A., where it speaks of accepting forms of guarantee including cash, certificates of deposit, irrevocable letters of credit, o r surety bonds, and as to whether the Board means other fonms of value, such as stock, etc., to which the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, replied that they do not, stating that the four types of security listed are the.normal types of security that are submitted and are easily accessible.
Ms. Lustgarten also stated that she added a new section, being Section 2 - Effect of Conflicting Ordinances, which states that this ordinance prevails, unless there is an existing rule, regulation, etc., that is more stringent, in which case the more stringent provision would apply.
Page 33: Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that Section 3 - Subsequent Amendments is a new section, which talks about subsequent amendments to the ordinance itself only applying to existing permanent mines, in the event they were a threat or hazard to the public safety, health, and general welfare.
It was noted that the first of two public hearings, regarding the ordinance, would be decided at a later date.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS
sec/3-21-90/wp-2
3-28-90/wp-2