The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 18, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Neil Kelly, Chief Deputy, Administrative Services Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Bailey gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of March 23, 1993, Regular Meeting, with the following amendments being made:
Page 19 - Lines 24-25: Amended to read "...during negotiations with the Department of Community Affairs, in relation to the pending Administrative hearings, his clients chose to withdraw...".
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved the Minutes of March 23, 1993, Regular Meeting, as amended.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of April 6, 1993, Regular Meeting, with the following amendments being made:
Page 12 - Line 35: Correction: Federal Communications Commission.
Page 25 - Line 20: Delete: Sunshine
Page 21 - Line 4: Add: Children's
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 6, 1993, Regular Meeting, as amended.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 20, 1993, Regular Meeting, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 21, 1993, Special Meeting - Lancaster County Landfill Reclamation Presentation, as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following:
Accounts Allowed/Finance Department
List of warrants paid prior to May 18, 1993 meeting, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 136, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Clerical Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Notice of Hearing: Florida Public Service Commission, Application for Certificate to Provide Interexchange Telecommunications Service by Ma Bell Associates, Inc. d/b/a Ma Bell Marketing, Friday, May 14, 1993, 9:30 a.m., Tallahassee, Florida.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
Mr. Thomas I. Johnson, President of Affordable Housing By Lake, Inc., and President of First Union Bank, appeared before the Board and stated that Affordable Housing By Lake, Inc. was developed approximately ten (10) months ago and was a consortium of banks, but has developed into a partnership between all the Lake County banks, the private sector and government. He introduced Ms. Cora Fulmore, Executive Director, and stated that she would be making a presentation on the program.
Ms. Cora Fulmore, Executive Director of Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc., appeared before the Board and presented a brief overview of the program, which addresses the low cost affordable housing need in Lake County.
Commr. Swartz stated that, on the agenda, there is a request for approval of a lease agreement between Lake County and Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc., which the Board may wish to consider at this time. He stated that the request presently before the Board involves funding in the amount of $5,208.00, and $7,292.00 after October 1, 1993. He stated that it was his understanding that, when the County receives the Sadowski Act money, the Contingency Fund will be reimbursed.
No one present in the audience wished to speak on this issue.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request from Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc., for funding in the amount of $5,208.00, and $7,292.00 after October 1, 1993, with the understanding that these funds will be reimbursed from the Sadowski Act funds, if possible.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc., had also made a request to use the Round Courthouse on May 20, 1993, which has now been changed to May 26, 1993, for an open house.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Lease Agreement between Lake County and Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc., for the provision of office space, etc., and for Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc. to use the Round Courthouse on May 26, 1993, for an open house.
Ms. Joan Zeller, member of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council, appeared before the Board and made a presentation on the 1994-95 update of the 1993-99 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Plan.
It was noted that Ms. Trudy Blackstone, Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), was present in the audience.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the 1994-95 update of the 1993-99 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Plan.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board had before them Resolution No. 93-2, which was approved by the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), and a proposed resolution to be approved by the Board, which authorizes the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds, not exceeding $10,000,000.00, to TTO Corporation. Ms. Lustgarten explained the powers of the Industrial Development Authority, as outlined by Florida Statute Chapter 159, which includes the issuing of revenue bonds for certain projects, as referenced in this chapter. The Inducement Resolution approved by the IDA indicates that the project meets all of the requirements of the Statute, and may go forward. She explained the process that was followed by the IDA, which included a TEFRA hearing, with the result being approval of the Inducement Resolution. The Federal law and Florida Statute Chapter 125 requires that the Board authorize the issuance of those bonds by the IDA within the parameters of Chapter 159. The County, as well as the IDA, has no financial obligations and is not responsible for the bonds. The applicant will have to have all required permits, as required by any Federal and/or State agency, as well as meet all requirements of the County, in relation to any project that is constructed.
Commr. Bailey, liaison Commissioner for the IDA, stated that the IDA decided to wait 30 days, after TTO Corporation made its presentation, in order to give the applicant the chance to inform each Commissioner about the project, and to contact those in the area, and that he wanted the Board to know that the IDA was sensitive to fact that it wanted the Board to know about the issue before it came to the Board.
At this time, Commr. Swartz opened the public meeting to public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing TTO Corporation, presented an overview of the Waste Tires Reclamation Facility, to be constructed on ten (10) acres of land, which is zoned M-1, in the Jim Rogers Industrial Park, Okahumpka. Mr. Richey stated that an application was filed with the County for site plan approval, which then went to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) in November, 1992, and received zoning and site plan approval by the TRC, pursuant to the County Land Development Regulations (LDRs). At this time, he stated that TTO Corporation was looking at options to finance the project, with one of those options being Industrial Revenue Bonds. He discussed the process taken to educate the community about the project, which included representatives from TTO Corporation appearing before the City Commission of Leesburg, which is the provider of natural gas at the Jim Rogers Industrial Park; the City staff of Leesburg; and the representatives of the Okahumpka Fire Department, Hawthorne, and Plantation. He further stated that he met with the local media, and contacted the President of the Lake Conservation Council. Mr. Richey then reviewed the process known as pyrolysis, which is the heating of tires in an oxygen free environment, and will be used at the waste tire reclamation facility. He stated that the corporation has not applied for any permits at this time, and are waiting on the financing of the project to be in place. It was noted that a prototype of this facility is operating in Pennsylvania. The proposed facility will employ 25 people, and will be operating 24 hours a day.
Mr. Glenn Tyre, Chairman, Industrial Development Authority (IDA), appeared before the Board and explained the action that was taken by the IDA regarding this issue, and stated that the IDA voted unanimously to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Industrial Development Bonds.
Mr. Randy Thompson, Geotech Industries, appeared before the Board as a concerned parent, citizen, and businessman of Leesburg, and stated that he is concerned with the economics of the proposed facility, and the environmental impact of the project. He stated that Geotech Industries has been in the tyre recycling business for the past six (6) years. Mr. Thompson stated that he met with Mr. Ledford, who owns a facility in Hawthorne, and who developed the technology, several years ago to review his pyrolysis technology, and to discuss the impact of the "char", which is produced from this process, and whether it could be classified as hazardous waste. He stated that, after consulting with the Department of Environmental Regulations (DER), they indicated that they remain concerned about the potential of this material failing TCLP tests. He stated that the poor success track record for Lake County, with industry in general, will have a negative impact on the welfare of the residents in Lake County, and he recommended that the County not approve the request from TTO Corporation. Mr. Thompson presented the Board with a Table, which was prepared by Michael Wm. Rouse, Recycling Management, Inc., Oregon, and was a Comparison of Tire Chip Fuel (TCF) Containing the Inherent Bead and Cord Wire and Tire-Derived-Fuel (TDF) Relatively Wire Free on as-received basis.
Mr. John Braga, Minneola, appeared before the Board as a concerned citizen. Mr. Braga discussed his knowledge of Mr. Bill Lindeman, and his conservative attitude towards conservation, and stated that he would like to encourage the Board to give TTO Corporation the opportunity to compete.
Mr. Charles Collins, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Orlando, appeared before the Board and discussed the permitting system through this department. Mr. Collins referred to a comment made earlier about DER being concerned with the "char" and stated that DER is always concerned, but it does not mean that it is a bad project.
Commr. Swartz presented general questions regarding permitting, and requirements for bonding. Mr. Collins explained the definition of hazardous waste, and stated that DER's rules are limited, as far as telling someone how to run their business, such as the number of tires to be stored on site.
Discussion occurred regarding the public hearing process with DER, and the involvement that the County will have in this process.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Board has the ability to review any site plan that comes through the process.
Mr. Collins stated that DER has rules that cannot be deviated from, but if an outside party establishes controls that are more stringent than DER, as long as they are placed in the form of a public hearing, it would become binding even though it would not be a DER rule.
Mr. Collins stated that he would reserve any comments on the project being discussed, other than saying that, TTO would need a construction permit, but that the construction permit would not allow them to operate. Once all of the requirements have been met, they can apply for an operating permit, which is good for five years at a time. Mr. Collins stated that he is not aware of any other facilities like this in the eight counties that he covers. He stated that Disney did have a project, which was run with an EPA grant, and DER will be contacting them, along with other operations of this type, when DER goes through their review process, in order to establish some type of track record.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator/Director of Development Regulation Services, appeared before the Board and stated that the rezoning (M-1) for the facility was done on this site approximately two years ago. The tire recycling was discussed during the public hearing, and no specific conditions were placed on it, because it wasn't conditional zoning. When the site plan reviews were done last year, in October, November, 1992, the site plan was approved, subject to specific conditions being met during construction. No bonds were recommended.
It was noted that the Board has the ability to ask to review any site plan, even if it was signed off by staff.
Mr. Ed Watkins, Okahumpka, appeared before the Board and stated that he lives at the dump site in Okahumpka. He discussed his concern with not being able to sell his property, because of his location at the dump site, and requested that, if the Board decides to approve such a project, the taxes should be lowered for all of the people within 3-4 miles of Okahumpka, or let the County buy the property within this range and put whatever dump site it wants. He further stated that a fund should be developed for anybody that acquires a sickness from the dump site.
Mr. Richey stated that his client has site plan approval subject to conditions that were placed on it, one of them being that the applicant cannot store tires. Mr. Richey addressed the noise issue and stated that everything will be done within the confines of the buildings, and there will be no off site noise. He also addressed the odor issue and stated there will be no odor coming off of the system. Mr. Richey discussed their proposed budget figure of $1.50 per tire, with it being noted that the price will be determined by the market. He further discussed the carbon ash, which has never been determined as hazardous waste. Mr. Richey stated that all of the technology being proposed has been used for 50 years or more, and SECO-Warwick has provided the furnaces for years. He further discussed the permits that will have to be obtained by TTO, and stated that he would not want to see the Board approve a facility that would do harm to him and his clients who own the surrounding 60 acres. Mr. Richey stated that, if this option for financing fails, the applicant will seek alternate financing schemes.
Discussion occurred regarding the Board wanting to see any site plan approved for this project, with Mr. Richey stating that he has no problem with this. Commr. Bailey stated that, at the appropriate time, he will include this in his motion.
Mr. Victor Carr, representative for SECO-Warwick, appeared before the Board and stated that their business is building specially engineered processing equipment. At this time, Mr. Carr explained possible uses for the oil that is developed from this process.
At 10:32 a.m., the Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson discussed the issue of recycling and stated that the system being proposed will be combining technology with competition, which should ultimately drive the prices down and help create more markets for the recyclables. She stated that the Board has been reassured that the necessary permitting will be in place, and the Board can have a part in the process to express the County's concerns. She stated that she is going to vote in favor of issuing the bonds and resolutions.
Commr. Swartz explained the position of the Board when considering the approval of Industrial Development Bonds, and stated that the Board generally looks at the economics involved with a request such as this, and that the position of the Board involves approving the issuance of the bonds. He then discussed the environmental aspect of the project, and the fact that the Board will have the opportunity to establish the final conditions for the facility. He stated that he will vote in support of the resolution, which authorizes the issuance of bonds.
Commr. Gerber discussed her contact with individuals who have the knowledge of scrap tire reclamation, and who have suggested that she be skeptical of such facilities. The information she received also indicated that there are no markets for scrap tires. Commr. Gerber stated that she would like to see the County approve the request, because it is innovative to deal with the scrap tire problem. She indicated that there are environmental concerns, and stated that, if a failure of this magnitude occurs, it would be a reflection on the future development in the industrial park, and on the County as a whole. Commr. Gerber stated that she feels they should seek financing from other sources, in order not to be a proponent of a failure. She stated that, if the entire Board wishes to be in this position, and accepts the future consequences of the project, she will be willing to vote in favor of the project.
Commr. Bailey discussed the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) looking at this project from an economic viewpoint, and bringing industry to the County, which he feels is the role of the IDA. He stated that the IDA expanded beyond this role and looked at the environmental concerns. The decision by the IDA was delayed for 30 days, in order to allow the County Commissioners to be made aware of some of the concerns, and knowing that the DER, with the strict guidelines that they have on environmental permitting, the IDA felt that, if there was a problem, it would be discovered. Commr. Bailey stated that it was also his intent to condition this to come back to the Board before it goes to the final Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting. Commr. Bailey stated that he would support the request.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was hopeful that the markets for the byproducts would be developed in Lake County.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the resolution (1993-83) which authorizes the issuance of the Industrial Revenue Bonds not exceeding $10,000,000.00 in aggregate, to TTO Corporation.
Discussion occurred regarding the site plan for the project, with Ms. Lustgarten stating that the Board may want to ask that the site plan be brought to the Board for review, and that staff stay involved in the permitting process from the beginning through the end.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve for the site plan to be brought to the Board for review at the very beginning of the permitting process, and that staff, including Mr. David Crow, Hazardous Waste, and Mr. Jim Barker, Environmental Management, stay very much aware of the permitting process with DER, and as necessary, the Board should be involved through staff in making sure that the permitting process addresses some of the Board's concerns.
Commr. Bailey extended his appreciation to the individuals representing TTO Corporation for educating the surrounding community and working with the press.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:45 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten (10) minute recess.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/STATE AGENCIES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, discussed her memorandum before the Board regarding a settlement in the Administrative Hearing process with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) vs. Lake County. On November 19, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 61-91, for Paradise Lake Estates. An agreement has been reached with DCA and the developer, in relation to the project, which is in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. It was noted that Mr. Bob Whidden, who represents the developer, was present in the audience. Ms. Lustgarten stated that she is recommending approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
At this time, Ms. Lustgarten answered questions from the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement between the Department of Community Affairs vs. Paradise Lakes Estates, Inc., as recommended by the County Attorney.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Discussion occurred regarding the current hold on lot splits in Lake County.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that a Comprehensive Plan was adopted in July, 1991, with a series of amendments, with the most recent amendment being March, 1993. The Board also adopted Land Development Regulations (LDRs) implementing the Comprehensive Plan, with the first LDRs being effective June, 1992. The Comprehensive Plan is the governing document as far as how development will occur in Lake County, and it sets out certain criteria that all development must meet in order to comply with the Plan. The LDRs implemented the detail of how that shall occur. Lot splits, minor lot splits, and large lot splits, are considered development pursuant to the definition in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the definition in the LDRs. The discussion today deals with how those lot splits will be dealt with in the future, in order to comply with the requirements. This is a concern to the County, because the County is precluded from issuing any development order, or development permit, that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has developed a process on how to deal with lot splits as development in a efficient and administrative manner.
Mr. Jim Barker, Division Director, Environmental Management, appeared before the Board to discuss the scenario, which is geared to try to demonstrate how the "preliminary split review" will be used to screen and simplify the process for the applicant while allowing the staff to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. Mr. Barker explained the preliminary screening process that will be used by staff. He stated that the process will work very well in the rural designation, but not as well in the suburban, urban, urban expansion areas, or in the Green Swamp, and in some cases, in the Wekiva. Therefore, staff will have to develop a program to allow this to be done in these particular areas, but that the majority of the lot splits are taking place in the rural designation.
Commr. Bailey expressed a concern that, when it comes to certain areas such as the Wekiva, Green Swamp, and urban, this process will be complicated, and people will become confused. He stated that there should be one process for everyone.
Mr. Barker stated that this is the process staff is proposing for all areas, but it is not as simple in those other areas, as it is in the rural.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels the three requirements, (the survey sketch prepared by a surveyor showing the proposed split; the parcel sketch on an aerial photograph prepared by a surveyor; and the parcel sketch on a soil survey prepared by a surveyor), will assist staff in making the decision at the counter, but that, if an individual has decided not to go through the subdivision process, she feels the County would be forcing him to come back and go through the subdivision process and ultimately get a higher density. She stated that, if the County was looking at slowing down growth, this would slow down the density in some of those areas. She stated that she wants to see the check list, and to see staff make this process less cumbersome.
Commr. Swartz opened the meeting to public comment.
Mr. Greg Holman appeared before the Board to discuss the information presented for lot splits.
Commr. Swartz cautioned that the Board cannot discuss any specific splits or development that may be under consideration.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that, if at some point in time, any specific project comes before the Board, the members are not permitted, pursuant to the quasi judicial procedure, to acquire any information in advance.
Mr. Holman stated that he is concerned with this process being another step for the public to accomplish lot splits.
Commr. Swartz explained that staff is trying not to let people enter the process of what they think is a large lot, or minor lot, split, only to find out later that they have serious problems. The applicant will be able to get a preliminary analysis by providing the three documents, and getting an initial review by staff, and then the applicant will have the ability to decide whether or not he wants to go through the regulatory process.
Mr. Holman stated that he feels staff is asking that a 40 acre, or even a five acre subdivision, go through the same process as a ten (10) unit per acre subdivision requires, which involves stormwater management, an environmental audit, and a wildlife audit.
Commr. Swartz explained that the information being supplied to the Board by staff today will provide a process where an individual will receive an early analysis of whether or not he has some of those more specific requirements, whether it be in the Green Swamp, or any other area of the County, before the individual gets too far into the project. If it is determined that the individual has a plan in the sensitive area, he will have to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs that deal with this particular area.
Mr. Holman stated that he is past this step, and has been informed by staff that he has some problems with property being in a sensitive area. He indicated that he plans to put one house on the property, and now staff is requiring that all of these additional steps be taken. He stated that, as a solution, the Board might consider, as the densities lessen, the requirements lessen, in order to allow the developer to choose how many of the steps he wants to go through.
Commr. Hanson stated that the incentive is there to go ahead and develop at a much higher density, because you cannot afford to go through all of these requirements at a low density.
Mr. Jay Vander Meer appeared before the Board and stated that he agrees with an applicant submitting the required information, but he questioned the need for a surveyor to make the parcel sketch on an aerial photograph.
Commr. Swartz stated that this was discussed, and it was noted that it could be a surveyor, or someone who has the professional skills to make the presentation.
After further questions by Mr. Vander Meer, it was clarified that nothing has been changed as to the underlying requirements that are in the Comprehensive Plan, or the LDRs, and that there will be six (6) splits on a track. An explanation was also presented about the fees that are paid to the County.
Mr. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Tavares, appeared before the Board and discussed the process the County went through for months to establish administrative procedures for lot splits, and the opinion rendered by the County Attorney, which was the creation of two (2) or more, or three (3) or more lots being a subdivision. Further discussion took place, and two separate processes were established, including an administrative lot split process for minor and major, which would meet a certain set of criteria, and then there would be subdivisions, which would meet a separate criteria. Ms. Bonifay stated that the same language that is in the Comprehensive Plan now was in the Comprehensive Plan then, with no dramatic changes being made to this issue, and individuals making lot split requests do not have an option to the criteria that was established for lot splits. She questioned the Board considering this issue again, and addressed the requests for lot splits that have not been processed since March 15, 1993. Ms. Bonifay also addressed the suggested fee schedule presented by staff for wildlife, habitat, habitat management, and suggested that the costs be for five (5) acre tracts, and that the costs be multiplied by six, in order to establish a more reasonable cost. She further stated that she would like to see the check list, and that she hopes the Board enacts some time frame on this process. She then discussed the moratorium on lot split requests.
Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that the 28 lot split requests that staff is holding have prepared surveys, or sketches of surveys, and that no aerials have been prepared. He stated that they will be required to adhere to the new procedures. He further stated that they have been asked to provide staff with the information before staff can move forward with the requests, unless the Board exempts them from the proposed procedures.
Mr. Barker addressed the proposed fee structure and explained that staff called to get prices based on 15 acres divided into three (3) parcels, for a simplistic process.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and stated that he has clients who are on hold in the lot split process. He informed the Board that the information that has been provided to staff from those individuals meet the requirements of the current LDRs. The information has been prepared by registered surveyors, with the lots being described legally, and the wetland areas and/or other environmental activities. He addressed the 28 requests that are on hold and stated that he feels it would be unfair to notify them and inform them that they will be required to submit additional information, because of the fact that they had already been submitted under the rules that were approved by the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding when staff will have the check list available for the Board to review. Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that this information could be provided to the Board members at the first meeting in June.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, in the interim, if staff develops the forms that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and which have been approved by the Planning staff and County Attorney, staff can then proceed to process and approve the requests based on the information provided. Then, if staff feels the need, and the Board wants to see them come back with it, the necessary follow up information can be provided.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that he has six (6) pending requests, and that he tried to file another lot split request yesterday and was advised that the County was not accepting anymore, and was turned away. He discussed the issue of the County having a moratorium, (which was clarified earlier that the County did not have one), and stated that he would like to see the system being used by staff remedied as soon as possible. Mr. Richey stated that the process being proposed does not indicate what will happen in the urban, urban expansion areas, with Commr. Swartz clarifying that the procedure will be the same, but the conditions required will be on the work sheet.
Mr. Richey stated that staff ought to have the ability to locate, based on the surveys and aerials provided, and to comply with the regulation being proposed without the people having to go back and go through this process, because these people have already spent more than this process would require on current applications that have been filed.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff will review the information that has been submitted, but if the information is not there to review, staff will request the additional information, in order to give the preliminary decisions, so people can avoid going through a more expensive process.
Ms. Johnnie Hale appeared before the Board and stated that she has a large lot split (three parcels), and that she has had a survey prepared, which shows the wetlands, and a topography map, and questioned whether she will need to have another survey done and provide additional information.
Commr. Swartz clarified that, if the information provides staff with what they need to provide the preliminary decision, no other information will be needed. Staff will accept the sketches that will provide accurate information that staff can rely on. It was noted that the wording will be changed and clarified to reflect this in the preliminary split review process.
Ms. Hale informed the Board that her request for the large lot split has been on hold for over six (6) weeks.
At 11:53 a.m., the Chairman asked if there was further public comment. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether it was the intention of the Board to approve, in concept, the proposal before the Board dealing with the administrative lot splits, with the understanding that staff will develop work sheets that will identify those characteristics in the Comprehensive Plan that are required to be reviewed, and that, in the submittal by the applicant, the required documents do not necessarily need to be prepared by a surveyor, but only by someone with professional confidence.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve in concept, the proposal before the Board dealing with the administrative lot splits, as stated above, and including that those requests in the pipeline be carried through by staff based on what the applicants have already submitted, and if additional information is needed, it will be as it was before this was presented today. It was clarified that the information that was required to be turned in by the applicants before this new process, will be considered by staff, with staff using in-house information including soil maps and aerials, to make their determinations, with no additional fees.
Mr. John Brock, Director of Planning, informed the Board that staff is in the process of reviewing the requests that have been on hold, and that all of the applicants have submitted complete surveys. He stated that staff will make every effort to super impose the information from aerial photographs, and from the soils information, that staff currently has in its possession, and apply it to the 28 requests that have been on hold.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIME CERTAIN
Commr. Swartz stated that a formal presentation will be made by Mr. Rick Patterson, Public Financial Management (PFM), regarding bond refinancing. At this time, he introduced the members of the Ad Hoc Financing Advisory Committee, as follows, and extended his appreciation for their work on the Committee: Mr. Dan Eastwood, Mr. William Kicklighter, Mr. Ed Brooks, Mr. Mitch Grant, Mr. Jim Williams (who was not present), Mr. Rick Patterson (PFM), Ms. Lavon Wisher (PFM), Mr. Scott Richbourg (PaineWebber), and staff members, Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Ms. Barbara Lehman, and Ms. Sarah LaMarche.
Mr. Patterson addressed the Board and stated that the members of the Financing Committee that worked with the Ad Hoc Financing Advisory Committee were extremely pleased and very impressed with work that the Committee and staff did in reaching some of the recommendations.
Mr. Patterson stated that a major recommendation made by the Ad Hoc Committee was for the County to proceed as quickly as possible with the implementation of variable to fixed rate conversion of the County's Industrial Development Revenue Bonds that were issued to finance the incinerator. The second major recommendation was to maximize, to the extent possible, the use of level debt service rather than escalating debt service under the current structure for the bonds. The major recommendation was to use, to the extent possible, the excess, or surplus, infrastructure sales tax proceeds to fund new money requirements for the system. A minor recommendation that the Committee reached and gave to the Board was to establish some set of parameters up front regarding the fixed rate financing, so that changes in the fixed rate market from today through the time of financing, if the Board decides to pursue the financing, can be measured, and the Board can understand whether the same criteria are in effect at the time of financing that were in effect at the time that the Committee made its recommendation.
Mr. Patterson stated that, at the workshop last week, the Board had asked PFM to develop a structure that satisfied some of the constraints and recommendations of the Committee, and to discuss how the fixed rate financing would compare to different types of variable rate structures assuming that the bonds remain outstanding in a variable rate mode. Mr. Patterson stated that the presentation today was to talk about the preliminary fixed rate structure, which PFM believes will satisfy those criteria, compare that to different variable rate scenarios, and work with the Board to develop some criteria parameters for fixed rate financing.
At this time, Mr. Patterson reviewed the information in detail that he presented to the Board members regarding the Preliminary Fixed Rate Financing Structure for the Industrial Development Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1993.
Mr. Patterson discussed Page 2, Fixed vs. Variable Rate Comparison - Variable Scenario 1: Variable Rates at 20-Year Historical Average of 5.51% for Years 1-21. He then referred to Page 7, Fixed vs. Variable Rate Comparison - Variable Scenario 2: Variable Rates Increase 50 bp/yr Years 2-9 to Achieve 20-Year Historical Average of 5.51%.
Mr. Patterson addressed a question that Commr. Hanson had at the workshop meeting. The question pertained to the County receiving in the past unsolicited proposals from investment banks to convert the bonds to a fixed rate debt service. He stated that the debt service, or interest rates, are lower now than they have been in the past when the County had received those proposals. The question was what are the savings that the County has actually realized by staying in the variable rate mode rather than fixing the debt service on the bonds at some point prior to now. Mr. Patterson stated that PFM arbitrarily chose April, 1991, which was the most recent Smith-Barney presentation to the County, to convert to a fixed rate debt service, compared what they projected at that time with what the County has actually paid from April, 1991 through June, 1993, assuming rates stay where they are now. The total debt service under the fixed rate scenario was approximately $11.9 million, and $6.6 million under the variable rate scenario, which means the County would have enjoyed savings in the amount of $5.3 million, with the County not taking the recommendation for the County to fix the rate on the debt.
After summarizing the two scenarios, Mr. Patterson stated that the final points involved whether the Board wanted to proceed with a fixed rate financing, and to decide what some of the criteria, or parameters, might be for the financing. He stated that this would basically be a policy decision of the Board more than an economic, or financial, decision. Mr. Patterson stated that a number of different potential parameters have been identified, and if the Board recommends at this time that the Committee, or the financing team, work toward the financing, he would like to work with the Board to develop some parameters, so that, if the market changes between now and the time the bonds are sold, he will have a way of monitoring the market from week to week. It was noted that, if the market changes, the recommendation will change, and the team would come back to the Board. At this time, he explained some of those parameters.
Mr. Mitch Grant appeared before the Board and addressed a consideration given by the Committee, which indicated that it would be imprudent not to consider fixing the cost of some of the debt, but that it is important to consider the element of "sticker shock"
not only to the rate payer, but also to the supplier of the waste being processed, and how this affects the economic liability of the project, if you increased immediately the debt service load by 50%.
Commr. Swartz indicated that he would like to continue to look at trying to find a way to keep the costs lower, after realizing that the present value savings is only approximately $1 million going fixed. After some of the parameters are developed, the Board should look at what would happen if the Board continued to budget debt service at approximately what it is now, and use the money to retire the debt, particularly the taxable debt, and how that will have the tendency to lower the out year costs.
Commr. Swartz stated that the outcome of this meeting should be some direction to the financial consultant to develop a set of criteria. He stated that he would like to know what will be the best way that the Board could structure its revenue and debt service rate to take advantage, during the period of being invariable, which would include a scenario where it keeps the debt service where it is now, which is in excess of where it needs to be for debt service, and using those monies to pay off existing debt during that interim.
Commr. Swartz stated that a workshop meeting would be scheduled to discuss parameters to consider, along with an analysis of staying in variable, using the assumptions that were made, but staying at the higher debt service level, and using it to pay down debt.
Mr. William Kicklighter appeared before the Board and stated that, if the Board decided to stay in the variable rate mode, and if interest rates were to stay at the present levels for some extended period of time, there is no question as to the tremendous amount of savings, and if the Board decided to do this, and take the savings and pay down the bonds more rapidly, it seems the County would still have to deal with "sticker shock", because the savings presently being realized are being used to offset a shortfall in the fund, and if you are going to use the savings to do this in the future, you still have to cure that problem. He stated that the Committee felt that the present interest rates may not stay at this level too long. Mr. Kicklighter further stated that, if the Board decides it wants to stay in the variable rate mode to benefit from low interest rates, then it needs to be prepared to make a decision later on to raise tipping fees, raise assessments, etc. to pay for the rising interest cost, which will eventually come. He stated that the Committee felt that, after considering all of the information it was provided, the most prudent thing for the County to do was to fix the rate.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether it was the Board's desire to ask PFM to establish some criteria, some parameters, and to provide an analysis of what would happen in the variable mode, if the County retired the debt.
Mr. Patterson discussed the timing constraints associated with the Letter of Credit (LOC), and the fact that it will expire in November, 1993. If the County wants to stay in the variable rate mode, he is recommending that it is prudent that the County pass the extension test. The County will need to have a consulting engineer begin this work, no later than July, 1993, to meet the August, 1993 deadline with the Certificate. Secondly, the Committee's recommendation was to move quickly and try and take advantage of attractive rates.
Commr. Swartz directed PFM to proceed in the direction of a fixed rate conversion, looking at the credit agencies which are necessary, to proceed with this, and to come back with the parameters and the recommendations with regard to those, as well as the variable rate analysis, and to have the necessary work done to try and pass the extension test (LOC), as necessary, should in fact the County stay in variable.
It was noted that the information from PFM will be available in 2-3 weeks.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Discussion occurred regarding the requests listed under the County Manager's Consent Agenda. Commr. Bailey requested that Tab 25 be pulled, in order that he be able to declare a conflict of interest. Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, clarified that, under Tab 27, the request is to approve a Selection and Negotiating Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests, with the exception of Tab 25:
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers/Sheriff's Department
a. Budget Transfers
1. Fund: Self-Insurance Comprehensive
Department: Office of Human Resources
Division: Risk Management
From: Special Reserve $1,500
To: Operating Expenses $1,500
Transfer #: 93-0152
b. Approval of request from the Sheriff for an amount of $4,597.41 for payment of purchases of other current charges and equipment. These funds have been expended in accordance with
the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 932.704.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request for approval of payment of monthly Medicaid hospital bill in the amount of $39,690.15, and the Medicaid nursing home bill in the amount of $34,033.63 for the month of February.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request for approval of payment in the amount of $17,259.20 to Florida Hospital for Lake County resident under the Health Care Responsibility Act for inpatient hospital stay.
Private Industry Council
Request for approval of modification of the Volusia, Lake, Flagler Private Industry Council's (Service Delivery Area #9) two-year Plan of Services, and authorization for the Chairman to sign he document, contingent on the County Attorney's review and approval.
Request to approve to rename Transfer Station Road to Spring Creek Road, which affects thirteen (13) property owners in the Paisley area, Commissioner District 4.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:
Esker D. Gibson and Willie M. Gibson
Donovan Lane #5-6649
Roger L. Turner and Sandra S. Turner
Donovan Lane #5-6649
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Road Right-of-Way Deeds/Drainage Easements:
Horne Properties, Inc.
C-467 East-West Connector
John A. Berry
John H. and Thelma I. McCormick
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds for Robbins Road:
William R. Frodl
Guy Daelemans and Maria Gaelemans
Signs/Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request to approve to post "No Parking on Right of Way" signs on both sides of C.R. 452 for 1500 feet to the northwest and to the southeast of Sandpiper Drive (5-7039).
Roads-County & State/Municipalities
Request to approve to temporarily close Donnelly Street (C-44B) and 5th Avenue (Old 441) in Mount Dora on Saturday, October 23, 1993, from 5:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Sunday, October 24, 1993, in order to conduct the 9th annual Mount Dora Village Association craft fair.
Request to approve a Resolution proclaiming the week of June 20 through June 26, 1993, as "Household Hazardous Waste Spring Cleaning Week" in Lake County.
Road Closings - Permission to Advertise
Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition #717, by Joseph P. Godfrey, to vacate portion of Julius Road, Silver Lake Estates, Silver Lake area, Commissioner District 3.
Road Closings - Permission to Advertise
Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition #718, by Clyde Puryear, to vacate road, Villa City Plat, Groveland area, Commissioner District 2.
Bids/Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request to approve to advertise for bids #1-5814 Twin Palms Road widening and resurfacing, Project No. 12-93, at an estimated cost of $125,000.00, District 1, CTT Fund.
Bids/Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request to approve to advertise for bids #4-4260 Bay Road/Bay Road/Old 441 Intersection, Project No. 13-93, at an estimated cost of $30,000.00, District 3, CTT Fund.
Bids/Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request to approve to advertise for bids #1-6205B Spring Lake Boulevard, widening and resurfacing, Project No. 14-93, at an estimated cost of $140,000.00, District 1, CTT Fund.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request to approve to award Project #9-93, Em-En-El Grove Road lump sum construction to Paquette Paving Company, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $170,907.75, CTT Fund, Commissioner District 5.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request to approve to award Project #R-8, Astor, Butler Street improvement to Professional Dirt Service and encumber and expend funds in the amount of $93,600.00, General Fund/Boating Improvement Entitlement Fund, Commissioner District 4.
Request for approval and appointment of Selection and Negotiating Committee for design-build Project #10-93, East-West Connector (C-467) Phase IB, as follows:
Commr. Rhonda Gerber Jim Stivender, Jr.
Don Griffey Joe Mordini
Fred Schneider Chuck Langley, City of Leesburg
County Property/Roads-County & State
Request to approve to declare West Altoona Road #5-8272 as surplus property, advertise for sale of said property for appraised value to the Altoona United Methodist Church.
Agricultural Center/Accounts Allowed
Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for approval of Memorandum of Agreement between the University of Florida, IFAS, and Lake County to establish the position of Adjunct County Extension agent, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $36,511.59.
Request for approval of specifications, quotes, encumbering funds previously authorized, payments to be made and other services that do not require bids or quotes, as follows:
(D) Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities from Annual
Bids, State Contract, G.S.A., Cooperative Bids.
DIVISION/DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM AMOUNT
1) Public Serv. Municipal Supply & Sign $11,750.00
Issue Purchase Order for
Galvanized Posts. Lake
County Annual Bid for
Traffic Sign Material Bid
Bid Approved 11/3/93.
Discussion occurred regarding whether or not to pay for equipment purchased by ALVIC, Inc., in the amount of $8,445.52, regarding the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Detainee Meals.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained that Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, who represented the County in the contract negotiations, spoke with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing ALVIC, Inc., about the issue of the payment for equipment, with it being made clear that it was not included in the price of the contract.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board to discuss the request that has been made for the reimbursement of monies, due to the purchase of equipment by ALVIC, Inc., for the INS detainees at the Lake County Jail. Mr. Richey discussed the meetings that were held with the County Attorney's Office about a 30 day termination period being placed in the agreement, because of the County aggressively going out to try and solicit somebody to help them with the food service. It was explained that the agreement with the County and the Federal Government did not provide a notice, therefore no termination period could be included in the contract. It was noted that there would be no termination notice in the contract, but that through the negotiation process, and discussions with the jail staff, it was determined that the County would work with ALVIC, Inc. to mitigate their losses. Mr. Richey stated that his client, Mr. Vic Donahey, was advised by the County of the termination of the contract, and the County staff advised him to submit invoices, which his client did on October 8, 1992. Mr. Richey felt that the letter may not have placed the County under a legal obligation, but that Mr. Donahey felt the County was under a moral obligation. Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Donahey went out of his way to try and help the County, and he requested that consideration be given by the Board to re-issue the check.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained that the equipment is not needed in the jail, but it could be placed there, and if the Federal Government comes forward and pays for it, the equipment could be transferred back to them. It was clarified that a request had been made to the INS to pay for the equipment.
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities & Capital Improvements, informed the Board that it has been approximately one month since staff's last contact with INS. He was informed that all of the invoices are being processed and considered, and he has not received any indication that any of the requests will be turned down. Mr. Anderson stated that staff from his department was trying to get cooperation from the community, in order to accomplish what was needed in this era of urgency. He stated that he was told by INS officials that the preparation of the facility would cost a lot of money, and he also was told to keep track of all costs, but Mr. Anderson stated that he could not speak as to the food preparation.
Commr. Swartz stated that the contract speaks to costs involved in preparing the building.
Ms. Lustgarten addressed the language in the contract, and stated that the contract does have a fixed price for each meal, and when a bid is made, you are including all of your costs for operation as well, and the contract does not provide for the payment of equipment, but provides for per meal cost.
Commr. Swartz discussed the contract and the cost of $52.00 a day per prisoner, and stated that the County is billing for actual costs.
Discussion occurred regarding the bidding process for the food contract, with it being noted that it was a quote process, because of the time constraints.
Mr. Wahl stated that, through the course of conversations with Ms. Constance Weiss, Officer in Charge, U.S. Department of Justice, about providing security through Wells Fargo, as well as the food service contract, and those who would be providing contractual services, she indicated that they would reimburse for any start up costs involved. It was noted that the start up costs from Wells Fargo, in an approximate amount of $4,000.00, has not been reimbursed, as of this date, but has been included in the bill to INS. As of this time, the County has received no reimbursement of costs from INS.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if the County was providing the food, the County would have put the equipment in the jail, and it would have been costs to the building. Instead, the County contracted the service out, and it should be no different, with the County billing INS for the preparation of the building.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel it would be prudent for the Board to authorize payment prior to receiving the money from INS. He stated that there had been discussion on this issue, which was excluded from the contract. At this time, he questioned what the County could pay for when it is not contractually obligated to pay for something.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that there is a contract on this particular subject, which sets out the parameters. She stated that equipment is clearly not covered by this contract, only a per meal basis, so there is no contractual authority to pay for this cost. She further stated that the use of County funds always have to be used for a public purpose. Ms. Lustgarten advised that the County does not have contractual authority to pay for the equipment, and the Board would have to determine that there was a public purpose to expend funds for other costs.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved to pay for the equipment purchased by ALVIC, Inc., in the amount of $8,445.52.
The motion carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commr. Swartz and Commr. Gerber voting "no".
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Richard Seuffert to the Lake County Fire and Emergency Services Advisory Board.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL AGENDA
MUNICIPALITIES/OUTDOOR RECREATION/STATE AGENCIES
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the following requests, subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney:
1. Approval to submit City of Clermont and City of Minneola
Transportation Enhancement Project to District D.O.T.
Office for possible Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds.
2. Approval to submit South Lake Rail Trail Transportation
Enhancement Project to District D.O.T. Office for possible
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds
and to approve the possible expenditure of the necessary
matching funds in the amount of $65,000.00, which may be
reduced in in-kind services.
3. Approval to submit US 441 Greenway Trail Enhancement Project
to District D.O.T. Office for possible Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) application and to
approve the expenditure of the necessary matching funds
required by ISTEA.
Mrs. Eloise Fisher, Eustis, appeared before the Board to discuss the ISTEA Funds.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 1:38 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:00 p.m. for the workshop on Fire Study.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the Board had appointed a Fire Study Committee last fall, which came back with a series of recommendations, and forms the basis of what Chief Craig E. Haun, Fire and Emergency Services, has incorporated in the proposal the Board has today. Subsequent to the Committee's report, Chief Haun requested that the Board establish an Advisory Committee, which has just met for the first time last evening, at which time they just received this report.
The members of the Advisory Committee introduced themselves to the Board, as follows: Mr. T. J. Townsend; Mr. Doug Resler; Mr. Richard Seuffert; Mr. Bud Ward; Mr. Lee Winters; and Mr. Fred Brumer.
Chief Haun addressed the Board and stated that the goals, as set forth in the Organizational Summary, address reducing the number of fire stations, reducing the amount of fire apparatus, and clarifies the personnel organizational chart.
Chief Haun stated that there are 38 fire stations throughout the County, with 36 being active. One station has just become inactive in the Meadows area, and the second station, in the Sunnyside area, as been inactive for approximately two years.
At this time, Commr. Swartz recognized those appointed officials from the cities, which included Mr. Robert Moore, Tavares City Council; Mr. Jim Myers, City of Eustis; Mr. Lee Hokr, Mayor of Lady Lake; Mr. Tom Kent, Town Commissioner, Lady Lake; Mr. John Lynch, City Manager, Lady Lake; and Mr. Chuck Sowers, Fire Chief, Tavares.
Chief Haun reviewed the Organizational Summary in detail, which consisted of the following information: Volunteer Roster Summary, March, 1993; Table A-3, number of calls; Apparatus and Vehicles; The Organization Plan; Table B-3, Fire Station Status; Exhibit B-1 and Exhibit B-2, Organizational Charts; Appendix A, description of fire stations; and Appendix B, 1993-94 Proposed Budget.
Commr. Swartz recognized Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr., who was present in the audience.
Chief Haun discussed maps with overlays showing details of five proposed stations that will be staffed on a 24 hour basis. He introduced Ms. Karen Bowerman, Fire Rescue, who assisted him with the maps.
The five (5) proposed stations consisted of the following and were to be staffed for 24 hour shifts:
Station #35, Pine Lakes -
to be staffed with two paid firefighters;
Station #42, County Road 44B, by the Eustis Airport -
one paid firefighter, one volunteer;
Station #51, Bassville Park -
one paid firefighter, one volunteer;
Station #81, Yalaha -
two paid firefighters;
Station #91, Clermont -
one paid firefigher, one volunteer.
Chief Haun discussed the proposed stations and staffing, in relation to the response times for each, and the number of volunteers available for each station.
Chief Haun discussed Station #61, Lady Lake, which would be the sixth proposed station, and stated that, if the City of Lady Lake stayed in the MSTU structure, the County would propose to take Station #61 and staff it on a 24 hour basis, with one paid firefighter and the rest being volunteers; and if this is done, one side of the 24 hour shift will need to be taken from the Yalaha station, in order to cover the station in Lady Lake. He stated that, if Lady Lake withdraws from the MSTU, and establishes a municipal fire service, the County will then take Station #62, Spring Lake, and staff this station on an eight (8) hour basis, with one firefighter. Chief Haun stated that another remote area that would require an eight (8) hour person would be in Astor. He further stated that the Astatula station, which is the maintenance shop, has eight (8) hour people, with one of the two positions being converted into a firefighter-mechanic.
Chief Haun discussed the proposal to divide the County into three districts, which will consist of three (3) District Chief positions at Station #33, Lake Norris area; Station #51, Bassville Park; and Station #85, Plantation. He further stated that Station #43, Dona Vista, and Station #41, Eustis, Mount Dora, Tavares, would each house a Division Chief.
Chief Haun discussed the following areas that will continue with all volunteer stations, with staff continuing to evaluate the needs: Station #46, Shockley Heights/Railroad Grade area; Station #44, Altoona; Station #21, Paisley; Station #22, Lake Mack; Station #31, Mount Plymouth; Station #47, South Umatilla; Station #54, Mid-Florida Lakes; Station #63, Picciola; Station #83, Okahumpka; Station #92, Minneola; Station #93, 33/561; Station #98, Bay Lake; and Station #96, Montverde Mobile Home Park.
Chief Haun summarized by stating that there are 25 fire stations, as follows: five (5) stations staffed on a 24 hour basis; three (3) stations staffed on an eight hour basis; four (4) stations being staffed on an eight (8) hour basis by District or Division Chief Officers; and 13 stations being totally volunteer.
Chief Haun discussed the mutual aid agreement with Seminole County, and the verbal agreements with Marion County, Orange County, and Osceola County.
Chief Haun stated that he would like to pursue interlocal agreements, not only with the City of Leesburg, but also with other municipalities, for exchange of services.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if there is agreement on the Board, Chief Haun would like to begin to make the necessary personnel and equipment changes that would be necessary to implement the station program that he presented; any stations that might be considered for other than a paid station, or a volunteer station, the intention would be to take no action on those, but to go out and present to those communities the proposed plans, in order to get feedback.
Mr. Bud Ward, Astatula, appeared before the Board and stated that it takes six (6) people to man the stations full time.
Commr. Hanson commented on her concerns with the Wekiva area, and stated that it may take a lot of education for those people who live in this area to understand that they may be better protected from Seminole County rather than by our own volunteer staff.
Chief Haun stated that he will try and arrange a representative from the Seminole County fire station to meet with the people in this community.
Mr. Larry W. Conner, Bassville Park, appeared before the Board and discussed the elimination of older fire equipment, and questioned whether there will be an increase in the fire tax to those living in the unincorporated areas. The Board stated that there would be no tax increase.
Chief Haun discussed the fire apparatus and stated that the equipment being scaled and eliminated will not be replaced, and will be phased out. The funds can then be used to upgrade the apparatus as needed. He discussed, in more detail, how the funds would be adjusted and utilized.
Mr. Fred Brummer, Wekiva, member of the Fire Services Advisory Committee, appeared before the Board and expressed significant concerns with residents having to rely on Seminole County for primary service. Mr. Brummer also expressed a concern with the homeowners continuing to have homeowner insurance without fire coverage being provided by Lake County.
Chief Haun stated that the insurance issue has been addressed, and it was determined that, if there is a written agreement with Seminole County, this would satisfy the Insurance Service Organization (ISO) in providing fire protection. It was noted that, if ISO came and rated the station in Lake County, the station would offer no fire protection service to that area whatsoever.
Mr. John Lynch, Lady Lake, appeared before the Board and requested clarification on the information provided for Station #61, Lady Lake, and Station #64, Orange Blossom Gardens (OBG).
Ms. Bertha Carroll, Umatilla, appeared before the Board to comment on the volunteer fire station in Umatilla.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the move of necessary personnel and equipment to accomplish the plan presented by Chief Haun, and any stations, which might be considered to be closed, will remain open and in their same status until such time staff contacts all of the communities and explains how the fire program will work.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 3:25 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 3:30 p.m. for the public hearing on J. D. Eggebrecht.
PETITION #13-93-2/3 J. D. EGGEBRECHT DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Appeal of Vested Rights Determination
The Deputy Clerk administered to the oath to Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator/Director Development Regulation Services.
Mr. Stubbs presented opening statements regarding the development of Case #13-93-2/3, J. D Eggebrecht Development Ltd. He stated that, in July, 1991, there was no DRI boundary indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Mr. Stubbs further stated that staff did speak to Mr. Eggebrecht about his proposed project, and did, upon the request of the applicant, do a vested rights determination for denial, which is being appealed today.
It was clarified that the only item before the Board today that has been noticed and publicized was the vested rights determination. The Board can take action, upon the outcome of the vested rights determination, to provide additional time for the applicant to file under a Land Use Plan Amendment.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that she would address the vested rights determination being a legal determination dealing with two bodies of law, one being Statutory vested rights, and the other being common law. She stated that this is clearly a common law vested rights determination request. At this time, she addressed the legal issues, and stated that she would then call Mr. Eggebrecht to provide testimony as to facts and chronology, which has been provided to the Board members, and Mr. Steve Richey who will address the issue of vested rights, both as an attorney, and as someone involved and being referred to in many of the articles through this period of time, on which Mr. Eggebrecht relied, and were actions of Lake County as a governmental entity.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she would be addressing the legal memorandum (dated May 14, 1993) provided by Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, which pertains to the County's position on the law in this area. She further stated that the Board has a letter from her to Mr. Stubbs dated November 2, 1992, which sets forth her legal analysis, which she will reiterate today.
Ms. Bonifay introduced a composite of evidence containing
Ms. Bonifay stated that the only legal case agreed upon by her and Ms. Lustgarten, in terms of setting forth a standard for a vested rights determination, was Hollywood Beach Hotel Company v. City of Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10, (Fla. 1976), Florida Supreme Court Case. She then directed the Board's attention to her composite of evidence, What is Common Law Vesting, which refers to Comprehensive Plan objective 1-12A. At this time, Ms. Bonifay gave a summary of the case law, in relation to the case she is presenting to the Board.
Ms. Bonifay referred to the second case sited by Ms. Lustgarten, Pasco County v. Tampa Development Corporation, 364 So. 2d 850 (2nd DCA, 1978) the Second District Court of Appeals, and presented her comments, stating that this is a totally different factual scenario, and legal issue, as distinguished from the case being presented, and is not applicable.
Ms. Bonifay referred to the third case sited by Ms. Lustgarten, Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp. 309 So. 2d 571 (2nd DCA, 1975) the Second District Court, and presented her comments. She then referred to the red flag doctrine, which was upheld in Gross v. City of Miami 62 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1953); City of Miami v. State of Florida, Ergene 130 So. 2d 474 (3rd DCA 1961), and stated that Ms. Lustgarten felt that the red flags were flying, and that the applicant, Mr. Eggebrecht, should have known that the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan, which was found later not to be in compliance by the State of Florida. She stated that this misses the entire point of the case in that the reliance took place many months before July, 1991. She further stated that the reliance took placed based on the fact that the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, at that time, made repeated statements and findings, in unanimous votes, stating that they were undertaking an Areawide DRI at US 27/Hwy. 19 and the Turnpike. Ms. Bonifay stated that the Board defined the areas, which will be shown on the exhibits; delineated the boundary; voted repeatedly; allocated money for additional equipment; hired additional staff; started a schedule for completion of the DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA); provided all affected agencies with notice they were going forward with the DRI; convened and completed a pre-application conference; and paid an application fee. Ms. Bonifay stated that no where in any of the minutes, or any of the records researched, has that action by the Board been rescinded. She further stated that the Board enacted a government moratorium on any development in the sixteen (16) square mile area, until such time a Small Area Study had been done, which was then the Areawide DRI. The Board then rescinded that action after that study had been done, and were well on the way to financially, legally, and morally being committed to doing an area DRI at the area indicated.
Ms. Bonifay referred to the July, 1991, Comprehensive Plan, and stated that Mr. Eggebrecht was consistent with the Plan, which was found to be not in compliance. She then reviewed the sequence of events involving the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, which were also found to be not in compliance, and in November, or December, 1992, the Board, as advised by outside counsel, confirmed that the July, 1991, Comprehensive Plan was still in effect. She stated that Mr. Eggebrecht was on notice that all of his plans that had been adopted were not accepted by the State, but now he was being advised to go back to the July, 1991 Plan, which he was consistent. Ms. Bonifay then reviewed the time of events involving Mr. Eggebrecht's pre-application conference, and the filing of the preliminary plan application. It was noted that the proposed project was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 31, 1993, and received approval by a 4-3 vote.
Ms. Bonifay referred to the Second District Court case Smith v. City of Clearwater 383 So. 2d 68a (2nd DCA 1980), regarding "pending zoning", and stated that she did not feel the case was applicable to the facts of the situation at hand.
In conclusion, Ms. Bonifay referred to the cases sited in her legal analysis indicated in her November 2, 1992, memorandum to Mr. Stubbs, which explained that, in order to meet the equitable estoppel test, a property owner must substantially change his position, or incur extensive obligations and expenses, in reliance on governmental action. Courts have assessed each case on its particular facts.
Ms. Bonifay reviewed the following cases sited in her Legal Analysis: Bregar vs. Briton 75 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1954); Town of Longboat Key v. Mezrah; City of North Miami v. Margulies 289 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); City of Gainesville v. Bishop 174 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); and Board of County Commissioners v. Lutz 314 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Commr. Swartz addressed the procedures that the Board would following for the appeal hearing.
Ms. Bonifay presented a red book entitled Eggebrecht Vested Rights Appeal, in its entirety, Tabs A-D, to be entered in evidence and marked "Exhibit A" by the Deputy Clerk.
Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Jerry Eggebrecht to give testimony. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath.
Mr. Bonifay began the direct examination of Mr. Eggebrecht, who provided testimony on the history of the acquisition of the property in question, the size of the property, and action taken by the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Areawide DRI study. Mr. Eggebrecht continued his testimony, which included his discussions with staff about his plans to do a project similar in density to the Palisades project, which was between one and two dwelling units per acre, and about golf course communities being high on the County's list for development. Mr. Eggebrecht continued testimony by referring to the Chronological Order of Events, which was included in the evidence, Exhibit A, presented to the Board. His testimony included communication between staff and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which indicated that they were moving forward with the Areawide DRI. He stated that an $8,000.00 fee was paid to ECFRPC by Lake County for the application forms. He further gave testimony on monies that were approved by the County for consultants and planners for the study, which included a market analysis. At this time, Mr. Eggebrecht indicated that he had not pursued any permitting, but that he did receive two conceptual and three reaffirmations of go to completion from the local government. He then discussed the period of time that had been indicated for the completion of the areawide study, which was April, 1990. Further testimony was given as to the times when he appeared before the Board of County Commissioners with sketches of the subject property; the request that he made for the future land use map to designate the subject property as urban expansion, or four (4) dwelling units per acre, pursuant to the definition that existed at that time (December 6, 1990), and the map that more than accommodated his request. Mr. Eggebrecht continued his testimony by discussing when he found out that there was another version of the future land use map dated October 6, 1992, which designated the subject site to rural, one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres, and that the Areawide DRI was not even on the map (October 12, 1992). Mr. Eggebrecht discussed the time (November 19, 1992) when Mr. Jake Varn, Attorney, was hired by Lake County to negotiate with DCA, and DCA being notified that Lake County would continue to operate under the Comprehensive Plan approved on July 9, 1991. It was noted that all rezonings would be reviewed for consistency with this plan, and Mr. Eggebrecht stated that his project was again consistent with the Plan and vesting was no longer pertinent. In early January, 1993, Mr. Eggebrecht began preparation of the preliminary plan application, and application for rezoning, through his attorney, as indicated in the evidence, Exhibit A.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 5:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten (10) minutes.
CASE #13-93-2/3 J. D. EGGEBRECHT DEVELOPMENT LTD. (Cont.)
Ms. Bonifay recalled Mr. Eggebrecht and continued the direct examination. Mr. Eggebrecht gave his historical perspective of the information provided in Tab B, of Exhibit A. It was noted that Tab B consisted of copies of newspaper articles, Board minutes, memorandums, and Comprehensive Plan elements, beginning September 19, 1986, through March 2, 1993. Mr. Eggebrecht presented testimony on the information provided in Tab C, Exhibit A, which was the Project Synopsis of the Lake County Areawide Development of Regional Impact, Route 19, 27 and Florida Turnpike, April 28, 1988.
Ms. Bonifay indicated to the Board that she had no further questions of Mr. Eggebrecht, at this time, and reserved the right for re-direct examination.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, cross-examined Mr. Eggebrecht. His testimony included his attendance at public meetings of the Board of County Commissioners that were advertised; whether he knew of the steps involved for an application for an Areawide DRI, which would result in a Development Order by the local government; when he purchased the subject property; whether he applied for applications after he purchased the property; his attendance at the meetings on the Comprehensive Plan; his knowledge of the Areawide DRI designation on the Land Use Map; his attendance and knowledge of the public meetings regarding the Settlement Agreement with DCA, and the maps that were presented along with the Agreement.
Ms. Bonifay began the re-direct examination of Mr. Eggebrecht. His testimony included statements about his initial reliance, which was primarily based on those events prior to July, 1991, and his secondary reliance which was January, 1993, with Mr. Eggebrecht relying on the July, 1991 Comprehensive Plan. Further testimony was given regardng his reasons for deciding when to pursue permits.
Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Steve Richey as a witness. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath.
Ms. Bonifay began the direct examination of Mr. Richey, who provided testimony of his knowledge of the Areawide DRI, and the proposed uses of the property located at Highways 19/27 Turnpike. He further testified about his involvement in the Small Area Study; the moratorium enacted in October, 1986; and the development that has taken place at the property on Highways 19/27 Turnpike. Mr. Richey gave testimony on the Small Area Study performed by the County, and the map that was proposed. He further testified that, at the completion of the Small Area Study, the Board affirmatively acted to initiate an Areawide DRI on the 1,600 acres, and that he, among others who participated in the Small Area Study and had been subjected to the moratorium, voiced objections to this, because it was never defined as to how the costs were going to be shared among the property owners. Further testimony was given as to the discussions that were held about how the utilities, water and sewer, were going to be provided, both in the Small Area Study, and the DRI. Mr. Richey then presented his feelings as to the County's position based on actions that the County had taken, as to the status of the Areawide DRI. Mr. Richey testified that he felt the County was proceeding with the Areawide DRI and was using the Small Area Study as the guide for land uses and planning in that area. He also discussed the hearings that were held on the Small Area Study, and the maps that were shown as part of the Areawide DRI, and he discussed the projects that moved forward based on the land uses projected, or contained in the Small Area Study, or the Areawide DRI. Mr. Richey further indicated that he was never aware of the County abandoning and ceasing work on the Areawide DRI.
Ms. Lustgarten cross-examined Mr. Richey, who provided testimony as to his knowledge of the process set out in Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes regarding DRIs; the requirement of a Development Order for an Areawide DRI; and the County never issuing a Development Order.
Ms. Bonifay began the re-direct examination of Mr. Richey, who provided testimony as to the time frame the Areawide DRI was being discussed, which was 1987-89; the substantial amount of meetings held between this time period, with regards to the County proceeding with the Areawide DRI, and his attendance at those meetings; and the time period for completion of an Areawide DRI.
Commr. Swartz discussed the period of time that Mr. Eggebrecht would have been consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and could have submitted an application to be considered by the County.
Ms. Bonifay continued the re-direct examination of Mr. Richey, who provided testimony that there is no requirement for a landowner to submit a development permit within a certain period of time before the zoning expires. He further testified as to vested rights, and stated that development permits usually have an expiration period; and that, in 1989, there was a PUD ordinance in affect that limited the expiration date of the PUD to two (2) years.
Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Richey on whether it was routine for the Board to extend the time period on a PUD, as much as an additional three (3) years, with Mr. Richey testifying that the Board has, and has not, taken this action.
Ms. Bonifay continued the re-direct examination of Mr. Richey, who testified that there have been PUDs that have expired, due to the fact that the Board would not renew them, and the time ran out. He further answered questions as to the state of the economy during the period of 1989-91.
Ms. Lustgarten called Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, as a witness for the County. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath.
Ms. Lustgarten began the direct examination of Mr. Knight, who provided testimony as to a public records request by the applicant's counsel, and the memorandum that was found, which is undated, to the Board of County Commissioners, through Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, from Mr. Michael Szunyog, Director of Planning, in relation to the status of the Areawide DRI Study for the U.S. 27/S.R. 19/Turnpike Area. Ms. Lustgarten requested that the memorandum be entered as the County's Exhibit 1, which was then marked and entered by the Deputy Clerk. It was noted that this memorandum would have been prepared after September, 1989, when Mr. Thelen was appointed to his position.
At this time, Ms. Lustgarten requested that Mr. Knight read the following paragraph from the memorandum, Exhibit 1, into the record:
Page 2, 2. Areawide DRI:
Public meetings, as required by Chapter 380, were held in August 1987 to discuss the designation of the Areawide DRI study area. Staff prepared a Project Synopsis, also attached, and met in May 1988 with representatives of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and other agencies in a pre-application conference to discuss the project. Work was begun by staff after this meeting on various aspects of the study necessary to comply with statutory requirements. The study involves addressing all issues found in a normal DRI application, including analyses of natural resources,
the economy, housing, transportation and others, and developing a land use plan for the study area. Work was halted on the study in September 1988 after the passage of the Wekiva River Protection Area legislation and the need to concentrate staff efforts on that issue.
Ms. Lustgarten continued the direct examination of Mr. Knight, who provided testimony as to the following: his employment with the County and the fact that he was not with the County when the Areawide DRI study was ongoing, but that he was here during the development of the Land Use sections of the Comprehensive Plan; and how the Areawide DRI was treated in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in July, 1991. He further testified that the map adopted in July, 1991, did not include the boundary of the Areawide DRI, and that parts of the Areawide DRI was on parts within the Economic Element and maps, identifying further study of the area, as part of the adopted future Land Use Map.
Ms. Bonifay cross-examined Mr. Knight, who testified as to his personal knowledge of the contents of the memorandum, Exhibit 1; his communication with Mr. Szunyog; where he located the memorandum, and how the files were set up; and his knowledge of any action taken by the Board to terminate the Areawide DRI study.
It was noted for the record that there were no further witnesses to be called for testimony.
At 7:14 p.m., the Chairman called for public comment. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Ms. Lustgarten presented her closing arguments by referring to her memorandum, which states the law in relation to common law vesting. She then responded to the comments that had been made previously by Ms. Bonifay on the Florida cases sited in her memorandum.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that there must be a formal act taken by the governing body, on which the applicant relied, and it must be an action which gives the ability to go forward. She suggested that this is not the case in this instance. Ms. Lustgarten stated that the process for the Areawide DRI was a many faceted step project, and the Board did not take formal action, and ultimately approve that development of regional impact. Therefore, formal action did not occur on which the applicant could legally rely.
Ms. Bonifay presented her closing statements by saying that she feels the County has an abundance of evidence which demonstrates that the government did act. She then stated the facts about the action taken by the Board, which included the fact that public meetings were held, the filing of application fees was made; the County met with the ECFRPC on an application for development approval; and the public was notified that the County was moving forward with an Areawide DRI. Ms. Bonifay stated that, contrary to Ms. Lustgarten's characterization of these cases, no where does it say that the condition precedent to reliance is a rezoning, and cases that she has sited indicates this. She then reviewed the sequence of events that determined Mr. Eggebrecht's reliance. Ms. Bonifay stated that this is a classic case of common law vesting, and Mr. Eggebrecht acted in good faith and he relied. She further stated that the fact that he never filed for a zoning permit, or a development permit, according to Florida case law, is not a condition precedent, and it should not be the determining factor as to whether or not this Board grants Mr. Eggebrecht vested rights.
Commr. Bailey made the following comments: Mr. Eggebrecht filed for rezoning on January 19, 1993; there are no permits to date; the land was purchased prior to the first map of May, 1989; most of Mr. Eggebrecht's information came from either the newspaper, or minutes of meetings; Mr. Eggebrecht's responses to questions regarding why he had not made application sooner, which included there being no market; he was not ready to use the property; and he wanted to avoid property taxes. Commr. Bailey stated that there were discussions about Mr. Eggebrecht getting rezoning, if he had applied at a certain time. Commr. Bailey further stated that he did not feel the Board had taken any action to carry through the Areawide DRI, and therefore, did not feel that Mr. Eggebrecht could rely on the DRI. Commr. Bailey referred to the newspaper clippings that were South Lake oriented, and when the County solely depended on citrus, and was looking for growth in that area. Commr. Bailey stated that he could not vote for the vesting, because he could not see where they were able to prove that it should be vested. He further stated that, from the testimony today, he could not vote for vesting, and therefore, he would vote for denial.
Commr. Hanson made the following comments: the Mt. Plymouth -Sorrento area was to have a Small Area Study, and then the Wekiva Basin Amendment was formed, and the Small Area Study was terminated. She further stated that, if the County did not have the Comprehensive Plan to address, it would have moved ahead with the Areawide DRI, and it may have been phased in, because of its size. The County did not receive a final Development Order, and therefore, she did not feel there could have been reliance. Commr. Hanson stated that, if Mr. Eggebrecht had the zoning, she felt she would have gone ahead with the vesting, but one disadvantage to this would have been the County not having a vesting ordinance. She stated that these are the reasons for not going ahead with the vesting on the project.
Commr. Swartz stated that Commr. Bailey touched on each of the points that he feels are salient, and that he does not believe that the County took an act upon which Mr. Eggebrecht could have relied. He further stated that, through all of the period of time from which he bought the property, there was a significant period of time in which he could have developed the property, but he chose not to. Commr. Swartz stated that the law, which has been outlined by the County Attorney, indicates that there are no vested rights here, and that the common law vesting is not applicable, and will not support a vested rights determination.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the evidence presented today convinced him that the vesting should be denied.
Commr. Gerber stated that the evidence presented today would lead her to vote for denial, as iterated by Commr. Bailey.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board denied the request for a vested rights determination and appeal, Case #13-93-2/3, J. D. Eggebrecht.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to extend the time for a Land Use Plan Amendment, for J. D. Eggebrecht Development Ltd., until June 25, 1993.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 7:33 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten (10) minute recess.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONTINUED)
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved the request to award Project #11-93, E. Red Wing Road lump sum construction to Paquette Paving Company, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $108,310.00, CTT Fund, Commissioner District 2.
The motion was carried by a 3-0 vote.
Commr. Bailey declared a conflict of interest, and abstained from voting, due to being an adjacent property owner.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or the vote.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
It was noted that the request for approval of the Resolution Amending FY 1992/93 fee schedule, and the adoption of the fee schedules for FY 1993/94, was postponed and will be brought back before the Board on June 1, 1993.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved for the Lake Sentinel Community Concert Band to conduct a patriotic concert on Flag Day, June 14, 1993, at the new Lake County Criminal Justice Facility, and approved permission to close off the parking lot in front of the Criminal Justice Facility from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for the event.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved granting permission for County employees to use tables, chairs and miscellaneous equipment for picnic on May 22, 1993.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PUBLIC HEALTH
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Agreement between Lake County and Henry J. Richter, M.D., Celestino D. Santi, D.O. d/b/a Lake County Physicians Group, Outpatient Management Services, Inc., d/b/a Family Health Center and Health First of Lake County, Inc. for medical services, subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney.
Discussion occurred regarding the proposed Budget Workshops for Fiscal Year 1993/94.
At this time, the Board cancelled the July 6, 1993, Board meeting, due to scheduled vacations, and rescheduled the first meeting for July 13, 1993. The Budget Workshops were scheduled for the week of July 12-16, 1993.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COMMITTEES/CONTRACT, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Mr. Dave Warren, Director of Tourist Development, was present to discuss the request.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to amend the design build contract with Construction Development & Design Company for the Tourist Development Council Welcome Center, to include revision of site plans and execution of same; to upgrade roof using architectural dimensional 30 year shingles; and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $11,996.35.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, was present to discuss the request, and stated that there had been changes made to the Eustis names. The names should include Pamela Johnson and William Johnson.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to establish and appoint a CDBG Neighborhood Revitalization Task Force for the Eustis Area, with the following as members:
Mt. Plymouth Area Eustis Area
Minnie H. Bollar Mattie Williams
Charlie F. Collier Pamela Johnson
James P. Griffin William Johnson
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/STATE AGENCIES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to waive the requirements for a Request for Proposal, including advertising and firm selection and award criteria, and accept Scope of Services for Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan (PBS&J) to update the South Lake County Water/Wastewater Master Plan Amendment; execution of contract between Lake County and the Department of Community Affairs; execution of contract between Lake County and PBS&J, in the amount of $12,500.00.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS
Discussion occurred regarding the request to approve the Agreement between Lake County and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) for engineering services for the Astatula I Landfill closure.
Commr. Swartz discussed the estimates made for Phases II-IV, in the approximate amount of $810,000.00, and the estimated closure contract in the amount of $5,000,000.00. He stated that this is 16.2% of the estimated contract price, which he feels is excessive.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the issue and stated that the original estimate was $1.2 million. He stated that this estimate depicts a worst case scenario, which is down $400,000.00 from a year ago. He stated that the estimated costs are not a part of the agreement before the Board today.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the County went through the consultant interviews and the services were compared for many other landfills over the State, it appeared that the range was a plus or minus ten (10) percent. He stated that he cannot support the 16.2%, and suggested that the Board approve the request for Phase I, or go to the second qualified firm that was interviewed and negotiate with them.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board could go back and initiate negotiations again with the first ranked consultant, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan (PBS&J).
Mr. Stivender stated that staff is confident with the proposal in the amount of $185,000.00 from PBS&J. He further stated that there is a time frame to be dealt with. Mr. Stivender explained that approximately $50-55,000.00 will be indirect costs that will be spent locally for surveying and geotechnical work. Mr. Stivender stated that the aerial work in this bid will also include the Bowen property, which is not part of this, but which will be used in the future. He explained that PBS&J did not wish to mention the costs past Phase I, but staff wanted the Board to have this information. Mr. Stivender stated that all of the costs are negotiable, as part of each phase.
Commr. Swartz stated again that this is significantly higher than the closure costs from other firms all around the State, which were around ten (10) percent, which would mean, on a $5,000,000.00 closure, the Board should be considering a cost of $400,000.00 to $600,000.00.
Mr. Stivender stated that, from the original estimate, the cost is down approximately by 20%.
Commr. Swartz stated that the cost is excessive, and he is not willing to approve the contract with PBS&J, knowing that it is over $810,000.00, but he is willing to go to the next qualified vendor.
Commr. Bailey stated that he had a problem with moving onto the second vendor, because the firms were ranked, and staff has gone through the negotiations, and he has a problem leaving this firm without some further negotiation. He stated that he is comfortable with the service that PBS&J has given the County.
It was noted that the Board was only considering Phase I, in the amount of $185,000.00, and all other phases are required to be negotiated.
Ms. Lustgarten explained the procedures used to rank the consultants, and stated that, if the Board cannot reach a negotiable price with the first ranked consultant, the Board will proceed to the second ranked consultant, but cannot go back to the first consultant.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved the Agreement between Lake County and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) for engineering services for the Astatula I Landfill closure, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $184,213.00, subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney.
The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Swartz voting "no".
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/STATE AGENCIES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the ratification of $20,100.00 payment to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for processing fees required for permitting the Lake County Solid Waste Management Facility.
Discussion occurred regarding the proposed resolution creating the Lake County Land Development Regulations Review Committee.
Commr. Hanson suggested that, on Page 1, the wording "residents of Lake County" be changed to "local citizens of Lake County".
Ms. Lustgarten referred to Page 3, and stated that she has made the term of the existence of the committee nine (9) months, because this is the anticipated time that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) will be completed.
After some discussion, the Board members suggested that the term be extended for one (1) year.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 2, Section 4. Membership, with the following changes being made:
1. Five (5) residents of Lake County, one appointed by each Commissioner.
2. Two (2) persons representing environmental interests.
3. Two (2) persons in areas of expertise relating to development of property.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the resolution, as amended above, and authorized the advertising of positions, to be brought back to the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution 1993-79 congratulating the South Lake Press for its 80 years of service to the community, to be signed by all Commissioners.
Discussion occurred regarding the creation of an ordinance to prohibit future siting of incineration facilities in Lake County.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the language in the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed, and if the language does not address this issue, it be considered as part of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He requested that Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, review the Comprehensive Plan and come back to the Board on June 1, 1993, with this information, and if the Plan does not address this issue in terms that are felt necessary, it may be considered as an amendment to the Plan and set out in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
It was noted that the Resolutions expressing gratitude and appreciation to Commr. Catherine C. Hanson, and to Lake County employees, in regards to the "unnamed storm", will be placed on the June 1, 1993, agenda, under personal appearances.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that a suit, Halaby as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert A. Malone, has been filed against the County, the City of Tavares, Sheriff of Lake County, and United Telephone Company, and has been referred to outside counsel.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board has authorized the drafting of ordinance to create the Housing Discrimination Ordinance for Lake County. The ordinance has to be in place before June 14, 1993, because that is when the County will be submitting the Community Development Block Grant. Therefore, a special meeting of the Board will be held on June 8, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., due to this being the advertised date for the ordinance.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that a workshop will be held on May 20, 1993, 9:00 a.m., to review the current status of the Solid Waste Haulers negotiations. It was noted that this will be advertised as a special meeting, in order to take public comment.
Mr. Wahl stated that a time certain will need to be set to review the results of the Solid Waste Haulers negotiations on June 1, 1993. It was noted that the workshop on the final contract negotiations will be scheduled for 3:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIME CERTAIN
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BONDS/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the revised contract with Ernst & Young for the calculation of arbitrage rebate on the $70,000.00 Adjustable Tender Resource Recovery Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1988A.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PURCHASING
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following:
A. 1. Approval of ATEC's recommendation to award the asbestos
abatement contract to Samurai Construction Company
in the amount of $72,800.00 and ATEC's cost for
monitoring the work in the amount of $21,475.00;
encumber and expend a total of $94,275.00.
B. 2. Request for approval of specifications, quotes,
encumbering funds previously authorized, payments
to be made and other services that do not require
bids or quotes, as follows:
(C) Award Bids, and Proposals and Issue Purchase Orders and/or
DIVISION/DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM AMOUNT
1) SOLID WASTE Authorization to Award $285,051.00
Bid #B-5-3-57, Lake
County Solid Waste
Management Facility Phase
II-B Excavation to Prince
Contracting Company Inc.
Authorize Chairman to
execute the contract
pending County Attorney's
approval and authorize
the encumbrance and
expenditure of necessary
funds, and issue a
Purchase Order to the
bidder. Savings between
the high and low bid is
This is a time sensitive
project due to the
Consent Order with the
State of Florida,
requiring the closure of
the Astatula Landfill.
E) Authorization to Waive Bid Requirements and Issue Purchase
Orders for Services or Commodities that are Not Bid or Quoted,
or if they are OEM.
DIVISION/DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF ITEM AMOUNT
2) PUBLIC WORKS Issue Purchase Order/ $15,000.00
Mike's Diesel Services Estimated
for the emergency repair
of a 1982 Caterpillar D6-
Dozer. This is the
County's only Dozer used
for clay road Maintenance
District #1. It is
essential that downtime
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Ms. Denise Wolfe Anastasia and Mr. Billy G. Spikes to the Industrial Development Council (IDA).
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved Proclamation 1993-82 declaring May as Law Enforcement Month.
ADDENDUM NO. 2
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to negotiate an Agreement with SCS Engineers for engineering services for the Lady Lake Landfill closure.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
At this time, Commr. Swartz called for public comments, or questions, with it being noted that no one wished to appear before the Board.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK