The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 5, 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; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Don Bailey; Richard Swartz; and Thomas J. Windram. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Bailey gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Windram.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 17, 1990 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 1, 1990 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
Concerning the Minutes of May 8, 1990, it was noted that the following changes needed to be made:
Commr. Gregg noted the following:
On Page 21, spelling of the name Connor should be corrected to Conner.
On Page 25, Lines 11 through 15, where the Minutes refer to the mining community, it should be corrected to reflect the local community.
Commr. Swartz noted the following:
On Page 11, Line 27, the Minutes should reflect that Commr. Swartz voted "Yes" rather than "No", regarding a change in the language, concerning the issue of the Late Night Businesses Ordinance.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 8, 1990, as corrected.
Concerning the Minutes of May 15, 1990, it was noted that the following changes needed to be made:
The County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, noted the following:
On Page 7, Line 21, the Minutes should reflect the heading of County Attorney's Matters.
On Page 31, Line 2, Item B should be corrected to Item V. Commr. Swartz noted the following:
On Page 31, Line 5, the word distracted should be corrected to extracted.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 15, 1990, as corrected.
Action regarding the Minutes of May 21, 1990, was postponed until the Board Meeting of June 12, 1990.
Commr. Bakich introduced representatives of the local 4-H Club, being Ms. Alice Ayers, Coordinator, and students Cheryl Weaver and Dixie Slater, who were attending the Board Meeting to see, first hand, how County government operates, and thanked them for being involved in their local government. It was noted that Joseph Symmes (student) was unable to attend the meeting.
Ms. Ayers informed the Board that the students would be attending a "Citizenship Washington Focus", in Washington, D.C., during the last week of June, at which time the Board invited the students to come back, at a later date, and give a report on said trip and how they feel about the way government is run in Washington, D.C.
BONDS/COUNTY EMPLOYEES/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/PUBLIC WORKS
Commr. Bakich presented a plaque and Savings Bond to Mr. Charlie L. Perkins, Jr., Landfill Attendant I, Environmental Services Department, as the May "Employee of the Month" award.
Commr. Bakich then presented a plaque, for 15 years of service, to Mr. Clarence Morgan, Assistant Area Maintenance Supervisor, Public Works Department.
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Request for payment of Warrant No. 120617 through Warrant No. 121658, for the following accounts:
County Transportation Trust Landfills
General Revenue Countywide Fire District
Fine & Forfeiture Private Industry Council
Countywide Library Pasco Fire District
Aquatic Weed Capital Outlay
Bassville Fire District Northwest Fire District
Paisley Fire District Miscellaneous/Gas Fund
South Lake Fire District Mosquito Control
Revenue Sharing Fish Conservation
Law Library Mt. Plymouth Fire District
Animal Shelter Trust Fund Section 8
Emergency 911 Fund Inmates Trust Fund
Commissary Trust Fund
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending April 30, 1990, in the amount of $150,766.98.
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Mt. Dora Resolution No. 90-14, concerning their continued participation in the County Library System.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Clerk of Court's FY 1990-91 budget.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Lake County Sheriff's Department FY 1990-91 budget.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Property Appraiser's FY 1990-91 budget.
CLERK'S OTHER BUSINESS
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board authorized payment of term bill, for the period of October 1, 1989 through April 30, 1990, in the amount
The Board acknowledged receipt of the following For Your Information Item: Notice of Public Meeting - Land Acquisition Advisory Council, to be held June 11, 1990, at 1:30 p.m., at the Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Request for approval of certificates for employees with one and three years of service to the County, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Resolutions/Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management/State Agencies
Request for adoption of Resolution between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Natural Resources, for State funding, for aquatic plant control, under F.A.C. Chapter 16C-50, for FY 1990-91, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Animal Control/Municipalities
Request for approval of an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg, for Animal Control, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities/Fire Protection
Request for approval of agreements between Okahumpka, Deanza Mid-Florida Lakes, Astor Volunteer Fire Department and Lake County, to furnish fire protection in certain unincorporated areas of the County, and to lease certain buildings and equipment to the County for FY 1989-90.
Request for appointment of Mr. Carl Ludecke to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, replacing Mr. Marty Scheveling, and to appoint Dr. Tom Sanders, as an alternate member, to represent the School Board.
Request to release a maintenance bond, in the amount of $12,360.00, for The Oranges Subdivision.
Request to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, for maintenance, in the amount of $39,450.00, for Crescent West Subdivision.
Request for approval of Phase IV and V of Wedgewood Club Third Addition Subdivision.
Bonds - Mobile Home
Request for cancellation of existing Mobile Home Bonds, as follows:
Robert Shockley, Altoona area, District 5
Eileen Bayliff, Lady Lake area, District 1
Jack Foley, Fruitland Park area, District 1
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Public Works
Request to purchase three (3) 1991 utility vehicles, from Van Gannaway Chevrolet, Inc., at a total cost of $50,958.54 ($16,986.18), low bid.
Request to accept the following roads in Kings Cove Subdivision (Project No. 9-89), into the County maintenance system:
Queens Way (1-5813)
Royal Oak Way (1-5814B)
Dogwood Circle (1-5815B)
Elm Circle (1-5815A)
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request to release the following Murphy Act Deed Reservation:
No. 1480 - Manuel J. Harris, Sr. and Valarie Harris - City of Eustis
For Road Project
Anne C. Ball - McKinley Road (5-6661)
For Site Plan
The General Assembly of the Church of God for the State of Florida, Inc. - Camp Street (1-5337)
For Lot Approval
Laurey E. and Billie F. Banks - Hwy. 42
Boyd and Ruby C. Abner - Cemetery Road (5-7676)
John C. Lucas - Griffin Avenue (1-7807)
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Executive Director of Administrative Services/Budget, for the County, appeared before the Board to explain this request.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, and Mr. Thelen, County Manager, gave input regarding the policy guidelines for reserve
accounts and the possible need, from time to time, to vary from them.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board adopted a resolution establishing policy guidelines for reserves.
Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Executive Director of Administrative Services/Budget, for the County, explained this request.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time several Commissioners, as well as the County Manager, Mr. Thelen, gave input.
It was noted that consolidating the General Fund and the Fine & Forfeiture Fund would create a better, more effective system, which would in turn enable the Board, as well as the general public, to have a better understanding of said accounts. It was also noted that the resolution governing the consolidation would not become effective until October 1, 1990.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board adopted a resolution consolidating the General Fund and the Fine & Forfeiture Fund.
Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Executive Director of Administrative Services/Budget, for the County, appeared before the Board and explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for budget transfers, as follows:
1. Landfill Enterprise Fund, Environmental Services Department, from Improvements Other Than Buildings to Operating Supplies and Machinery & Equipment, in the amount of $17,300.00.
2. Fine & Forfeiture Fund, Judicial Support Department, from Contingency Reserve, to establish budget for Guardian Ad Litem, for office supplies, in the amount of $750.00.
3. Fine & Forfeiture Funds, Corrections Department, from Contingency Reserve to Transfer/Law Enforcement, in the amount of $56,000.00.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/JAILS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Capital Improvements Director, appeared before the Board and explained this request.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Commr. Gregg and Mr. Thelen, County Manager, gave input.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the first amendment to the agreement between Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc. and Lake County, for architectural/engineering services for the Criminal Justice Facility, in the amount of $225,000.00.
At this time, Ms. Lois Martin, Personnel Director, introduced Ms. LeEster Koranteng, the new Personnel Assistant for the Personnel Department, to the Board.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, and Ms. Lois Martin, Personnel Director, explained this request.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Commr. Gregg and Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, gave input.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a resolution amending Resolution No. 1990-48, adopted on May 1, 1990, outlining the terms and conditions of employment for employees in the Lake County Jail, and authorized proper signatures on same.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES OUTDOOR RECREATION
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved an interlocal agreement between the City of Umatilla and Lake County, in the amount of $9,800.00, to be taken from Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, for recreational purposes.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY BUILDINGS & GROUNDS/JAILS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Capital Improvements Director, explained this request.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Mr. Bruce Thorburn, E911 Coordinator, gave input and answered questions presented by the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for authorization to purchase equipment from GTE (sole source), to expand the existing County telephone switch gear (NEC 2400 PABX), to connect to the Prelude Project, New Jail, and Criminal Justice Facility, at a purchase price of $165,391.98. It was noted that said funds would come from the Jail budget.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request, and answered questions presented by the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board authorized the Chairman, Commr. Bakich, to send a letter to the U. S. Forest Service, opposing the exchange of 11.295 acres of private land in Wakulla County for 127.2 acres of Federal land in Lake County.
Commr. Swartz suggested that Mr. Stivender get in touch with Lake County's local district ranger, Mr. Jerry Clutts, and discuss the matter with him, as well.
APPOINTMENTS- RESIGNATIONS/PUBLIC HEALTH
Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Director of Health and General Services, explained this request and introduced Dr. John Pellosie, who then informed the Board of his background and credentials.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board concurred with the appointment of Dr. John Pellosie as the Director of Health & Rehabilitative Services for the Lake County Public Unit.
Mr. Gregg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, explained this request.
Discussion occurred regarding the request, at which time Commr. Windram stated that possibly Mr. Stubbs' department needed more staff, and Commr. Gregg stated a concern he had regarding the possibility of cases, which would need to be held until the next Zoning Meeting due to various circumstances, snowballing, as well as concurred with Commr. Windram in a possible need for more staff.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, gave input, as well as the County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, who stated that the ordinance could be drafted with an outside time limit, so that an application would be brought through the process within a fixed time. She stated there would be no problem with setting separate dates for DRIs, or other large items, as long as the proper advertising is done, which could be handled through an administrative process, whereby the Board would know when a DRI was coming through and could, therefore, set it for another time.
At this time, it was noted that, according to indications, more and more DRIs will be coming before the Board in the near future.
Discussion occurred regarding the possibility of revising the Board's Agenda, for those meeting days where zoning cases are scheduled to be heard, whereby the zoning cases would be heard first, starting at 9:00 a.m., with the remainder of the agenda being heard after completion of the zoning cases, noting that the only exceptions would be public hearings, which would have to be heard at times certain.
Commr. Gregg requested Mr. Stubbs to notify the Board as soon as possible regarding cases of postponements, especially staff postponements, in order to allow those individuals involved in a particular case to have sufficient notification of said postponement, rather than have said individuals come to the meetings only to be told that a particular case was postponed.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for authorization to draft and advertise a proposed ordinance amending applications of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance, with added language concerning a stipulation that cases which may need to be postponed, be heard within a 90 day time frame, however, that said cases that go beyond 90 days not be postponed without prior approval from the Board unless requested by applicant.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES/ZONING
Mr. Gregg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, explained this request.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, clarified the ordinance, as it is presently drafted.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, who represents several local developers, appeared before the Board and stated what the procedure has been in the past regarding "CP" and "MP" districts. He stated the difference between this proposed ordinance and the prior history is that it appears to not allow the Board the ability to look at a piece of property and decide whether C-1 or C-2 uses may be appropriate, as well as certain development criteria, without a requirement that the matter come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the Board. He stated the proposed ordinance requires one to go back before the full hearing process, noting that in many cases it would be unnecessary, due to the fact that the Board understands there is certain development criteria they would want, and would have said site plan accommodate those development criteria, without having to take the applicant's time and money, as well as the Board's time, in taking the matter back through the process again, which creates an undue burden to those involved. He stated he felt language could be added to the site plan provisions to the effect that, should the Board, as a condition of the "CP", waive coming back before them, and set specific development criteria to go directly to the Development
Review Committee, it would be a way to amend the added three options.
Upon being questioned whether the present Zoning Ordinance creates a conflict regarding "CP" and "MP" districts, Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that there did seem to be an inconsistency in practice and language, thus, the reason for the request before the Board this date to amend said ordinance. She stated that language could be inserted in the proposed amendment which would reflect the current practice, being that the Board could make a decision, and staff could recommend whether or not they felt it was necessary for a particular case to come back before the Board.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, then informed the Board as to how said language would read, noting that it could be incorporated on Page 5, Line 7, and on Page 8, Line 8, of the proposed ordinance before the Board this date.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, the Board approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, regarding "CP" and "MP" districts, as read by the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, as follows: In order for a property owner to establish a specific use, subsequent to rezoning to the "CP" planned commercial district, without the submission of a preliminary development plan, and in order to receive final approval for that use, the procedures set forth, in subsection A, shall be followed, however, in the event C-1 and C-2 district uses are approved within the "CP" district, and the ordinance sets forth performance and development criteria, the Board of County Commissioners may waive the requirement for submission of the site plan, requiring the complete review setforth herein (being the prior procedure). The site plan shall be submitted to the Technical Review Committee for review and approval.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, then stated that on Page 8, Line 8, under the site plan required for specific use, said language would refer to the "MP" district and the M-1 and LM uses. Commr. Swartz voted "No".
At this time, Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that said amendments would only pertain to future "CP" and "MP" properties, noting that existing "CP" and "MP" zoned properties will not be affected by said amendments, as they are, basically, vested.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried, the Board approved an ordinance, amending Appendix B, Lake County Code, The Zoning Regulations, to permit rezoning to the "CP" Planned Commercial District and "MP" Planned Industrial District, without submission of a preliminary development plan.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Roads-County & State
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved an interlocal agreement between Lake County and the City of Minneola, relating to the collection of impact fees, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to issue building permits, prior to recording of the final plat, for Pennbrooke Subdivision.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BIDS/ROAD PROJECTS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to award Road Project No. 5-90, C-33/C-48/C-470, Intersection Improvement, to Paquette Paving Company, Inc., in the amount of $134,188.00 (low bid).
