The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 21, 1994, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton C. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Don Bailey. Others present were: James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance & Audit Department; Frank Gaylord, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Hanson stated that there would be one change to the order of the agenda. The request from We Care of Lake County, Inc. would be brought forward and considered after the Clerk's items.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, requested that Tab 2 regarding the proposed Settlement on E. O. Roper Trusts v. Lake County, Case No. 91-931, be pulled from the agenda and continued. It was noted that the item had been scheduled as a public hearing, and therefore, would be handled as scheduled, with the request by Mr. Gaylord being considered at that time.
MINUTES
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of May 17, 1994, Regular Meeting, with the following changes being made:
Page 16 - Lines 16-17 - Delete: It was noted that this item would be placed back on the agenda, once the position was filled.
Page 19 - Line 17 - Add: legislative intent of the legislation
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 17, 1994, Regular Meeting, as amended.
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed
List of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Clerical Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Bonds - Contractor
Request to approve the following Contractor Bonds:
New
5302-94 Trident Roofing of Ocala Inc. (Roofing)
5304-94 Kenneth W. Soday & Co., Inc. (Electrical)
4894-95 Bentley Pinder Sr. dba Bentley Pinder Construction
(Residential Contractor)
5303-95 Jeff Hammond dba J. Hammond Electric (Electrical)
5299-96 Victor Summers (Swimming Pool Mait. & Repair)
Accounts Allowed/Assessments
Request to approve and authorize proper signatures on the following Satisfaction of Assessment Liens:
Mount Plymouth
Michael P. Lynd $ 743.01
Michael Lynd 743.01
Michel P. Lynd 755.09
Carlton W. Lawson 758.49
Carlton W. Lawson 758.49
Carlton W. & Geneva Lawson 758.49
Walton W. Rushing 633.58
Walton W. Rushing 332.31
Coanca Trading Corp. 618.12
James M. & Mildred G. Smith 867.45
James M. & Mildred G. Smith 621.60
James M. & Mildred G. Smith 580.17
Fleet Mortgage Brokers, I. 623.79
Fleet Mortgage Brokers, I. 635.16
Donald A. Griffey & Melanie A. Griffey 627.67
Donald A. Griffey & Melanie A. Griffey 628.99
Donald A. Griffey & Melanie A. Griffey 500.29
John Curtiss Grant & Donna B. Jewell 619.98
John Curtiss Grant & Donna B. Jewell 620.48
Raymond Carrillo, Jr. 623.04
Gerald W. Devlin 632.64
Coanca Trading Corp. 624.36
Coanca Trading Corp. 618.01
Coanca Trading Corp. 618.12
Albert F. Quercetti 625.67
John & Leslie Puik 2,309.70
Ike Avenue - Hilltop Subdivision
Joann & Merrill D. Smith $1,557.05
Astor Forest Campsites
Betty J. & George R. Parker $1,558.62
Warren F. & Madlyn M. Field 1,233.12
Lake Crescent View Development
Frances R. Myers $ 684.77
William R. & Rosalie Myers 8,948.99
Clark Avenue
Marsha K. & Wm. W. Young $1,262.10
Howey Subdivision
James G. & Renee A. Stearns $2,844.22
Sorrento Shores Subdivision
S & K Realty $2,880.40
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges
Request to approve and authorize proper signatures on the following Satisfaction of Judgment:
State of Florida vs. Julienne Massad,
Case No. 92-204-MM-A-01-01, in the amount of $75.00.
Municipalities/Ordinances
Request to acknowledge receipt of the City of Mascotte Ordinance No. 253 adopted March 14, 1994, Ordinance No. 254 adopted April 11, 1994, and Ordinance No. 255 adopted April 11, 1994, with each ordinance annexing certain described real property into the City of Mascotte upon the voluntary petition of the owner of all property within the area to be annexed filed with the City of Mascotte by Charles E. Bradshaw.
Municipalities/Resolutions
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Leesburg Resolution No. 4767 annexing enclaves to the City of Leesburg, which was adopted May 23, 1994.
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, Month Ending May 31, 1994. (Disbursements made to Board: $121,831.49) (Same period last year: $116,176.41)
Audits/State Agencies
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Southwest Florida Water Management District Report No. 12299, an operational performance audit for fiscal year October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1992.
Municipalities/Ordinances
Request to acknowledge receipt of the City of Clermont Miscellaneous Ordinance No. 267-M, providing for the annexation of a certain parcel of land contiguous to the present City boundaries adopted May 24, 1994.
State Agencies/Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Florida Public Service Commission Notice of Workshop to discuss staff's proposed amendment of Rules 25-4.057 through 25-4.065, F.A.C., relating to Extended Area Service (EAS), on Tuesday, June 28, 1994, 9:30 a.m., at 101 East Gaines Street, Room 106, Fletcher Building, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0870.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
COMMUNITY SERVICES/COMMITTEES/RESOLUTIONS
Dr. Tully Patrowicz, We Care of Lake County, Inc., appeared before the Board and presented copies of several newspaper printings that had been made regarding the We Care Program. Dr. Patrowicz explained that this meeting was the result of years of work and cooperative effort between the Lake County Medical Society, the physicians of Lake County, the four County hospitals, the County Commission, the County's Health Officer, Dr. John Pelosie, and the Northlake Hospital Tax District Board chaired by Reverend Terry Jackson. Dr. Patrowicz stated that the signing of the Agreement between Lake County and We Care of Lake County, Inc. would provide Lake County with a program that would allow eligible citizens to have ready access to medical, surgical, and hospital health care that was offered in Lake County. He addressed the design of the program, which would provide health care to the uninsured and to the under-insured, and which would provide free medical, surgical and hospital care to those individuals. Dr. Patrowicz stated that the We Care program was linked with the new Lake County Comprehensive Health Care Committee. He expressed appreciation, in behalf of the Lake County Medical Society, for the help and advisory support of the many individuals, agencies and organizations, locally, statewide and nationally in this effort.
Commr. Hanson commended Dr. Patrowicz for the work that he had done and his efforts for bringing all of the different participants together in a true partnership for the community.
Commr. Swartz addressed the proposed Agreement, which indicated an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 per annum, and questioned whether the program would get started this fiscal year, and whether funding would be needed.
Dr. Patrowicz indicated that support would be needed between now and September 30, 1994.
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she had received an anonymous donated amount of $50,000.00 that would go toward the We Care program, with $25,000.00 being allotted for this year, and $25,000.00 allotted for next year.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the excess funds in the Medicaid Hospital Account be appropriated to the program this year, instead of using those monies in the General Fund Contingency.
Dr. Patrowicz explained that the funds for hospitals typically indicate a shortfall, with the hospitals being left with the expense of indigent care that was not being funded.
Discussion occurred regarding several of the hospital accounts in the budget, which are reflecting a possible surplus this year, with it being noted that, if there was a shortfall at some time during the year within these accounts, the County would appropriate monies from the General Fund Contingency Account.
Commr. Gerber addressed the proposed Agreement, Page 3, Section 3. d., which referred to the in-kind items that would be provided to We Care by the County Public Health Unit, and questioned whether those items could be itemized, to show that these items are over and above the $50,000.00.
Dr. John Pelosie was present and indicated that he would be able to prepare such a list of items, as requested by Commr. Gerber.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, for the Board to approve the Agreement between Lake County and We Care of Lake County, Inc., to transfer funds in the amount of $50,000.00, and to encumber and expend such funds.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned whether the motion could include using the excess balance funds from the monthly Medicaid Hospital bill, realizing that, if necessary, the Board would utilize General Fund Contingency.
Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Bailey agreed to include the wording provided by Commr. Swartz in their motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution Creating the Lake County Comprehensive Health Care Committee.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COURTS-JUDGES/RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS & EASEMENTS
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board on the proposed settlement for the Steinhauer v. Bradford and Lake County Case No. 91-142-CA-01. Mr. Hoban stated that this was a case of a large lot split approved by the County where the County requested that Mr. Bradford, the individual who was doing the large lot split, give an easement to the property. The easement was given over Mr. Steinhauer's property without permission, which started the lawsuit. The County was sued, because it was the Grantee on the Easement. Mr. Hoban noted that the lawsuit would have no impact to the County, and would only require that the County consider a vacation easement, just like any other easement, and that the Board of Adjustment consider taking a publicly dedicated easement and making it a private easement, as any other variance request. Mr. Hoban noted that there would be no dollar impact to the County.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Settlement Agreement seems to be reasonable, in terms of the County's position in the lawsuit. He requested that staff come back with recommendations as to how to change the review process, so that the County does not get into this same type of situation again.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the proposed settlement agreement in Case No. 91-142-CA-01, Steinhauer v. Bradford and Lake County, and instructed staff to bring back recommendations as to how to avoid future easement debates of this type.
COURTS-JUDGES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, requested that the proposed settlement regarding the E. O. Roper Trusts v. Lake County, Case No. 91-931-CA-01, be postponed until a time certain, July 19, 1994, so that the public hearing would not have to be readvertised.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rob Marilyn, Cobb Cole & Bell, appeared before the Board representing the Ropers in the case. Mr. Marilyn explained that the additional time was being requested, so that he could have the opportunity to talk to several individuals who are a part of the trust, and who he had not been able to contact. Mr. Marilyn apologized for the delay, but explained that he wanted to provide the Board with a fully completed stipulation.
Commr. Swartz requested that, before the proposed settlement agreement was brought back to the Board, the County Attorney's Office inform the Board members more specifically as to what request was being made of the County, and the steps that the Board was being requested to take in this agreement.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the postponement of the public hearing regarding the proposed settlement in Case No. 91-931-CA-01, E. O. Roper Trusts v. Lake County, until July 19, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/COURTS-JUDGES/CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, addressed the Board on the proposed settlement of the Wiggins v. Lake County Case No. 93-2130-CA-01. It was noted that the case went to mediation, with the outcome being a settlement agreement in the amount of $22,500.00 and a mediator's fee estimated at $600.00, all to be paid by the County.
Discussion occurred regarding the disciplinary action that was taken with the County employee who was involved in the case. Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained that, under the County's existing policy, every accident that occurs is investigated and a recommendation is made to the employee's department director and supervisor as to any changes that need to be made. Mr. Wahl noted that, in this particular case, disciplinary action was taken.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the proposed settlement in Case No. 93-2130-CA-01, Wiggins v. Lake County, in the amount of $22,500.00, and an estimated mediator's fee of $600.00, with the total fees being paid by the County.
TIMES CERTAIN
REPORTS/ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, referred to the agenda item regarding discussion of the Sunshine Pipeline Company Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline and explained that yesterday he was informed by the State that the eight miles in the middle of Lake County would not be improved anytime in the foreseeable future, because there are title problems on the eight miles. In addition, Sunshine informed him this morning that they have additional information on the placement of Rails to Trails. Mr. Hoban stated that the County has a legal requirement to file by June 24, 1994, a report that would detail all of the issues Lake County had about the proposed Sunshine Trail. Mr. Hoban informed the Board that there was a proposed three page report in the backup material that could be modified between now and June 24, 1994. The overall recommendation would be approval with conditions, which would include Sunshine obtaining clear title to the Van Fleet Trail and granting the State of Florida and/or Lake County an easement or lease over the property. Mr. Hoban stated that there were questions about whether or not the Federal Government would be assisting in the funding, therefore, he put into the report a requirement that Sunshine would pave the surface to the latest Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) trail standards.
Commr. Swartz stated that there may be people present for the Consent Agenda items and suggested that the Board deal with this part of the agenda, in order to save those individuals some time.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, addressed Tab 14 and clarified that Waterman Hospital had identified what it was planning on providing for its portion of the "health fair", which would be held at the Agricultural Center.
Mr. Wahl addressed Tab 15, which was a request to go out for "request for proposals" for the health insurance, which had come as a recommendation from the Review Committee. A Committee was being recommended to review the proposed plans, and it had been suggested that Commr. Cadwell serve on the Committee, because he had served on the Insurance Committee last year.
Commr. Cadwell requested that Tab 14 be pulled for further discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved Tabs 9-28, for the following requests, with the exception of Tab 14, which was pulled for further discussion:
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers/Resolutions
A. Budget Transfers
1. Fund: General
Department: Sheriff/In-House Support
From: Contingency $5,320
To: Operating Expenses $5,320
Transfer #: 94-0206
2. Fund: General
Department: Office of Human Resources
Division: Personnel
From: Contingency $12,000
To: Operating Expenses $12,000
Transfer #: 94-0205
3. Fund: Sales Tax Capital Projects
Department: Office of Facilities & Capital
Improvements
Division: Capital Improvements
From: Capital Outlay $73,195
To: Capital Outlay $73,195
Transfer #: 94-0217
B. Resolutions
Request to approve Resolution requesting that the General Fund for Fiscal Year 1993/94 be amended in the amount of $4,040.00, in order to receive unanticipated revenue from Concealed Weapons applications.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Community Services
Probation/Municipalities
Request to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Community Services Program Agreement Between Lake county and City of Tavares for the Division of Probation Court Services of Lake County.
Community Services
Request to approve to co-sponsor annual Showcase of Senior Services with the Retired & Senior Volunteer Program on November 18, 1994.
Accounts Allowed/Ambulances-Hospitals/Community Services
Request to approve payment of monthly medicaid hospital bill in the amount of $31,325.41, and the medicaid nursing home bill in the amount of $41,830.39 for the month of April.
Accounts Allowed/Ambulances-Hospitals/Community Services
Request to approve payment to Shands Hospital for a Lake County resident under the Health Care Responsibility act for an inpatient hospital stay. Total expended: $14,852.60.
Insurance/Human Resources
Request to approve to go out for "request for proposals" for the County's Group Health and Life and Optional Insurance Plans, i.e. Long Term Disability.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning & Development
Mobile Homes
Request to accept and execute an Agreement Between Board of County Commissioners and Gail A. Bori for Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use to place a mobile home on property located on Palm Avenue while constructing a conventional home - Commissioner District 3.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deed:
Arthur Brew
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivisions
Request to approve final plat of Highland Lakes, Phase 3, and accept a Subdivision Bond in the amount of $807,405.00, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities/Airports
Request to approve and authorize Chairman to sign First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Between Lake County and City of Leesburg Relating to Provision of Funds from the County Transportation Trust Fund for Improvements at the Leesburg Municipal Airport.
Road Projects/Landfills/Public Services
Request to approve and execute Change Order No. 1 to Project No. 1-94, Countywide Resurfacing, to add the paving of the Astatula Landfill Parking Lot, in the amount of $3,076.26 - Commissioner District 3.
Road Vacations/Municipalities
Request to approve to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 761 by John & Mary Priebe and Jeffrey Dowman to vacate road, Clermont Farms, Sec. 11, Twp. 23, Rge. 25, South Clermont Area - Commissioner District 2.
Road Vacations/Municipalities
Request to approve to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 762 by James P. Panico, President, Revest II, Inc. to vacate right-of-way, Sec. 32, Twp. 19, Rge. 28, Mt. Plymouth Area - Commissioner District 4.
Roads-County & State/Municipalities
Request to approve the temporary closing of Main Street from Canal Street to 7th Street in Leesburg, November 5, 1994, for the purpose of an Auto Show.
Roads-County & State/Resolutions/Signs
Request to approve the posting of "Speed Limit" signs in the Okahumpka area on the following roads: S. Pelican Isle Dr. (2-3211), N. Pelican Isle Dr. (2-3211A), W. Pelican Isle Dr. (2-3211B), Magnolia Dr. (1-3410A), Palm Dr. (1-3410), English Rd. (1-3511), Alta St. (1-3511B), Cocovia Way (1-3511C), Porto Bellow Av. (1-3511D), and La Salido Way (1-3511A).
Roads-County & State/Resolutions/Signs
Request to approve the posting of "Speed Limit" signs in the Dona Vista area on the following roads: Lenord St. (5-6759), Wallace St. (5-6960A), Third St. (5-6860), Eustis Pl. (5-6859B), Second St. (5-6859), Florida Av. (5-6959A), Michigan Av. (5-6859C) and Washington Av. (5-6860B).
Roads-County & State/Resolutions/Signs
Request to approve the posting of "Speed Limit" signs in the Fruitland Park area on the following roads: Woodside Dr. (1-5310), Griffin Dr. (1-5310C), Spanish Av. (1-5310B), Moss Av. (1-5310A), N. Lakeview Av. (1-5410) and Grove Av. (1-5410A).
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deed:
Levan Smith and Wilhelmina Smith
Virgil Hawkins Circle #2-3209A
Appointments-Resignations/Committees
Request to approve the appointment of Ms. Denise Wolfe Anastasia to the Lake County Sports Committee under the category of member of the Industrial Development Authority.
TIMES CERTAIN
REPORTS/ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Commr. Swartz recognized Mr. Steve Palmer, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), who is the siting coordinator for the project being presented by Sunshine Pipeline Company.
Mr. Erik V. Korzilius, Attorney representing Sunshine Pipeline Company, appeared before the Board and stated that members of the Sunshine Pipeline Company have met with DEP, the Division of Recreation and Parks, and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) regarding the Van Fleet Trail coordination issue. He noted that, at the last meeting with the Board, Sunshine had attempted to coordinate with DEP, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the spending of the ISTEA funds for the repaving of the Van Fleet Trail, and other enhancements of the Trail through the proposed usage of the Trail through Lake County. Mr. Korzilius stated that Mr. Dave Jones, Ecology and Environment, was one of the members that met with SWFWMD and the Division of Recreation and Parks.
Mr. Dave Jones, Ecology and Environment, an environmental consulting firm, appeared before the Board and stated that, on June 14, 1994, he met with the representatives from the different agencies, as indicated above, along with the representatives from Sunshine Pipeline Company, regarding the Van Fleet Trail, and the objective was to discuss construction alternatives, or options. There were two scenarios discussed: 1) if the ISTEA monies were released and the Trail was paved before Sunshine was allowed to place the pipe in the Trail right-of-way, a temporary easement would be granted by SWFWMD in the SWFWMD lands adjacent to the west of the Van Fleet Trail for construction purposes, and the pipeline itself would still remain, or be placed in the right-of-way of the Trail; 2) or, if ISTEA funding could be delayed for the construction of the pipeline, the Trail could be placed first and then whatever conditions the Division of Recreation and Parks wanted could be done after the pipeline was laid. In regards to this option, he was told that the guarantee to delay ISTEA funding had to be made by August, and even if it was delayed, it would only be delayed for one year. Mr. Jones stated that the construction timetable for Sunshine Pipeline would have to consist of Scenario 2. Mr. Jones stated that all of the options are being investigated. He noted that the representative from SWFWMD had indicated that the agency would be willing to listen to proposals for a temporary construction easement through their lands, which could possibly involve, at the most, 50 feet adjacent to the Van Fleet Trail right-of-way, and they would be looking for innovative construction techniques through some of the more pristine cypress swamps that would be traversed. Mr. Jones noted that this had been looked at favorably by all of the parties, and stated that he was continuing to follow that option; however, in order to give SWFWMD the detailed analysis for the construction techniques, his company needed to finish its environmental surveys along the Van Fleet Trail, delineate wetlands, and identify threatened and endangered species. Mr. Jones stated that the representative from the Division of Recreation and Parks had pointed out to him that there was a Phase I and a Phase II construction proposed, and that it was Sunshine Pipeline's understanding at the meeting, if the Trail was paved, it would be paved the entire length, but the Division of Recreation and Parks' representative brought up the point that there are eight (8) miles in the middle of the Trail that cannot be paved, because of title problems. At this time, Mr. Jones explained, in more detail, how the title problems came about. Through the discussions between the different agencies, it was determined that Sunshine Pipeline's proposal would consist of the placement of pipeline on the west side of the existing trail, either within the drainage ditch on the west side of the trail embankment, or to the west of the ditch. This would allow the trees to remain along the west berm of the trail, which was a major concern of the Division of Recreation and Parks, and it would allow revegetation, if some trees had to be removed. Mr. Jones indicated that discussion occurred regarding the pipeline being reviewed from the air, however, the Division of Recreation and Parks had indicated that there could be rangers observing the site. He stated that the permanent right-of-way to be cleared could be narrowed considerably to allow canopy covers to be developed over the right-of-way and Trail. Mr. Jones noted that all of these issues were discussed, but nothing was committed to by any party. He also indicated that other issues were brought up for discussion including access availability.
Mr. Korzilius stated that, in response to the request from Commr. Swartz at the last meeting, Sunshine Pipeline submitted additional information regarding the various provisions that he would be asking of the Governor's Cabinet including a variance exemption, or exception, which Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management would review, and to supplement any memos that would be provided to the County Commissioners. He stated that Sunshine Pipeline had attempted to address as many of the issues as possible.
Commr. Hanson questioned the amount of property taxes that might be generated from the pipeline being constructed.
Mr. Korzilius stated that, based on the application, approximately $200,000.00 per year in ad valorem taxes would be generated in Lake County by the pipeline.
Commr. Hanson stated that the County was looking for funding sources for Rails to Trails, and she would like to see, if this project goes through, and if this would be a decision by the Board, that this amount of money be designated to the Rails to Trails projects in Lake County.
Mr. Korzilius stated that the only land that Sunshine Pipeline uses in Lake County would be the Trail, and because there would be no continuing impact, once the pipeline was in the ground, this would be a very wise decision.
Commr. Hanson stated that, in addition to the property taxes, there would be intangible taxes, which could amount to a substantial amount in taxes for Lake County.
Mr. Korzilius addressed the concerns of maintenance of the pipeline brought forth by Commr. Gerber and explained the review process and the coordination that would exist between the Division of Recreation and Parks and Sunshine Pipeline.
Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management, was present and indicated that he had no further information to add to the discussion.
Mr. Korzilius informed the Board that, after talking with Sumter County's County Attorney, a Stipulation Agreement had been entered into between Sumter County and Sunshine Pipeline, and Sunshine Pipeline was waiting for the signed Agreement.
Mr. Hoban clarified that the Board had before it a Report, with conditions in the back of the Report, Page 2, (7-11), which are the same conditions agreed upon by Sumter County.
Mr. Korzilius addressed Sunshine Pipeline's position with Polk County and noted that he feels Polk County would be adopting a Report that lays out some specific conditions and areas of agreement similar to the one Lake County was proposing.
Mr. Steve Palmer, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Project Coordinator for the State on this particular project, appeared before the Board to speak on any issue that might need to be addressed from the State's perspective. Mr. Palmer noted that Sunshine Pipeline filed its application in July, 1993. He explained the application process, in its general concept, as opposed to the standard permitting process. The process was an attempt to bring all of the permitting into one document, which would include all permitting at the State level and all permitting at the local level. Mr. Palmer stated that the report needed to be submitted at the end of the week and needed to address all of the permitting issues that would normally be addressed, if the County was going to be permitting this project itself. It would need to contain any requirements or stipulations to address any concerns about this particular project, and this information would be included in a single report with everyone's comments and recommendations. Mr. Palmer stated that he would be responsible for putting this report together and making a recommendation regarding the disposition of the project, which would be submitted to a Hearing Officer. There would then be an Administrative Hearing and an opportunity for a series of public hearings. Mr. Palmer noted that the State had an Acting Hearing Officer, at this time, that would be handling the case, until a permanent one was assigned. The report was due to the Division of Administrative Hearing on August 18, 1994. The report would include all of the conditions that would be imposed upon Sunshine Pipeline for construction, if there was a recommendation for approval. It would also include all of the requirements for additional reviews after certification. Mr. Palmer stated that, prior to the hearing, anyone who wished to file with DEP an alternate corridor would need to file it 50 days prior to the hearing. Since there was no date scheduled at this time for the hearing, the date was uncertain. Once the Hearing Officer had received the testimony of all concerned parties, he would write a recommended order to DEP for review, and would either concur or disagree with the recommended order, and it would be submitted to the Governor or the Cabinet, which would have a hearing and final vote regarding the disposition of the construction of the pipeline.
Mr. Hoban explained that it was the County's impression that the whole Trail was going to be paved, and he did not find out until yesterday that the eight miles would not be included.
Commr. Swartz explained that, through his discussion with Mr. Palmer about the process that he earlier described, instead of the County entering into an agreement where a lot of policies are waived, DEP would allow the County an extension of time to submit a report indicating its concerns.
Mr. Palmer stated that there have been several requests for extensions on time, of one to two weeks to allow additional work to be done on the report, so if the County needed more time, he suggested that the County Attorney write Mr. Charles Guillet, his attorney, a document requesting an extension.
Commr. Swartz addressed the issue of an alternate corridor and questioned whether DEP had analyzed whether or not there are alternate corridors.
Mr. Palmer responded that DEP would not be looking at alternate corridors unless someone else submited them.
Ms. Nancy Edwards, Division of Recreation and Parks (referred to as the Division), Gainesville, appeared before the Board to present the Division's opinion on the proposed project. Ms. Edwards stated that Sunshine Pipeline has identified alternate corridors, and those would be State Road 33, which the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had expressed an interest in not following, and the other corridor would be through the Green Swamp area. Being that the Trail was an abandoned rail corridor and had been previously impacted, and was through an area of critical concern (Green Swamp area), she stated that the Division sees very little reason for it not to follow a corridor that had already been impacted. Ms. Edwards stated that the Division believed it was a good project, and it provided alternative energy sources, as well as other things for the County and State. The Division had set up concerns as far as mitigation and having a say on the construction techniques, replanting, maintenance, etc. It had also setup some conditions on timetables that would allow the Division to use the ISTEA funding, and since it was in a Federal funding coffer, if it was not used this year, the funds could be lost, or other projects could use the funding. The conditions setup by the Division for Sunshine Pipeline included Sunshine having a report with conditions and comments on the impacts to the trails, to be received by August 15, 1994; guarantees by the Division that funding agencies to defer the development funds until the pipeline construction was complete must be received by August 15, 1994; and Sunshine Pipeline must meet schedules to complete the project on the Trail by June, 1995. Ms. Edwards discussed the ownership of the parcels within the eight mile area and stated that the Division has actually been under a title search for approximately 1 1/2 years. She stated that, once a clear title can be gained, this area would be paved during Phase II, which would be a year later. Ms. Edwards stated that the issue was discussed regarding using SWFWMD properties as a construction easement, so the pavement would not be impacted, and that it would be a viable alternative for Sunshine Pipeline to use the extra 50 feet of SWFWMD property, because it would be returned back to the original habitat. She explained that stipulations on a canopy were also discussed, and stated that the Trail would be monitored by an officer of the Division.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and stated that County Road 33 was north of Groveland, and State Road 33 was south of Groveland; however, in the Center for Urban Transportation Research Study (CUTR) Report, it was proposed to be transferred to the County. Mr. Stivender stated that the County was opposing the State Road 33 transfer.
Mr. Jess Livingston appeared before the Board and presented a brief outline of his knowledge for being able to speak on this issue. He stated that he became interested in pipeline construction and had become as knowledgeable as possible on pipeline construction, as it had laid dormant in the State of Florida for approximately 8-10 years. He stated that now the pipeline construction was getting ready to impact approximately 1,400 miles and approximately 16,000-30,000 acres of land. Mr. Livingston recommended that, on this issue before the Board today, the Board look at, or adopt by resolution, or take the necessary legal steps to make any and all pipeline construction in Lake County adhere to FDOT standards of road and bridge construction. He stated that another great concern involved the rising tide of public opinion. The County was going to have to make some concessions, but with the lines in place, it made available to the County and its utilities a cleaner, better, cheaper fuel force than coal and oil, which reduces one of the hidden and major pollutants, acid rain. Mr. Livingston recommended that the Board adopt an attitude with Sunshine Pipeline, from a nonadversarial basis with a good neighbor, of showing a willingness to make corrections and cooperate for a mutual benefit.
Mr. Hoban stated that the County could do a Motion for Continuance on the eve of the deadline, but if the Motion was denied, and the report was not filed, the County had missed its opportunity to file the report. Mr. Hoban stated that, even if the Motion was filed, it would still be prudent to file a report and simply say in the Motion that the County had the right to amend or revise the report. He stated that he would still need direction regarding the conditions.
Discussion occurred regarding compression station sites, which would not being going on line before 1998 in Florida. There would be one going on line in Mobile, Alabama.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had expressed two weeks ago the concerns about waiving certain Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan requirements, when, in fact, the Board did not really have information, because the comments made by Sunshine Pipeline indicate that they are a long way from knowing what was really going to happen. He stated that he had pictures of the project being placed in Levy County and the devastation that he saw adjacent to Highway 19. He further stated that the width and the clearing that took place in that effort really concerned him. Not withstanding the better record of Sunshine, as observed by Mr. Livingston earlier, Commr. Swartz stated that he still thought it would be imprudent for Lake County to go forward and enter into the type of agreement where the County would waive a lot of these areas when he feels there are still legitimate questions that need to be asked, and not in an adversarial relationship. Commr. Swartz stated that the Board needed to remain in the process, indicate first by forwarding a request for additional time, so that staff could more fully write up what they have already done, and forward to the DEP those areas where the Board continued to have questions and concerns that are related to waivers that may or may not be required by Sunshine Pipeline, and to continue to work with Sunshine Pipeline and DEP as they progress with the planning process. He indicated that the best way for Lake County to avoid a situation, such as the one in Levy County, was to stay involved with this planning process. Commr. Swartz stated that he was willing to go forward in a nonadversarial relationship, but stay involved in those areas where requests are being made for waivers of LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Palmer addressed the request that would be made by the County for an extension of time and stated that it was his decision for the County to make this request and therefore, the request would not be turned down. Mr. Palmer addressed the concerns regarding the Florida Gas constructions that were being made, and the monitoring of such activities and stated that DEP was currently trying to construct a procedure and method where DEP would have its own observers and inspectors on site with Sunshine Pipeline, or any other gas line that would be built hereafter. Mr. Palmer stressed that, if the Board had concerns, they must be placed in the report. He also requested that, if anyone becomes aware of a problem or an apparent violation, he should contact either the Water Management District Office, or any one of the district offices, so that an inspector can review the site and take the proper actions.
Discussion occurred regarding the extension of time, with it being noted that the Board would have this issue brought back on July 5, 1994.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff and the County Attorney's Office to forward a specific request to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), with the necessary request being made for a two week delay for the presentation of the County's information.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff to contact the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to further understand what type of format and information that needed to be provided, in order for the County to properly represent the particular Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan requirements that may be affected by this proposed project, and to bring this back to the Board at the first meeting in July, which would be July 5, 1994, so that the Board could be prepared to forward it to the DEP.
Commr. Swartz stated that Sunshine Pipeline had made themselves available to discuss the items on the phone, and had indicated that they want to do a better job, if in fact it does go down this particular corridor. The Board wants to be helpful in this process, but it also wants to be firm in the manner in which it is done, so that the result could be one that everyone accepted, but that the Board would go into it with a nonadversarial hopeful outcome.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/AMBULANCES-HOSPITAL DISTRICTS
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Commr. Cadwell indicated that he had reviewed the information regarding the request to sign an agreement with Florida Hospital/Waterman to conduct a "health fair" and had no further questions regarding the issue.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to sign the Agreement with Florida Hospital/Waterman to conduct a "health fair" for participants in our health plan and their spouses, to be held during working hours on Wednesday, August 3, 1994, and Thursday, August 4, 1994, for a fee not to exceed $1,500.00, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Commr. Hanson called for citizen questions and comments. There being no one present who wished to appear before the Board, the Chairman continued with the scheduled agenda.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/INFORMATION SERVICES
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director of Information Services, appeared before the Board to discuss Addendum 1 to the Agreement between Sprint United Telephone of Florida and Lake County for the Provision of Certain 911 Services. The request involved a total yearly savings of $68,780.40. Mr. Thorburn informed the Board that he had sent a letter to the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) requesting that they review his dispute on the existing issue of whether or not the County can be reimbursed for what he believes are redundant payments.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement between Sprint United Telephone of Florida and Lake County for the Provision of Certain 911 Services, for a total yearly savings in the amount of $68,780.40.
GRANTS/PUBLIC SERVICES
Mr. Craig Willis, Alternative Transportation Specialist, appeared before the Board to discuss the submission of Lake County's 1994 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act grant applications. Mr. Willis stated that the applications are due July 24, 1994 and will be reviewed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The projects would not be programmed for funding until Fiscal Year 1997/98. The ISTEA applications are for development funds for Phase II (Lake/Orange County Line to Minneola City limits) of the project and pre-acquisition and development funds for Phase III (Westerly city limits of Clermont through the cities of Groveland, Mascotte to the Lake/Sumter County Line) of the project.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not want the Board to do anything to delay the process being requested. He stated that he would like staff to come back with funding alternatives, and if necessary, using Public Financial Management (PFM), to determine funding alternatives for the entire trail. He stated that the County could not continue to use the capital improvement sales tax money, and the County needed to consider using Tourist Development Council (TDC) funding.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed on the funding source, because not only are capital improvements a problem, but she had a problem with opening up the TDC money to use for sources of tourism. She questioned whether the South Lake Trail would help to generate more money back into the TDC fund, which was the purpose of the bed tax. She stated that she had no question that the Trail would generate businesses and create a business impact and an economic impact, and there could be a significant impact over time. She indicated that she wanted staff to show a financial trail of the funding and how it would be tied back to the bed tax, because she feels that 40% for tourism was high. She stated that she looks at this issue as being more recreational. Commr. Hanson indicated that the figures needed to be provided to the TDC, in order to respond.
Commr. Bailey stated that he sees the Trail as more of a passive recreation and questioned the definition of active.
Commr. Cadwell felt that the Board had more or less endorsed the Trail whether it be active or passive and now it needed to determine how to pay for it. He requested that staff include looking at some kind of user fee, even though he did not think it could work on a trail that long, but that he wanted staff to confirm this thought from a staff level, as well as all other alternatives.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the Board needed to take action on the actual grant application, which requires a commitment of a local funding source, but does not require the County to identify that source.
Commr. Swartz discussed bicycling in Lake County, and stated that, with a trail like the South Lake Trail, it would only enhance that type of economic development which was tourism based. It was noted that the Rails and Trails Coordinating Committee and Mr. Willis are working to try and come up with as much statistical information as possible.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to authorize staff and the Chairman to sign the Lake County's 1994 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act grant applications for Phase II and Phase III of the South Lake Trail, and to forward them to the proper agencies for consideration.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell requested that the motion include that staff bring back funding alternatives.
Commr. Swartz agreed to include the request made by Commr. Cadwell in his motion, to ask staff to look at funding alternatives, and to include looking at perhaps, as the Board moves into this budget year, starting to put aside some funds, even General Revenue funds, for future development costs.
Commr. Hanson clarified that the tourism money should be a part of it, but that she did not feel the 40% was justifiable.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/GREEN SWAMP
Discussion occurred regarding the selection of names to be forwarded to the Governor for appointment to the Green Swamp Land Authority.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved for the following names to be forwarded to the Governor for appointment to the Green Swamp Land Authority:
Jane L. Geraci (District 2)
Ray Gilley (District 2)
Julia Faye Rogers (District 2)
Claude E. Smoak, Jr. (District 2)
The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Swartz voting "no".
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved for the following names to be forwarded to the Governor for appointment to the Green Swamp Land Authority:
Thomas J. Kelley (District 4)
Gerald B. Galbreath (District 1)
The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Hanson and Bailey voting "no".
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved for the following names to be forwarded to the Governor for appointment to the Green Swamp Land Authority:
Gerald B. Galbreath (District 1)
Jane L. Geraci (District 2)
Ray Gilley (District 2)
Julia Faye Rogers (District 2)
Claude E. Smoak, Jr. (District 2)
Thomas J. Kelley (District 4)
COURTS-JUDGES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, presented the request for approval of the form for engagement of hearing officers to be selected on a rotational basis as the need for hearing officers becomes necessary on vested rights issues. It was noted that both private individuals and governmental attorneys are anticipated in this process. The governmental attorneys would contribute their time in an exchange program with Lake County, and the Lake County Attorney's Office would provide the same benefit for our sister counties.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether this issue could be put together by rotating the governmental attorneys rather than having to enter into contracts for attorneys at high hourly rates.
Mr. Gaylord explained that the list would include public attorneys as well as private attorneys. Those that are public attorneys would be on a rotating basis.
Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted the emphasis placed on the governmental attorneys, so that the County shares the cost of the hearing officers. He stated that he did not want to see the Board get into a program, if this was going to be a costly program of paying attorneys to come and hear the vested rights determinations, and that he would rather see the Board continue to hear them. Commr. Swartz explained that all of the staff employees would be involved with the hearings, just as they currently are involved, and the Board would be creating a new cost to do this program, and unless the filing fee was going to be increased, it would be an additional expense. He stated that he would like to see the Board go forward with this issue and use governmental attorneys to see whether the program would work. If it could not, then the Board needs to come back and get some kind of budget for the costs.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained that there was a staff cost involved, but there was a potential new cost involved over and above the filing fee, which was unknown. He stated that a hearing officer tends to restrict the time that it takes to hear such cases.
Commr. Bailey felt that the Board should continue to hear such cases and to make the tough decisions, because this was the capacity in which the Board was intended to serve the public.
Discussion occurred regarding the hourly rates that could possibly be charged by an attorney versus the extensive hours that the Board had served in hearing such cases.
Mr. Gaylord suggested that the Board approve the form for the purpose of engaging one hearing officer, which would be a governmental attorney, because there was one vested rights determination that the County needed to proceed to hear.
Commr. Swartz stated that he still supported the suggestion made by Commr. Cadwell, to try this procedure to see how it works, and that he had no problem going forward with a proposal that initially uses governmental attorneys on a rotating basis, in order to determine the problems that may exist and the potential costs, if the Board later decided to go with public/private attorneys. He stated that he had no problem with the Board sitting and hearing such cases, but he was willing to try this procedure for the vested rights cases.
Mr. Wahl explained that the difference between a vested rights hearing and other evidentiary hearings was that there are restrictions under laws as to what can be considered, which was difficult for "lay" people, and which was why the recommendation came forward originally.
It was noted that there was not a distinction made between governmental and private attorney in the form being proposed, but would be so stated at the direction of the Board.
Commr. Hanson expressed that she shared Commr. Bailey's concern about strictly using governmental attorneys, which share the same views from county to county, and not looking out for the private interest, but that this would probably be the best direction to take at this time.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board approved the Vested Rights Hearing Officer Agreement with the wording to include only public (governmental) attorneys.
The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Bailey voting "no".
STATE AGENCIES/COURTS-JUDGES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, presented an update on the Department of Community Affairs, and Frederick A. and Janet B. Brady v. Lake County, DOAH Case Number 94-0163GM. Mr. Gaylord stated that the information he had provided to the Board included a proposed Comprehensive Plan change to policy along with some criteria dealing with "kennels" in the Wekiva. He stated that this had basically been signed off by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as being acceptable.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, appeared before the Board and stated that the County had until the time of the scheduled Administrative Hearings, September 27, 1994 and September 28, 1994, to amend the Land Development Regulations. One amendment was for the purpose of removing "kennel" from being a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as it was stated in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) in the Wekiva; the second amendment was to remove "research facility" as part of the definition of "kennel". Mr. Knight explained that correspondence had been received from DCA acknowledging that they have some willingness to allow for a "breeding and raising of own stock kennel" in the Wekiva Protection Area provided that this was proceeded forth through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and that the LDR was amended to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Knight stated that the Board had two options, as follows: 1) strike "kennel" from the LDRs and remove "research facility" from the definition of "kennel" and pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment; and at a later time, 2) pursue a definition of "breeding and raising own stock" for kennel and place conditions on it, and during the next Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would identify "kennels for breeding and raising own stock" and how they would be allowed in the Wekiva Protection Area under a CUP, and also prepare a LDR amendment that would remove "research facility" from "kennel" and incorporate a reference to the Comprehensive Plan amendment that would provide for those "kennels" in the Wekiva, with the effective date being the date that the Comprehensive Plan amendment was found in compliance with DCA. Mr. Knight noted that the recommendation from the Animal Control Ordinance Committee was that there be one definition of "kennel", which includes both breeding and boarding.
Commr. Swartz addressed the definition established by the Animal Control Ordinance Committee for "kennel", which indicated no distinction between a breeding or boarding kennel. The Committee found that a "kennel", with all of those types of uses, was a commercial enterprise, and in the Wekiva, although limited, there are commercial zonings that were vested. Once the Committee had established the definitions, it would consider the chart that had been established for the LDRs that show land use and zoning designations and make a recommendation as to where these things may be allowable and under what circumstances.
Commr. Hanson expressed her concern with the Board agreeing to language, at this point in time, without the definitions from the Animal Control Ordinance Committee.
Mr. Knight explained that it was his understanding that DCA would only accept a "kennel" club in the Wekiva, if there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment identifying which "kennels" would be allowed in the Wekiva. At this point in time, the County was under an obligation to amend the LDRs to remove the general definition of "kennel" in the Wekiva under a CUP, and amend the definition of "kennel". Once this had been processed, the County could also process a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would specify what DCA finds acceptable to breeding and raising of all stock.
Commr. Swartz informed the Board that the Animal Control Ordinance Committee was licensed until the end of the year. The Committee would come forward with its recommendations, the Board would ultimately decide what it wants in the ordinance, and then the Board, based on what it decides in the ordinance with regards to the definition of "kennels", and "breeding and boarding", etc., would be in a position to make any planned amendments that it thought would be appropriate based on the action it had taken.
Commr. Hanson explained that she had a concern as to how kennels are going to impact the Wekiva Basin in a more negative way environmentally than other areas throughout the County.
Commr. Swartz explained that the Animal Control Ordinance Committee had eliminated any reference made to the number of cats or dogs. He stated that the Board needed to amend the LDRs to exclude "kennels" from the Wekiva Protection Area and exclude the "research facilities" from the definition, in order to eliminate the need for the Administrative Hearing, and let the Committee come forward with its Animal Control Ordinance with definitions and land use locations, and let this Board decide what it wanted in the ordinance. Once this had been done, the Comprehensive Plan could be amended, as necessary, to include the Wekiva Protection Area.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to instruct staff to prepare amendments to the LDRs to exclude "kennels" in the Wekiva River Protection Area and exclude "research facilities" from the definition of "kennel".
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson expressed her concern with the ambiguity between excluding kennels in the Wekiva Protection Area and the definitions to be drawn up, not so much from the Animal Control Ordinance Committee's point of view, but from DCA's point of view.
Commr. Swartz explained that staff had indicated that the Wekiva River Protection amendment does not keep someone from putting a kennel in a commercially zoned area.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like the motion to be amended to exclude "in areas that are not zoned commercial."
Discussion occurred regarding the suggested amendment to the motion, with Mr. Gaylord explaining that the County would still have the inconsistency.
Mr. Knight referred to the LDR, which clarified that kennels are allowed in the Wekiva Basin in commercially zoned properties.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
COUNTY PROPERTY/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, informed the Board that Small Business Administration (SBA) had approved the closing on the portion of property which Carroll Fulmer had purchased at the Industrial Park. The State of Florida had requested that the $74,000.00 deferred payment be put in a third place position behind the other two financial institutions that are funding the project.
Mr. Alvin Jackson, Director of Economic Development, addressed the Board and noted the following amounts of funding for the Carroll Fulmer project: 1) $1,088,214.00 - SBA; 2) $899,000.00 - State of Florida; and 3) $74,000.00 - Lake County.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved for the $74,000.00 deferred payment, in regards to the Carroll Fulmer property at the Industrial Park, be placed in the third place position behind the other two financial institutions that are funding the project, as stated above.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m. for the completion of the Board's agenda.
REPORTS/COUNTY MANAGER
Commr. Swartz discussed the issue regarding the Board making requests for information from staff to be brought back to the Board for discussion. He suggested that Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, develop some type of format for a Manager's Report, so that the Board could stay informed on issues.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS
Commr. Hanson brought up for the discussion the Retreat Sessions and the Value Statements and priorities established at those meetings by the Board. She questioned whether the Board wanted to establish a date for another Retreat Session, or schedule two more meetings.
Commr. Swartz stated that there may not be a need for two meetings to be scheduled, as suggested. If the Board was going to continue with the meetings, he suggested that it might be more appropriate to have some type of workshop with the Board before going into the details of the budget workshop, so that the Board could prioritize what it wants to see, which would be filtered down through County management. Commr. Swartz stated the he was not inclined to see the Board have these types of meetings twice a year. He suggested that a meeting be scheduled about mid-budget year, which would be in March, in order to start developing goals and objectives and how they inter-relate with funding and budgetary items.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the staff starts putting together the budget after March 1, and therefore, the Board may consider getting together early in the fiscal year, after the start of the fiscal year, to adopt a set of goals and objectives and work from October until a February or March time frame to develop the objectives and priorities.
Discussion occurred regarding the mid-year budget time frame.
Commr. Hanson stated that she still feels that January would be a good time for the meeting, because you have the Board, with any newly elected members, in place and you would be considering priorities for the next year.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the Board have a meeting sometime during the month of January and sometime during the month of March, after the Board had the mid-year budget numbers.
Commr. Hanson discussed the issue of having another State of the County Address, with her noting that the last Address was held at the end of February this year.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he feels the Board should meet as a group on that level again, at a State of the County Address, and he disagreed scaling down the amount of people attending the meeting, as suggested.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in County government, he feels that the Board should have employees at a number of different levels, come in and supply the Board with input.
Commr. Cadwell commented that, if the Board took the direction suggested by Commr. Swartz, it could get into micro-managing when there was already a system in place where the County Manager conducts such meetings with his employees.
Discussion occurred regarding when to schedule the Retreat Meetings. It was determined that this issue needed to come back to the Board for further discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to accept the Vision Statement, the Mission Statement and the Values established by the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding how to convey to the employees and taxpayers the statements and values developed by the Board. Commr. Cadwell stated that the supervisors and department heads should play a part in the process.
COUNTY MANAGER/COMMITTEES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, presented the Kitchen Cabinet update, which related to the areas of permitting, human resources, and finance/budget. Mr. Wahl stated that the recommendations are being reviewed by the department directors. He noted that Human Resources was looking at the items identified in this department and that some of the staff in the permitting department have begun to incorporate some of the recommendations. Mr. Wahl stated that, if the Board wished to move forward with the finance/budget report, he could request that Mr. James C. Watkins, Clerk of Circuit Court, look at the incorporation of the budget process within the Finance Department. He stated that he did not know if this would save money, but the Board could ask Mr. Watkins to look at it.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, after he received the report, he called Mr. Watkins to get some background information regarding the change that created the finance/budget department in the first place. He stated that, if Mr. Watkins was going to make a proposal, he would like some history as to why that department was created, and a cost analysis.
Commr. Bailey explained that it was his understanding that the department was created by the Board, in order to establish more accountability, and for the Board to have more involvement with the budget.
Commr. Swartz recalled that the Board was relying on its budgetary information essentially from employees who had no supervisory capacity or responsibility to the Board at all. The Board wanted a direct relationship between its budgetary people, not only for the Board's use, but for the staff people. He stated that he felt the Board had been moving from an archaic system to a point where there was more management on the fiscal side for managers and for having the ability to have real time data. Commr. Swartz stated that he hoped the Board would continue to move in this direction. He discussed the number of things that were changed in the year 1989, in regards to the relationship between the Board and the Clerk, in terms of what areas of service the Clerk had been supervising. Commr. Swartz stated that he does not want to see the Board backtracking and going away from accountability for the managers and direct responsibility of the budget office to the Board.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to see the re-evaluation of the finance/budget office, in terms of now and then.
Commr. Swartz discussed the issue made regarding cost redundancy and stated that he did not feel it was necessarily redundant, and the concept that it produces conflicting information was not negative. He stated that he felt that having a set of check and balances and the separation of what was more or less an audit review function, to be healthy and good, not negative.
Commr. Hanson explained that there seemed to be a perception from the public that there was a duplication in the finance/budget office, and it was up to the Board, as well as the committee that reviewed this area, to consider re-evaluating the situation. Commr. Hanson extended her appreciation to Mr. Wahl for his work that he had done with the committee and with the outcome of it, and for the cooperation received from staff. She stated that she hoped this would be an ongoing review group.
Commr. Swartz stated that he attended one of the committee meetings and was very impressed by the discussion that occurred. He suggested that Mr. Wahl inform the Board which recommendations are being implemented, and whether it was a change in policy that was a Board making function, as opposed to a management function.
Commr. Hanson stated that a report would be in order from Mr. Wahl.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to consult with the Clerk on the finance/budget issue and get his view on what could be done in this area.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved the following appointments and reappointments to the Agriculture Advisory Committee:
Reappointments
Daniel W. Olson - Fruit & Vegetable
Bill DuVall - Cattle Industry
Appointments
Carroll "Bud" Ward - Dairy Industry
Patricia Bouis Thompson - Citrus Industry
Bret T. Wood - Farm Bureau
The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.
COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that the Economic Summit would be held July 28, 1994, at the Public Safety Complex. It was noted that the time would be announced.
TIMES CERTAIN
STATE AGENCIES/PUBLIC SERVICES/REPORTS
Mr. Richard Duemmling, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), appeared before the Board to make a presentation on the Annual Work Program Development Process. Mr. Duemmling briefly described the Work Program, the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) priorities, and the Year's Schedule of the Work Program Development Process, as provided in the information presented to the Board. Mr. Duemmling informed the Board that Mr. Michael Szunyog was the local government liaison for Lake County. He stated that the information before the Board also included the Tentative Five Year Work Program Report for Fiscal Years 1994/1995 Through 1998/1999, Lake County as of June 1, 1994. At this time, Mr. Duemmling responded to questions of the Board.
No action was needed by the Board on the presentation.
WORKSHOP - ROAD PROGRAM
ROAD PROJECTS/PUBLIC SERVICES
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and presented additional information pertaining to the Road Program and the Master Plan for the Astatula Property. Mr. Stivender explained the "clay to paved" information for each district, which included paved projects by contract, and double surface treated projects by County forces. He referred to Page 1, County Transportation Trust Fund - Road Program Future, and stated that there had been a cash flow reduction for Capital Improvements which had become dramatic this year with the Cash Carried Forward and the Capital Improvement being backed in at $600,000.00 where the last couple of years had been around the $4 million mark. He explained that some of the new programs initiated in the last couple of years have accounted for costs, and even though they are justifiable programs for CTT fund use, they have taken away from Capital Improvements Road Construction. Mr. Stivender stated that he hoped to offset the $600,000.00 funding by being repaid with the money that was used to construct the roads at the Industrial Park, with interest around $1,500,000.00, which would bring the amount to $2.1 million capital road program for CTT funds. He discussed the special assessments that are outstanding, in the amount of $525,000.00.
Mr. Stivender addressed the Impact Fee Program and stated that staff has been working very closely with the cities and that Page 3, Road Impact Fee Projects Collection/Expenditure Summary 1986 -1993, had been provided to all of the cities at the meeting in February. The information provided the following: Total Fees as of 9/30/93 - $13,034,334.61; Impact Fee Projects - $7,397,549.06; and the Percent Expended being 56.75%. Mr. Stivender stated that he was looking for support from the Board to discuss with the cities, and to send to them as an alternative, a portion of the projects, which would be a portion of Page 2, to be forwarded to them and discussed, and to request them to consider supporting these projects as part of the program. Mr. Stivender referred to Page 2, the 1994 & 1995 County Impact Fee Projects Currently Scheduled Not Constructed and stated that they have already been approved and would go ahead as impact fee projects. The projects shown at the top of the page, 1994 and 1995 CTT Projects Proposed to Move to Impact Fee Program, Board approved or not, could be eligible for impact fees. Mr. Stivender stated that he was looking at transferring roads from the CTT program to the impact fee program, and suggested that a letter be sent to each of the cities showing a list where these roads are incorporated into program and ask them for their support on it. He stated that whatever vote, or support the Board gives him he would forward that information on to the cities and develop a program accordingly.
Discussion occurred regarding the action needed by the Board. Mr. Stivender clarified that he would like to see some of the roads that are currently under the CTT fund program be funded by the impact fees that the cities are qualified to receive, and requested that this be included in the Board's approval of support.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he supported what Mr. Stivender had proposed, but would prefer to provide the cities with the list, as stated above by Mr. Stivender, in a meeting type atmosphere rather than mailing the list to each city.
Mr. Stivender recommended that six individual meetings be held with the cities.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a letter of support for moving some of the County road projects for Fiscal Year 1994-95 from the CTT program to the Impact Fee Program.
Commr. Cadwell agreed to meet with each city to discuss the proposal presented by Mr. Stivender, as stated.
Mr. Stivender informed the Board that the County would be spending approximately $250,000.00 on the Countywide Resurfacing program this coming fiscal year.
Mr. Stivender informed the Board that there was a 4.5% increase on Road Impact Fee costs based on the FDOT Construction Index.
Mr. Stivender expressed his appreciation to Ms. Kathy McDonald, Special Projects Coordinator, for assisting him in putting together the information being provided to the Board today.
Mr. Stivender reviewed the Master Plan for the Astatula property and stated that presently the County owns a contiguous 400 acres, 80 acres of Astatula I, 100 acres of Astatula II, and 200 acres of Astatula III. At this time, he explained the current status of each site including the future plans for the roadways.
Commr. Swartz questioned what would be done with the construction and demolition debris (C & D).
Mr. Stivender explained that as much C & D was being recycled as possible, with other sources being considered to utilize the balance other than the County facilities.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff consider what Collier County was presently doing, which was segregating the C & D area, which Lake County would now be able to do; they charge people to bring C & D in; they have contractors who go in and recycle whatever they can out of it; they then truck it back out and the County pays them the same thing that the County was paid when the debris was trucked in. That way it does not go into the landfill. Commr. Swartz requested that this issue be placed on the Board's update list of items to be brought back to the Board for discussion. Commr. Swartz then addressed the area being proposed south of the new building and the hazardous waste pole barn and suggested that staff try and design that facility also as a recycle-reuse facility, so that people can come in and take items out that are of some use. He requested that these two items be placed in a format, so that the Board could be briefed on the plans.
Mr. Stivender addressed the other County services that are not a part of the landfill, such as the Sign Shop and Animal Control. He stated that, when the C.R. 448 extension is built in 1996, it will eliminate travel through the landfill. He stated that a master plan will be developed now for all of this area just like the Industrial Park and will be built in stages. Mr. Stivender discussed the 60 acres set aside for Affordable Housing with the access being off of C.R. 448 extension. He discussed the Industrial Park, which will have a lot of buffers and vegetation to assist in screening the landfill property. He continued by discussing the amenities and stated that he will be bringing in forms for grants, but the amenities will not be in the City of Tavares and not in Hickory Point. Mr. Stivender stated that the Maintenance Barn will continue to be utilized by the park crews.
Mr. Stivender discussed Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs) and stated that these would be very helpful in new developments where they want the high level of service of maintenance on their water retention areas, along with other items. He stated that he would be working very closely with the entities to provide this service. Another area to be addressed would be the major capital improvement restoration, in terms of drainage systems that might not function well.
Mr. Stivender addressed Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs) and the possibility of solidifying and justifying a funding source for Mosquito, Aquatic Plant and Stormwater Maintenance (M.A.P.S.). This would pass through the General Fund, and Mr. Stivender stated that the cities already participate in both of the programs. Mr. Stivender stated that he would want to commit that department to a funding source, so that, in a lean year, reserves could be held back in case of a potential epidemic or disease problem. He discussed the possibility of expanding this into a MSTU for stormwater, because there was somewhat of an association with mosquitoes, with this issue to be discussed at a future date. He noted that the proposed budget for 1994-95 was $838,485.00, which requires .182 mills based on 1993 taxable values. He directed the Board's attention to the proposed time frame for adoption of M.A.P.S. MSTU, which indicated that the 1996-97 budget year would be the first time that an MSTU could be implemented. Mr. Stivender stated that his proposal now was to not bring any more discussion in on the MSTUs until January or February, 1995, with further discussions to be held with the cities.
No action was taken by the Board on the presentation.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 3 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten (10) minutes.
COMMITTEES/REPORTS
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, suggested that a spokesperson from each Lake County Board and Committee address the Board to present its report.
Commr. Hanson commended staff and those people who served on the committees, for putting together the reports, and for all of their hard work.
The following individuals appeared before the Board and presented a brief report pertaining to his/her committee which included information regarding the date the committee was established and its sunset date; the list of members; purpose; current efforts/issues; budget impact anticipated; and accomplishments:
1. John A. Cento Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
2. Terrell Davis Agricultural Advisory Committee
3. Frankie Thorpe Animal Control Ordinance Study Committee
4. Ken Stack Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee
5. Fletcher Smith Citizens' Commission for Children
6. Craig E. Haun Fire and Emergency Services Advisory Board
7. Edd Holder Industrial Development Authority
8. Greg Stubbs Land Development Regulations Review Committee
9. Wendy R. Breeden Lake County Library Board
10. Paula Blazer Natural Resources Advisory Committee
11. Jim Myers Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
12. Eloise Fisher Rails to Trails Task Force
13. Dave Warren Lake County Sports Committee
14. Dave Warren Tourist Development Council
15. Susan M. Strum Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board
Mr. Wahl stated that the Board had discussed earlier of having a committee report quarterly. In discussion with staff, he recommended that a report be made twice a year at the most.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TR\BOARDMIN\6-21-94\7-22-94