Mr. Tony Otte, City Administrator for the City of Tavares, appeared before the Board to explain this request. He stated that two years ago the City of Tavares adopted a stormwater management plan, at which time he reviewed a conceptual drawing of said plan with the Board. He stated that one of the primary goals of the City Council is to eliminate the volume of untreated runoff which discharges into the City's surface water, by utilizing a portion of Summerall Park (approximately 20%), which is owned by the County, for construction of a water detention basin to filter pollutants from stormwater before it enters the Dora Canal.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, informed the Board that staff's recommendation on said project was that the County authorize the use of a portion of Summerall Park, as requested, as it will have a positive benefit on the area, however, felt the design of the facility should be reviewed, prior to final approval, therefore, would suggest approving the request, contingent upon submission and approval of the final design of the facility, by the Board of County Commissioners.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that, should they authorize the City of Tavares to utilize a portion of Summerall Park for construction of a water retention basin, as alluded to earlier, it should be done through an interlocal agreement.
Commr. Swartz noted, however, that the City of Tavares is up against a time frame, due to a grant allocation they received from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, which will be used to pay for said project.
Mr. Otte noted that the City of Tavares has to have said plan back to the State by June 22, 1990.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff and the City of Tavares to prepare an interlocal agreement, as well as have the City prepare a more detailed plan of what they wish to do, and
bring same back to the Board, for approval, at the June 19, 1990, Board Meeting.
A motion was made by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, to reappoint Mr. Herbert Stinger to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
APPOINTMENTS - RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
A motion was made by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, to appoint Ms. Paulette Alexander to the Planning and Zoning Commission, replacing Mr. Wilson Shepherd. ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/FINANCE
A motion was made by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, to ratify the Board on financial items which needed to be paid, prior to this Board Meeting.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:55 a.m., the Chairman, Commr. Bakich, stated that the Board would take a five minute recess.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained the purpose of having this public hearing concerning an MSTU (Municipal Service Taxing Unit), noting that the actual service which will be recommended to the Board will not be known for another month, as staff develops the budget. He stated the purpose of this hearing is to consider the creation of an MSTU, which will give the Board the authority to use it in the budget process to fund services for library functions which are provided for those residents in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Mr. Robert Brinson, a resident of Mt. Dora and currently serving as Chairman of the Library Board, appeared before the Board stating that he felt adoption of an MSTU was important, as it will provide quality library services to all the residents of Lake County.
Mr. Mike Stearman, City Manager of the City of Eustis, appeared before the Board stating that the City of Eustis was extremely supportive of an MSTU, and felt that the County would find all libraries to be very supportive of it. He stated if this county is going to provide jobs, it has got to have resources, one of those being education and the other libraries, noting that this is one of the things that businesses look at. Regarding the issue of double taxation, it has been with libraries since they have been in the system, and felt an MSTU was certainly a mechanism to address the issue.
Mr. Bob Proctor, City Manager of Fruitland Park, appeared before the Board stating that he gives credit to the Board and to Mr. Thelen, County Manager, for bringing the issue of an MSTU to the forefront, as he approves of it. He stated it has been a very touchy issue with the City of Fruitland Park for some time and felt that, should it pass, it would ease tensions greatly between the City and the County. He stated he understood a study was done some time ago and that a reimbursement schedule had been recommended to the city libraries, therefore, would ask, if the Board does pass an MSTU and it is funded, that the County fund it at the full level, as the cities have been carrying the load for a great number of years, and they need the relief immediately - not working into it slowly.
Mr. James Gregg, a resident of the unincorporated area of the County, appeared before the Board stating that he was a former Chairman of the Lake County Library Advisory Board and currently serves as Chairman of the City of Leesburg Library Advisory Board. He stated that, over the years, the communities and cities in the County have spent millions of dollars in building and supporting libraries, of which the residents of the unincorporated areas of the County have had access to and used. He stated one of the problems in creating a County Library System was a concern expressed by all the communities that they would be funding the system and the County would not be supporting it properly. He
stated the cities did start out with very little support from the County, but noted that it has gone up tremendously, however, it is still not to the point where it should be. He stated he felt an MSTU is the proper move to make at this time, therefore, strongly supports it and requested the Board to do likewise.
Mr. Dick Canter, representing the Friends of the Library, in Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board requesting increased County aid for the libraries. He stated that a large number of the group, Friends of the Library, do not live within the city limits of Mt. Dora, therefore, feel they must pay their fair share of utilizing the library facilities. He requested the Board to support an MSTU and give the County libraries the financial support they desperately need.
A local resident of Mt. Dora appeared before the Board stating that he has seen the struggle for some years, of the cities carrying the burden of supporting all residents of the County who use their local libraries, and hoped that the Board would support an MSTU and continue to meet the needs of those who really need to use the libraries.
Mr. Welton Cadwell, City Clerk with the City of Umatilla, appeared before the Board and thanked them for considering an MSTU, noting that the City of Umatilla, the local library board, and the City Commission would appreciate the Board's approval of an MSTU.
Mrs. Mary Ellen Babb, representing the City of Umatilla Library, appeared before the Board stating that they had enjoyed working with the County for the past eight years. She informed the Board that eight years ago they had approximately 1,000 individuals using the library, however, now have almost 5,000 using it, therefore, would hope the Board would approve an MSTU.
Commr. Bakich stated that the matter gets down to which pot it comes out of - whether to fund it through the General Fund or through an MSTU - noting that he felt there was not legitimacy to the double taxation issue, and because of that, more than anything
else, he would be inclined to support the funding from an MSTU, rather than having it come out of the General Fund.
Commr. Gregg stated he had a problem in supporting an MSTU, particularly concerning the City of Leesburg utility district, due to the fact that they still have a problem with double taxation. He stated that the utility customers are paying for the use of the City's library, and this is one of the reasons why the City of Leesburg has not participated, noting that they need some means of addressing the matter. Another issue he touched on was user fees for the library, stating that he would not want to deny a young person the ability to check out a book from the library because he could not afford to. He stated if the Board looked into the possibility of a user fee for each library to charge, the County would need to set up a program to either fund the cards for indigents, or to participate and help pay for them. He stated he felt the County already has a problem with education and would not want to be a part of furthering that problem. He further stated that another problem he has with double taxation in the Leesburg utilitY district, is that it includes Fruitland Park, which has their own library and participates in the County program, therefore, did not know if the Leesburg utility district could be excluded from an MSTU, due to the fact that some of the funds for Fruitland Park come out of the MSTU.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, informed the Board that everything that had been mentioned this date was being addressed in the budget process and that staff would be presenting some options, as to whether or not the County would go to user fees, and how they would handle the indigent problem. He stated, in terms of dealing with residents of the unincorporated areas of the County, or in Fruitland Park (who are also in the Leesburg district), did not know if the County has a tool to deal with it.
Commr. Bailey stated he shared some of the same concerns that Commr. Gregg alluded to, noting that he had received quite a few calls from the rural community, as they were concerned about the
creation of an MSTU, and what it will do as far as taxes are concerned. He stated he would like to see the Board look at a user fee.
Commr. Windram stated a concern he had regarding the fact that when the County first started a countywide library system, the Board felt they would be, more or less, a conduit, which would give municipalities, who had libraries, access to a substantial amount of State funding, however, was not sure that has been accomplished. He also stated there was not a great deal of talk about substantial amounts of supplement, until a consultant was hired.
Mr. Thelen, County Manager, interjected that, in doing some research regarding the matter, found that, clearly, the motivation originally was to try and take advantage of State funds, however, that is no longer applicable. The issue of whether or not the requirements the State is making are worth what they are giving in return is an issue he felt could be dealt with through the budget Process.
Mr. Stearman reappeared before the Board stating that the State money which Commr. Windram alluded to was never meant to be operational money for the system.
Further discussion occurred regarding the issue, at which time Commr. Swartz stated the County was caught between a rock and a hard place, and no matter what they do this date, the countywide library system, as it has been known, is going to change substantially. He stated, for one thing, due to the fact that the State ruling which the County has been using is no longer allowable, the only way the County could meet the State requirements would be by radically changing the way it presently operates, however, felt that would not be practical, for a number of reasons. He also stated that double taxation is a valid issue, however, felt that it did not become a source of concern until recently, as a result of what is viewed as a lack of funding from the County towards the cities, but, felt the real issue is funding. He stated he shared some oŁ Commr. Gregg's concerns regarding a user fee and
those individuals who cannot afford to pay it, and would like to see, if the County chose to go with it or something related to it, not a straight user fee, but one where the County participated in it, to some extent, and, perhaps, in cases where one had an inability to pay that the County would pay it. He also stated he could support an MSTU that had an assessment based on dwelling units, whereby the residents of said homes would possibly be using the libraries, however, had a problem with taxing vacant land, for library services.
Commr. Bakich concurred with Commr. Swartz in that he felt an MSTU should be based on dwelling units, not vacant land, at which time Commr. Bailey stated if it was going to be done to the unincorporated areas of the County, he would like to see a referendum.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that what they had before them this date was an ordinance that creates an MSTU, giving the Board the authority to impose ad valorem taxation to one mill, noting that if the Board chooses to do so during this budget year, pursuant to the Florida Statutes, it needs to be in place by July 1, 1990. She stated that the Board is not precluded from amending the MSTU, after July 1, 1990, to also authorize the imposition of special assessments. If the Board chooses to do that, they would go through the special assessment process, which is also set up by Florida Statutes, which requires advertisement and individual notice to all property owners who would benefit from said special assessment, noting that it would have to be accomplished by January 1, 1991, in order to be effective for the next budget year.
Commr. Swartz stated that, before there was any discussion regarding user fees, he had sentiment expressed to him from the library community that they should get out of the State system, as it was not worth the additional controls put on them. He also stated that one of the problems the County has is that the Library Board, with recommendations to this body, has put in place pretty
much what the County has today, however, he is afraid that, among the elected level within the cities, what is in place today is not necessarily consistent with what those senior staff and elected officials may want, therefore, he feels there is a contradiction. He stated that he saw it from the first day he started sitting in on Library Board meetings, noting that he would hear one thing from the elected officials and something else from the librarians, or representatives of the Library Board.
Mr. Stearman reappeared before the Board stating that what Commr. Swartz alluded to was due to the County not following the interlocal agreements, and appointing individuals who were not represented by the cities. He stated they would appoint individuals who were not familiar with the individual library system nor familiar with the funding mechanism from the cities to the County, to which several of the Commissioners disagreed.
Discussion continued regarding the issue, at which time Commr. Swartz stated he felt the County had tried to go forward, perhaps not as much as they should have, or as fast as some of the cities would like, but they tried to maintain the dollar funding the libraries had, noting that all involved have budget restraints, in order to try and keep moving forward. He stated, however, that he was not sure what the next step would be, as he felt the County could not operate any further under the present interlocal agreement, as he felt it would not work, due to the State mandate. He stated if the County could sit down and work towards another relationship, whereby perhaps they could put forth monies to pay for some type of shared user fee concept, and get a good track record over the course of the next year, they could be in a position to put in place an MSTU, based on dwelling units, the following Year. He stated they would then know how much money was needed. He stated another thing the County is working towards is an
impact fee, which would help provide some monies to the libraries.
Mr. Stearman stated the League of Cities came before the Board last year and requested they do exactly what Commr. Swartz alluded to, however, it was not done.
At this time, Commr. Gregg interjected, stating that the Board approved a sizeable increase in the library fund last year, for the prior year, therefore, disagreed with what Mr. Stearman had stated. He stated that last year the County increased taxes over 35%, and they are now talking about a 10% increase, with another item coming up later in the day that, if approved, will amount to a 20% increase. He stated all the Commissioners came to the conclusion, during the budget process last year, that they were going to do everything in their power to maintain a reasonable increase, not a 30-40% increase, noting that the public can take a hard hit one year, but not every year in a row. He stated that some people cannot afford such increases, with the hard freezes the County has had and downturn in the economy he feels is ahead, therefore, feels what Commr. Swartz stated is true, in that the Board is going to have to come up with something to reach middle ground, and build into an MSTU. He stated the Board does not totally disagree with anyone present this date, and he knew where they were coming from and felt they serve their communities well, with the libraries they have, and is aware of the fact that the cities are picking up an unequitable share of the load, however, he does not like the MSTU, as it is presently proposed, as he does not like it being assessed on vacant land - he feels it should be assessed on dwelling units.
Commr. Bakich suggested perhaps having Commr. Swartz sit down with the citY leaders and try to come to some conclusion regarding the matter.
It was noted that if an MSTU is done, based strictly on dwelling units, the County would not have to do it before July 1, 1990, however, they would have to adopt an ordinance creating an MSTU, and would have to have an idea of what the special assessment would be, by January 1, 1991.
At this time, Mr. Thelen, County Manager, gave further input regarding how the matter of an MSTU would affect the budget process.
Commr. Bakich suggested that Commr. Swartz, the County Manager, and the City Managers, along with their librarians, meet and try to get back to the Board by June 19, 1990, and give them a better idea of where they want to go.
Ms. Mary Kantner, a resident of Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board regarding the aspect of user fees, stating that the libraries are desperately trying to get young people to use their libraries, however, the high schools cannot get parents' authorization allowing their children to apply for a library card. Due to this fact, libraries have bent the rules and are allowing students to sign up for their own cards. She was concerned as to how the County was going to get parents to cooperate and pay a user fee, or in cases where the families are indigent, how one is going to get the parents to sign paperwork stating that they are indigent, but that their child needs a library card, when the schools cannot get them to cooperate.
Commr. Swartz stated this is one of the things that will have to be looked at, in order to find a way of insuring that individuals have access to libraries, regardless of their financial ability to pay.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board denied adoption of an ordinance creating a municipal services taxing unit in the unincorporated area of Lake County, to provide for library, or library services, or both.
Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Executive Director of Administrative Services/Budget, for the County, explained this request.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that this request was for approval of the budget for the
newly created merged North Lake Hospital District, for the balance of this fiscal year. She stated that, due to said merger, the new district is a dependent district, with the Board of County Commissioners having jurisdiction over said budget. She stated that, during the budget process, the Board will also be considering and approving the budget for FY 1990-91, for the North Lake Hospital District, until the November 6, 1990 election, at which time that Board of Trustees will be elected and the district will then assume the status of an independent district.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board adopted, by resolution, proposed supplemental budgets, as submitted, for the North Lake Hospital District, for FY 1989-90, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Mr. Gregg Stubbs, Director of Development Coordination, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request granting permission for the Eustis Chamber of Commerce to place a "Welcome" sign on PFD (Public Facilities District) zoned property fronting SR 44, near CR 44B.
At this time, Commr. Swartz noted that this was one of the types of things that need to be addressed by the Sign Ordinance Committee and suggested that Mr. Stubbs make said committee aware of the matter.
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
COUNTY PROPERTY/ELECTIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/OUTDOOR RECREATION
Commr. Bakich brought up for discussion the matter of whether or not the Board wants to acquire environmentally sensitive lands and, if so, whether they want to do it through bonding or whether they want to set aside a percentage of the mill, thus, enabling the Board to purchase said lands throughout the entire County. He stated he would be more inclined to support something on a
countywide basis, as opposed to one particular area of the County. He stated if the Board did want to do so, they have the ability to do it through the ad valorem process, as opposed to going through the bonding of it, noting that he is not set on any particular amount, or percentage of the mill. He noted the land is not going to get any cheaper and, if anything, is going to be gobbled up, as time goes on, and be utilized for other purposes.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, briefly reviewed a memorandum he had sent to the Board regarding the matter, stating that he tried to deal, from a staff's standpoint, with two issues, one being a bond issue, to buy sensitive lands throughout the County, and the other being an advisory referendum related to the same issue, but referring to the ability to increase the levy, in order to buy lands on a slower schedule. He stated the County Attorney, Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, developed an opinion that basically set forth a time table on the bond issue, noting that it is staff's feeling, in reviewing said data, that if the County were to have a bond issue, it should be on November 6, 1990, rather than on the day of any of the primaries, which means that, in order to do so, the Board would need to take action some time in July, 1990. He stated his report identifies the section in the Wekiva Plan that suggests, at some point in time, trying, even if it means a bond issue or referendum, to give that issue some attention.
Mr. Thelen, County Manager, stated that the size of the bond issue was another thing that was not defined, therefore, staff worked with the County's financial consultants and identified one mill, as an example, indicating that on a ten year amortization, it would be $23 million; on fifteen years, $30 million; on twenty years, $35 million and on twenty-five years, $38 million, up to $40 million, over a thirty year period of time, which he noted could be doubled, by taking two mills. He stated another option would be for the Board to take one-half or one-fourth of a mill and work from that base, so that staff would have an idea of what to go with.
Mr. Thelen also stated he felt that, due to the Comprehensive Plan, perhaps more than anything else, as well as the Comprehensive Plans for the other fourteen (14) cities, November 6, 1990, is not the time for a referendum. He stated it looks like the County's Recreation Element will be approved by the Recreation Committee in July, which will then go to the Executive Committee in early Fall, and come to this Board probably close to election time, therefore, it seemed to him that once it comes in, as well as the Conservation Element and other parts of the Comprehensive Plan, it will allow a better identification of needs for long term use of public lands - not only in the recreation area, but also in the water recharge area, as well as wetlands conservation. Another problem he foresees is that staff is so busy, presently, working with the various committees and the Comprehensive Plan, that he felt they really did not have the time to devote to seeing this issue through and making it successful. He further stated that rather than doing an advisory referendum, he would suggest following recommendations made by Mr. Chuck Poole, which outlines a program for approximately $9 million that could be used for identifiable park and recreation areas, not necessarily sensitive lands which might be acquired for other purposes, and go with a mill, noting that the County's millage is relatively low (4.9) and it has the ability to go to ten. He stated one way to find out how the public feels about the issue is to propose it, through the budget process, have public hearings, and see if the public wants to move forward with it.
Commr. Bakich noted if the Board was to wait until 1991 to put the issue before the general public, a lot of time will be lost, without the ability to go back and raise some funds to start the process. He suggested considering Mr. Thelen's proposal and possibly laying out the groundwork, in the coming years, as to what they want to do, to which Commr. Windram concurred.
Commr. Gregg interjected that the County has demands being placed on it right now, just to maintain the level of service it presently has, not to add anything to it. He stated the County is
seeing increased costs in personnel, as well. He stated the reason for a referendum is to see what the people of Lake County are willing to spend, noting that if the County does a referendum this year, they will at least have some idea, before the final plan is submitted to the Department of Community Affairs, of what the County can afford to do. He stated the level of service is something the people of Lake County can determine and set, noting that he, personally, would not support a one mill tax levied on ad valorem this year, which would amount to a 20% increase over where the County presently is, which he feels is over and above what is absolutely necessary. He further stated that, if the County is going to do something, such as Volusia County did, he feels that it needs to be bonded and the County needs to be able to buy it now, before it gets completely out of reach, such as what happened with the Carl Program.
Commr. Swartz stated he agreed with Commr. Gregg on some points, in that if what the County does is going to be successful and beneficial, it is going to have to be bondable, which will require a referendum, however, disagreed with him concerning other areas of the issue. He stated he felt Mr. Thelen's suggestions were reasonable ones, and that the general public would defeat the issue, if it were voted on at this time, as the timing is not right. He stated the County is not going to be successful if they rush (which is what it would be) a referendum to the general public this November, no matter how well intentioned or important the issue was, as it would face defeat - not necessarily that the people of the County would not support such a thing, but that there is not enough time to put together a definite program stating what the County wants to do and request the voters to support it. He stated discussions the Board has had regarding the matter, in the recent past, have indicated that the Board does not know exactly what they want to do or how they are going to go about it. He reminded the Board that last year, the Board funded $250,000.00 to participate with the State, in the purchase of BMK, and did not see
any reason why the Board could not do this again. He stated if the Board had a certain amount of funding, possibly in cooperating with the Water Authority in the purchase of some land, or in a joint effort for some recreational facilities, felt these were the types of things the Board could do this budget year. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan will help to identify areas which the County needs to purchase.
Commr. Windram stated, at the present time, with television and the press being involved in the issue the way they are, the environmental movement is at a high point, therefore, feels the issue should be put before the voters now. He reiterated what Commr. Bakich had stated, in that the cost of land is going up all the time, and the only way the County is going to be absolutely sure of preserving environmentally sensitive lands is to own them. He stated the County cannot keep pushing the issue back, as they have done for the past two years - they need to put it before the public and sell it.
Commr. Gregg stated he first brought the issue before the Board in August of last year, noting that it is now the first of June, of the following year, and the County is still saying they do not have time to do it.
Commr. Bailey noted he concurred with Commr. Swartz, in that the timing is not right to put said issue before the public, as the County is not able to identify, at this time, what lands they want to purchase. He stated he felt the Comprehensive Plan is going to identify such areas and the Board should wait until it is completed to put the matter before the public.
Commr. Bakich suggested possibly putting a certain amount of dollars aside, thereby, enabling the County to acquire certain properties when they do become available, in the near future.
Commr. Swartz reiterated the fact that he felt the Board needs to put together a deliberate package to take to the public, as the Board cannot ask the public to vote for something they are not sure of themselves. ,He stated he felt it should not be the Board's most
important point in mind to put the issue on the first available ballot, but that they should put it on a ballot in a format that has a chance for success.
Mr. Will Davis, Executive Director, Lake County Water Authority, appeared before the Board stating that the Lake County Water Authority would be in support of the Board doing the bonding, as the Water Authority does not have the power to bond. He stated a program which the Water Authority has adopted very closely resembles the Volusia County program. He stated the Board adopted a resolution putting together a Land Acquisition Selection Committee, noting that it has been in force for approximately nine months, and currently has approximately $3 million, to be used toward the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands. He stated they are currently assessing, evaluating, and doing appraisals on almost three thousand acres of land in Lake County. He stated, due to the fact that the Water Authority is familiar with the process, they would be willing to help the Board, in any way they can, noting that they have already addressed concerns and complaints from the general public, through a number of public hearings which they held concerning the issue. He also stated they found out that wanting to buy land, and being able to buy land, are two totally different things, as lands which they felt were of extremely high priority, were unable to be purchased, due to the unwillingness of land owners to discuss said lands. He noted the Water Authority Board has the power of condemnation, however, choose not to use it except in extreme cases.
Mr. Davis stated that the Water Authority Board's program is specifically targeted at environmentally sensitive lands, and if the Board of County Commissioners is looking at recreation, as their primary thrust for purchasing environmentally sensitive lands, then the Water Authority may back out of their one-half mill program, noting that this Board will need to work closely with the Water Authority Board to ensure that they do not do one mill, with the intent that the Water Authority Board is keeping their one-half
mill, to only find out that the County is still one-half mill less in any given year. He stated the Water Authority Board is looking very closely at what the Board of County Commissioners is going to do, in determining whether or not they are going to follow through in continuing with their program.
Commr. Swartz stated that this is a very important point, and is one of those factors that needs to be reviewed, due to the fact that there might be some consideration to have the Water Authority back out of their one-half mill, which is not bondable, if the County was going to pick up a land acquisition program.
Commr. Bakich suggested that Mr. Davis meet with Mr. Thelen and provide said information, as well as discuss the matter with the Water Authority Board and see how they feel about it, at which time Mr. Davis indicated that he would do so, as well as the fact that he would be willing to work with each Commissioner individually, if need be.
Ms. Eloise Fisher, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board stating that she liked Mr. Thelen's idea and concurred with Commr. Windram in that environmental issues are presently at a peak, therefore, if the County is going to do anything, now is the time to do so.
No action was taken at this time, however, it was suggested that said issue be brought back to the Board at the June 19, 1990, Board Meeting, for further discussion.
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
MISCELLANEOUS/LAWS & LEGISLATION
Commr. Bailey brought to the attention of the Board (for informational purposes) the fact that Governor Martinez would be touring the Courthouse on Thursday morning, June 7, 1990, in case any of the Commissioners wished to be present to greet him.
Commr. Bailey also stated he felt the Board should invite the legislative delegation to give the Board an update on what transpired during the legislative session.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, June 5, 1990, at 5:05 p.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; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Don Bailey; Richard Swartz; and Thomas J. Windram. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
FAIRGROUNDS/MUNICIPALITIES/RIGHT-OF-WAYS, ROADS & EASEMENTS
Commr. Bakich, Chairman, brought to the attention of the Board the fact that the City of Eustis was requesting approval of a 15 foot wide water main easement, located on the property of the Lake County Fairgrounds. He stated that staff had all bids approved and were ready to move forward with the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request alluded to above.
COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board and brought them up-to-date as far as what was requested of staff and what staff had done, regarding said requests, concerning the Lake County Road Impact Fee Study. He stated that, at the Board Meeting held on March 13, 1990, direction was given to staff to look specifically at construction costs which were presented at that time, which staff has done, in correlation with the Public Works Department, which he stated would be presented to the Board, for their perusal. He stated the fee schedule had also been revised, which would be discussed, as well, noting that it had changed considerably since the one which was received by the Board late last week. He stated the convenience store issue would also
be addressed this date, as well as the mobile home study, which was authorized by the Board. He then turned the floor over to Mr. Tom Jackson, with Hunter/Reynolds, Smith & Hill.
Mr. Jackson appeared before the Board stating that, at the last public hearing which was held concerning the Road Impact Fee Study, his firm was requested to reexamine the road costs, noting that the Board felt the costs which were given may not have reflected actual road improvement costs in Lake County. He stated that some of the costs which were given were based on typical costs of a number of road improvement projects around the State, by the Florida Department of Transportation. He stated that, according to the contract, his firm was not to develop road costs, however, they did, noting that since no other information was given to them, his staff used FDOT costs standards, which were based on typical sections that FDOT supplied them with. He stated his firm has since met with the County Public Works Department, and discussed their actual experience on road projects in Lake County - not only the material costs, but also the quantity, the thickness of the roadways, etc.
Discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Jackson referred to two tables, one being a table of costs for doing a two lane road and the other for going from two lanes to four lanes. He then referred to a diagram on display which showed the dimensions, based on Lake County standards, for each of the two types of improvements alluded to above. He then reviewed a chart titled "Typical Roadway Improvement Costs for Lake County, County Maintained Roads Only", and answered questions presented by the Board regarding same.
Ms. Carmen Chronister, also with the firm of Hunter/Reynolds, Smith & Hill, appeared before the Board and explained how the study which their firm conducted was done. She stated that when her firm was reviewing the roadway costs, their staff went back and looked for substantiation on all the different factors involved in the determination of the final fee. In the capacity, or maximum service volumes, even though it is a rural cross-section, in terms
of using swails, as opposed to a closed drain system, it is urban in terms of the number of roadway cuts, driveway cuts, median cuts, and intersecting roadways, of which she stated has a large impact on the amount of traffic which can be carried. She stated another major factor is speed, noting that, in the analysis, some of the capacity for the two lanes was calculated for a 45 m.p.h. rural facility. Then it was improved to four lanes, and the new capacity which was put in was for a 55 m.p.h. roadway segment, as opposed to a 45 m.p.h. segment. She stated, however, that the main difference is that a rural roadway segment assures no more than two driveway cuts, per mile. She stated if the County was making that kind of widening, to provide for growth, that growth would have to have access to the facility, so a part and parcel which would be increased to four lanes, is going to be increased in the number of driveway cuts and median cuts per mile.
Commr. Windram stated that, during a discussion the Board had earlier this date, he was not addressing the use issue, as much as he was construction costs.
Discussion occurred regarding an instance where the additional costs in right-of-way, for a rural section of highway, equaled the additional construction costs within the 100 foot right-of-way, at which time Ms. Chronister stated that, in talking with the County's Public Works Department, in determining what the future sections would be on the proposed improvements, they were looking at the rural cross-section across the Board for all two and four lane improvements.
Commr. Gregg stated he had reviewed the figures on the charts which were given to the Board earlier, however, the figures on the same charts which they had just been given were different, noting that the difference was substantial, and questioned why, to which Mr. Jackson stated that the figures which were on the set the Board had received last week were premature, noting that the figures they presently had before them were the correct figures.
Mr. Jackson then reviewed the chart titled "Lake County Transportation Impact Fees - Revised Road Costs with ROW", which he noted had been revised June 4, 1990. Upon being questioned by Commr. Bakich as to how the Board could be assured that said numbers would not change again, Mr. Jackson stated that the numbers which the Board had received last week should not have been distributed, as he had understood the discussion would only pertain to road costs, and not capacity, however, after learning that said charts had been distributed, stated that the capacity was evaluated as well, which he noted was a key part of the equation. He stated the figures the Board had before them this date complete said evaluation. He noted that the figures which had been given to the Board last week were taken from the old lane capacity. After further discussion regarding the matter, Mr. Jackson stated he did not anticipate the present figures changing again, as all the variables have been considered, with exception to the mobile home per generation rate, which he noted would be discussed at a later time.
Mr. Jackson then reviewed a chart comparing Lake County residential land use fees with those of surrounding counties, at which time discussion occurred regarding same.
Commr. Gregg questioned where Mr. Jackson's firm was on the mobile home study, to which Mr. Jackson stated his firm had received all the information on the surveys which were taken, as of last week, and have preliminarily calculated what the trip rate would be, utilizing the new information which was received. He then indicated what the current trip rates are, as well as what it would be according to the new information received.
It was noted that the Board should receive the information alluded to above, in final form, in approximately a week, therefore, Mr. Thelen, County Manager, suggested postponing action regarding the fees until after the Board has had a chance to review said information.
Mr. Jackson noted that, in terms of the overall work program, his firm had submitted to the County fees for every facility area, except for public libraries, which they have not done as yet, due to the fact of waiting for information from the Lake County Library System.
Commr. Gregg suggested sending the information the Board received this date to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, for their review.
Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board stating that the Board had earlier talked about a grace period, or a later effective date for the ordinance, and, in doing some research on it and other fees around the State, found that there is generally a 30 to 50 day grace period, where the building community would come in and get building permits, based on the existing fee, until the period is over. He stated what staff is proposing is a 45 day period, which they feel would allow those individuals that are presently in the process of obtaining approval, to obtain their permit, based on the existing fees, within a 45 day period.
Discussion occurred regarding the fact that the Board felt 45 days may not be sufficient time, at which time Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated the way the ordinance is presently drafted provides that it shall become effective, as provided by law, which is 10 days after transmittal to the Secretary of State. She stated what the Board might want to do is provide a specific date for it to become effective, so that those individuals currently in the process of submitting a building permit would be able to do so.
Mr. Carl Ludecke appeared before the Board stating that it is presentlY taking approximately 60 days for FHA approval and 90 days or more for VA approval. He also noted that the appraisers have 30 days to do their appraisals, and at times, take their time doing so, after which it goes to the underwriters, therefore, stated they
would appreciate the Board allowing at least 90 days, if at all possible.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he represented several home builders present this date, as well as those individuals in the material extraction business. He stated he was also representing Royal Industries, which has a substantial warehousing operation, as well as a company in the business of residential development. He stated the Board had discussed, at an earlier Board Meeting, the equalizing of fees, with regard to mobile homes and conventional homes, as well as the fact that they also discussed mining operations and some other intensive industrial uses which were in place, that did not seem to have any relation to the actual trip generation from same. He stated what he thought was going to happen was that those involved were going to be able to express their concerns, and then be provided with updated information, prior to the next public hearing, well enough in advance to allow those involved to review same, however, this did not happen.
Mr. Richey stated that he had Mr. Dave Dunlap, with the consulting firm of Vanasse, Hangen & Brustlin, in Orlando, go through and make a proposal, for purposes of discussion of the mining operation, as well as the equalization of impact fees for conventional versus mobile homes, at which time he distributed a document pertaining to same, for the Board's perusal. He stated that, rather than get involved in a contest of experts in discussing the matter, would suggest having the different views of how to arrive at impact fees be done through the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee and come back to this Board in 30 days with a system worked out. He stated he did not want to have to wait 30 more days, while someone gets back with the information presented this date, and have those involved receive it just before the public hearing, without sufficient time to review it.
Mr. Dunlap appeared before the Board stating that his firm had looked at the report prepared by Hunter & Associates, and had
addressed, in their memorandum, three (3) issues: (1) the apparent high fee, per acre, for sand mining operations within Lake County; (2) the disparity between the fees charged for manufactured housing, as opposed to conventionally structured single family housing; and (3) the projected costs of roadway improvements on a per mile basis. He stated that he had prepared a memorandum, based on the original Hunter report and their evaluation, at which time he elaborated on same and answered questions presented by the Board.
Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board and stated that having the Committee report back to this Board in 45 days, sorting out proposals, as far as bedrooms versus the straight trip generation, on mobile homes versus conventional homes, clearly indicates that some wording needs to be worked on for the ordinance, with regard to industrial uses and mining uses, because there is a big difference between what Mr. Dunlap is saying and what the firm of Hunter & Associates is saying, noting that he realized it could not be resolved this date, however, needs to be resolved soon, as it represents big dollars to Lake County, as well as to those individuals whose pockets it will come out of. He requested them to take time to study the charts before them this date and do what is right, so that it will stand up to the test of time.
Commr. Swartz stated a concern he had in that Lake County is getting further and further behind on their road needs by not adopting the road impact fees.
Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Richey stated there needs to be a better mechanism where one can sit down with staff, and his consultant, and talk about the issues alluded to above, and come back to staff with comments, noting that he felt it was a waste of the Board's time in doing so.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board stating that they had previously received both oral and written comments, from the Home Builders Association, when discussing the matter, however, she
noted that she did not have any comments this date, as she had just begun to review the figures distributed at this meeting. She stated she wanted the Board to know that she was still interested and would like to reserve the right to come back before the Board, at a later time, and communicate their thoughts on said figures.
Commr. Bakich questioned Mr. Jackson as to whether he had any comments on the information presented by Mr. Dunlap's firm, Vanasse, Hangen & Brustlin, to which he stated that he had not seen the information prior to Mr. Dunlap's presentation, however, commented regarding the mining operation and the fee being charged on a gross versus net acres, stating that his firm had submitted a memorandum to the County, dated March 15, 1990, which specifically states, on Page 4, that the intent was that it be based on a net basis of the actual acres in operation, not the acres designated as mining. Regarding the comments made concerning mobile homes, he stated his firm did a study, collected information indicating changes in the trip rate it would involve for mobile homes, and are now in the process of going through said information.
Ms. Chronister, who is a member of the ITE Trip Generation Committee, and familiar with the way ITE structures its trip rates, and the types of factors that are included, reappeared before the Board stating that the rate ITE reflects are accurate for mobile homes. She stated discussion occurred at the last Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting regarding the use of bedrooms in the homes, for determining the impact fee, however, a decision was made that, because of the variable use of bedrooms, in homes which get to more than three bedrooms, that it would not be the way to make that assessment. She stated one could build a home with five bedrooms, however, the next family that moves in may use three bedrooms and use the other two bedrooms for other things, such as a recreation room, library, etc. She stated the feeling that she got from the Committee was that the Planning Department received plans from developers which indicated three bedrooms, a library, a study, etc., therefore, the Committee felt that sticking with
single family and multi-family ratings would be the best way to go about it. She stated the findings they are coming up with on the mobile home study have indicated that the rate ITE shows is a very accurate reflection of the balance between the scattered site mobile homes and mobile home parks. She noted they were actually getting higher rates in the mobile home parks, due to the fact that mobile home parks are usually located in more urban locations, so trip lengths become shorter. She stated that ten trips is one of the most solidly substantiated numbers in the trip generation record, at this time.
Further discussion occurred regarding the trip rates, at which time Mr. Dunlap gave further input, to which Mr. Jackson stated that he had not seen the information which Mr. Dunlap referred to, therefore, felt it would be best for he and his staff to take a look at the information and come back to the Board with a formal response, rather than banter back and forth at this particular meeting.
Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board stating that a conventional home in the middle of nowhere and a mobile home in the middle of nowhere generate the same kind of trips. He further stated that a conventional home in an urban setting and a conventional home in a rural setting ought to generate the same kind of trips, noting that it is a policy decision that the Board must make, in order to equalize the different kinds of uses, which he feels, based on what he heard this date, is not being dealt with. He stated, in his opinion, the criteria which the Board should use is bedrooms.
Commr. Bakich stated he felt the Board needs to look at the aspect of one taking a five bedroom home and making two of the five bedrooms into a library, den, etc., as alluded to by Ms. Chronister. He further stated that he, too, felt a mobile home in a rural setting is going to generate the same trip rate as the conventional home in the same type setting.
Commr. Swartz stated he felt part of the problem was that the Board authorized the consultants to go back and do an indepth study of the difference, due to the fact that the assumption was that there was not any difference, however, the consultants came back stating that it was probably a little higher, in terms of trip generation, which will ultimately raise the fee, and the Board did not like that information. He stated one cannot equalize a situation if it is not equal.
Mr. Jackson stated that the ITE trip generation manual does differentiate by the size of a conventional home, which equates very closely to a mobile home, noting that there is a very close correlation between the two.
Commr. Bakich stated there seems to be a differing opinion for every industry being affected, and he finds it very frustrating. He also stated there does not appear to be a working together between those being affected and this Board.
Commr. Swartz disagreed, stating that the mining industry may not like the information received, but they addressed the matter and gave the Board their best judgment. He stated he also felt the consultants have done everything they can to address the matter. He stated if the Board is going to send the matter back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, then they need to know, from anyone that wants to challenge the data received, whether or not they have received all the information they need, so that the Board can ask the consultants to review the additional information, for a final analysis.
Mr. Richey stated that if, in fact, the fee schedule before the Board this date is the fee schedule they are proposing, and the conditions noted are the conditions which those affected will have to abide by, then he feels the public should have the opportunity to look at it, talk with their consultants, decide if there are other areas it ought to concern, and then come back before the Board.
Commr. Gregg agreed with Mr. Richey in that he, too, felt it was unreasonable to have several pages of data put before them, at the last minute, and be expected to read it before the meeting this date, and make a decision. He stated he did not think it was at all unreasonable to expect the development community, the Home Builders Association, and everyone else involved to be upset about it, noting that he felt it should go back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, and that the Board ought to give them an opportunity to be heard, and ought to have answers for them. He stated when the Board developed the fee the County presently has, they did not have the problems they are faced with today, due to the fact that they worked in a committee atmosphere, made up of individuals who have to live with the decision made. He stated he also felt that a mobile home in a rural setting, and a conventional home in the same setting, generate the same trip rates.
Mr. Thelen, County Manager, gave input regarding the matter, stating that this meeting was set a couple of months ago, by action of the Board, and one of the things the consultants ran into, in terms of developing the data received (particularly the data which relates to mobile homes), was that they did not receive it in time, therefore, it was going to take them some additional time to study it. He stated that staff knew the information relating to mobile homes was not going to be included in the Hunter & Associates' presentation, however, the other information which the Board received, just prior to the meeting, was not made available to staff until Friday, June 1, 1990. He stated the consultants indicated it would take them a week to complete the study regarding mobile homes and have it to the Board for their perusal, noting that the Board could not have a hearing regarding it until July 3, 1990. He stated if the Board wanted it to go back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, in the interim, that could be done, or the Board could extend it further if they wished, however, it would have to be scheduled sometime after July 3, 1990.
Further discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Gregg stated when he worked on the existing impact fee, he was told they could not increase mobile homes to single family, with the trip generation rates they presently had, however, they could lower single family. He stated if they did increase mobile homes to conventional, theY were risking litigation by the mobile home community.
At this time, Mr. Richey interjected that Manatee County assesses their fee based on bedrooms, and that Marion County equalizes it. He stated, from a policy point of view, if Manatee County can count bedrooms, Lake County ought to be able to do so, and if Marion County can equalize it, Lake County ought to look at doing it.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that whatever method is used, it needs to be based on substantive data that supports the fee.
Commr. Gregg questioned Mr. Jackson as to what his feelings were regarding basing the fee on bedrooms, and forgetting mobile or conventional homes, to which Mr. Jackson responded that he would not argue with the point, he would just need to be comfortable that there is sufficient information to base the difference on, which he has not seen as yet.
Commr. Gregg then questioned Ms. Chronister, with her knowledge on the ITE, as to how she felt about basing the fee on bedrooms, to which she responded that she could go back to the telephone survey and get the data from those which were contacted and then have County staff go into mobile home parks and find out what the breakdown is on each of the 800 to 1,000 units that are contained within each of the parks, however, noted there would be a problem, in that as much as 30% of the residents of said mobile home parks have left Lake County for the season.
Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Bakich stated he felt it should go back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, for further study, and see if they
can come back to the Board with a consensus of how the County should approach the issue.
Commr. Gregg then stated that he, too, felt it should go back to the Committee, and would like to see equalization between mobile homes and conventional homes, if there is any way possible. He further stated that he would like to see a time frame of 90 days, from the time of implementation, as well as the fact that he would like to see something regarding affordable housing, noting that he felt there has been sufficient time to come up with something regarding same.
Commr. Gregg further stated that he would like to see the Committee come back to the Board with a recommendation within 45 to 60 days, and that he did not want to receive said information the day of the Board Meeting - that the Board needs the information at least several days prior to the meeting.
It was noted by the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, that the issue has reached a point where staff will have to start readvertising, due to the fact that there will be a substantially new ordinance, regarding the matter. She stated there will have to be two (2) public hearings, two weeks apart, for the final enactment.
Mr. Szunyog, Director of Planning, stated that the Board might want to have a workshop, prior to the first public hearing, to which the Board concurred, at which time it was noted that it was the consensus of the Board to have said workshop on August 7, 1990.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK