The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 5, 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 G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Don Bailey. Others present were: Frank T. Gaylord, County Attorney; Pete Wahl, County Manager, Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance and Audit Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Cadwell requested that Tab 37 regarding the Lady Lake American Legion be moved up on the agenda after the presentation of employee awards.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 19, 1994 Special Meeting, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 31, 1994 Special Meeting, as presented.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of June 7, 1994 Regular Meeting, with the following corrections being made:
Page 13, Line 24 - Delete: Board of County Commissioners
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of June 7, 1994 Regular Meeting, as amended.
CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Bonds - Contractor
1850-94 Kenneth F. Tyree
5228-94 Susan D'Anna (Roofing)
5305-94 Kenneth L. Welker, Jr. (Electrical)
5306-94 Jean Lacy (General)
5307-94 Neil Burns (Electrical)
5308-94 Richard E. Pinder (Heating & Air Conditioning)
5309-94 Cy Blue Plumbing, Inc. (Plumbing)
5310-94 Barry Pachico (Residential Contractor)
5311-94 Richard A. Granville (Plumbing)
5312-93 R. A. Smith Homes (Building)
4174-93 B. Terrence Quigley
302-94 William O. McDermid, Sr. (Electrical Contractor)
4810-94 Bruce Thompson
5006=94 Gary L. Heath
Request to approve and signature authorization on the Satisfaction of Judgment, State of Florida vs. Bobby Ray Conner, Case No. 86-11,686TT00162, in the amount of $150.00.
Request to acknowledge receipt of Report No. 12324, an audit of the District Board of Trustees Lake-Sumter Community College for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1993.
Request to acknowledge receipt of Report No. 12337, an operational performance audit of the Office of the Public Defender, Fifth Judicial Circuit for the Period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the 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.
Commr. Hanson presented the following employees with plaques for their years of service, and Mr. Joe Grawet, Personnel Manager, presented information on each individual:
Presentation of Plaque to Employees with Five Years of Service
Edmund J. Dagner, Chief Electrical Inspector, Department of Planning & Development Services/Building Services Division
Lauretta J. Scott, Executive Secretary, County Manager
Presentation of Plaque to Employee with Ten Years of Service
Judith M. Evans, Secretary III, Office of Facilities & Capital Improvements/Fairgrounds Section
Presentation of Plaque to Employees with Fifteen Years of Service
Willie Chambliss, Senior Maintenance Worker, Department of Public Services/Special Service Division/Parks Services
George Harrison, Chief Maintenance Specialist, Office of Facilities & Capital Improvements/Facilities Management Section/Building Maintenance Services (not present)
Christine Stephens, Sign Fabricator II, Department of Public Services/Engineering Division/Traffic Safety Services
Presentation of Plaque and Bond to the July Employee of the Month
D. Rene Segraves, Animal Control Officer, Department of Fire and Emergency Services/Animal Control
LAKE COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AWARDS
Presentation of Plaque
R. Richard Boliek for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Environmental Protection Board from 1989-1994
Presentation of Certificates
Hughes Powers for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Agriculture Advisory Committee from 1992-1994
Jim Simpson for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Agriculture Advisory Committee from 1992-1994
J. Nevin Thompson for his service to Lake County as a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board from 1991-1994 (not present)
Maryella Bowdish for her service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Library Board from 1992-1994 (not present)
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/PUBLIC SERVICES
Commr. Cadwell introduced Mr. Bill Podvin, Mr. Joe Berube, and Mr. Mike Hatfield, who are members of the Lady Lake American Legion and have worked with Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, in putting the agreement together between Lake County and the Lady Lake American Legion.
Mr. Stivender appeared before the Board and explained that the property involved with the request was an abandoned clay pit.
Commr. Bailey commended Commr. Cadwell and all those involved with developing the agreement.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to enter into a 45 Year Lease Agreement with the Lady Lake American Legion. The American Legion will construct a Post on the property and then begin making recommended park improvements for the public.
Mr. Hatfield addressed the Board and presented the appropriate documents for signatures and explained the mission of the Legion.
The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the Ordinance Amending Ordinance 1993-4 to Increase the Membership of the Lake County Industrial Development Authority.
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. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Ordinance 1994-10, as follows by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1993-4 TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE "LAKE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"; PROVIDING FOR TWO (2) YEAR TERMS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Tim Hoban Senior, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that a proposed report had been prepared regarding the Sunshine Pipeline, which was similar to the report before the Board two weeks ago. Mr. Hoban noted that there were no environmental conditions proposed at this time, because of the uncertainty of not knowing the outcome of the project. He stated that the County has until July 8, 1994 to get the report to Tallahassee. On August 23, 1994, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will choose from all of the conditions supplied by all parties involved and submit a report of its own. At that time, Lake County will have the option to oppose the report, or any portions of it. Mr. Hoban stated that representatives were present from the Sunshine Pipeline to address any questions.
Mr. Erik Korzilius, Attorney representing Sunshine Pipeline, appeared before the Board and stated that one additional meeting had been held with the Division of Recreation and Parks regarding coordinating the planned improvements to the Trail. If Sunshine Pipeline cannot get in there prior to the Division putting asphalt pavement down to enhance the Trail, Sunshine will be attempting to coordinate in such a manner, so that it will not have to use any water management district land and that the Division will build sufficiently close to one side of the Trail, so that when the pipeline goes through there will be sufficient room remaining on the berm and one of the ditches to install the pipe, and then will move the horse trail from one side of the existing MCI cable to the other.
Commr. Swartz addressed the conditions being proposed in the report and stated that he was of the understanding that, even if the Board approved the conditions, Sunshine was opposed to them.
Mr. Korzilius stated that he had not seen the document before the Board today.
Mr. Hoban explained his previous meeting with Mr. Korzilius and stated that the County, at that time, had proposed having Sunshine pave portions of the Trail, which would now be paved by DEP with Federal monies, and at that time, Sunshine was opposed to this condition.
Mr. Korzilius explained Sunshine Pipeline's position in working with the Department of Recreation and Parks and stated that, at this time, Sunshine cannot agree to anything, because it has not finished working and negotiating with the Division of Recreation and Parks.
Mr. Hoban stated that he needed approval of the report, or any modifications, to send to Tallahassee, in order to meet the time frame requirements.
Commr. Swartz stated that what was before the Board today was not what he intended to have before it today. When he made the motion at the previous meeting, he stated that Lake County was to state the areas and issues where the Board still had concerns, which had been done, but now, as the Board goes through the report, and gets to Item IV. (Page 2), it states to "Indicate your recommendation on approving or denying all or part of the project.", and the answer provided indicates "Approval, with conditions." He stated that, unless the Governor and the Cabinet insist on these types of conditions proposed by Sunshine Pipeline, he was concerned about the short term impacts that may a occur as a result of laying a pipeline and what the short term and long term impacts would be to the Trail from that activity. Commr. Swartz explained that, to send this report forward saying that the Board approves letting Sunshine vary all of its requirements essentially, and that they would do some work on the Trail, which they may or may not have to do, and ultimately only require that the County waive everything, but that they do not have to comply beyond what is reasonably feasible and practical would not be appropriate. He questioned what would be the long term remains of the Van Fleet Trail, if the pipeline goes through there. Commr. Swartz stated concerns with this project being detrimental to vegetation and wildlife, both in the short term and in the long term of things. He stated that he proposed at the last meeting that the Board stay in the program and not agree or send approval to waive all of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan requirements; that the Board indicate those are still areas of concern and the Board do not waive them, and would not waive them until such time that the Board had specific information that would assure the Board that the Trail would not be decimated by the laying of that pipeline, either in the short term, or in the longer term. Secondly, he stated his concern with what the nature of the Van Fleet Trail would be, after the pipeline goes through. Commr. Swartz proposed that the Board send forward the report before it today, but where it states to "indicate your recommendation on approving or denying all or part of the project", that the Board indicate "denial", until such time as those conditions, which they are requesting to be waived, can be evaluated and a specific determination can be made as to what the impact of the Trail is going to be. He stated that it seems as though the Board is putting an awful lot of trust in other agencies and the Governor and the Cabinet, ultimately, in asking for things that the County may not get.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not want the Board to do anything today that would limit its ability to control what little part the County has in the project. He stated that, if Commr. Swartz puts his comments into a motion, he will support it.
Commr. Gerber explained that she was of the understanding that Mr. Korzilius had indicated that whatever DEP and the Division of Recreation and Parks places on Sunshine Pipeline, they will have to live by, because this was a State permitting process.
Mr. Hoban explained that the purpose of the report was to influence DEP. He explained the procedure that will be taken by DEP to develop a master report, which is due August 23, 1994, which will be presented to a Hearing Officer.
Commr. Swartz explained that the Governor and the Cabinet have the authority to waive any of the Comprehensive Plan or LDRs. He stated that, in the interim, he would like to try and determine if there are other alternate routes that might be possible, to be considered by the combination of the County's staff including Environmental Services and Public Services.
Commr Hanson indicated that she would support the motion as she understands it, that would be made by Commr. Swartz, and that it was her feeling that the Board needed to take every opportunity at this point. She stated that this area has already been tremendously impacted with the railroad; the flow of water does not occur, and Sunshine has indicated that they would be able to put in culverts that would allow water to flow back to more of its natural state than it is today. She stated that the issue was how to get the area back as close as possible to its natural state and still allow the Trail to exist and the pipeline. Commr. Hanson stated that there was a lot of room for negotiation, which should continue on through the process.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, that in the matter dealing with the Division of Administrative Hearings and Sunshine Pipeline, specifically with regard to Item IV., as the Board indicates its recommendation of approving or denying all or part of the project, that the Board deny the project, at this time, and list all of the concerns for the environmental LDRs and other Comprehensive Plan issues that have been outlined by staff, and indicate that, should approval occur, that some of the mitigation requirements that the County feel that are absolutely essential would include those that are listed on Pages 2 and 3, with the exception of item #10, and that this be forwarded to the proper authorities.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated the Board could have staff look at some preliminary alternate routes, so that the Board might be prepared, if it chose to present one of them for consideration. It was noted that a time frame had been indicated earlier by staff as to when these would have to be submitted. Commr. Swartz stated that this would not be made as a part of the motion.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not want the Board to get into a posture where anyone would think that the Board was finding the route for the gas line. He wanted to make sure that this action was only going to be taken in case alternatives needed to be presented.
Commr. Swartz clarified that #10 would be deleted, or #10 would be changed to indicate that Sunshine will comply with all applicable comprehensive plan provisions and land development regulations, as stated. He stated that this was certainly to delete that portion which allows them an exemption where reasonably feasible and practical.
Mr. Hoban clarified that, in the denial, it would be until such time as the County could evaluate all issues of concern, pursuant to all of the factors listed, and at that time, staff can evaluate that Sunshine will meet and comply with the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that all issues would be included in the draft except for the changes.
Commr. Bailey clarified that all of the costs and details on any alternate route would be presented to the Board before any action was taken by staff on this issue.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Hanson requested that Tab 31 be pulled for discussion.
Commr. Swartz requested that Tabs 14 and 19 be pulled for further questions and discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Gerber not being present for the discussion or vote, the Board approved the following requests, with the exception of Tabs 14, 19 and 31:
Accounts Allowed/Sheriff's Department
1. Request to approve a request from the Sheriff for an amount of $13,018.03 for payment of purchase of equipment and operating supplies. These funds have been expended in accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 932.704.
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers
2. Fund: General
From: Contingency $10,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $10,000.00
Transfer #: 94-0228
3. Fund: General
Department: Supervisor of Elections
From: Contingency $ 5,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $ 5,000.00
Transfer #: 94-0233
4. Fund: General
Department: Judicial Support
From: Contingency $68,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $68,000.00
Transfer #: 94-0245
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Community Services
Request for approval and execution of the Section 8 Voucher Program Annual Contributions Contract for Project FL29-V106.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services
Request for approval of third quarter payment to Lifestream Behavioral Center for Fiscal Year 1993-94. Total expenditure $42,500.00 pursuant to F.S. 394.76.
Accounts Allowed/Health Department/Community Services
Request for approval for the Lake County Public Health Unit to purchase two new 1994 Toyota 4 wheel drive pickup trucks for the Environmental Health Department. Total cost from State funds is approximately $29,598.00.
Appointments-Resignations/Committees/Facilities and Capital
Request for approval of the Selection Committee members for the Central Park Utilities Design/Build Package, as follows:
Mr. Pete Wahl - County Manager
Mr. Don Bailey - Commissioner, District 2
Mr. Mike Anderson - Senior Director, Facilities & Capital
Mr. Don Griffey - County Engineer, Public Services
Mr. Jim Barker - Director, Environmental Management
Request for approval to authorize the Chairman to sign Certificates for Employees with one year of service.
Request for approval to authorize the Chairman to sign Certificates for Employees with three years of service.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development
Request for acceptance and execution of an Agreement Between Board of County Commissioners and Joe and Jane Smart for Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use to place a travel trailer on property located on Richer Drive while constructing a conventional home - Commissioner District 5.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development
Request for acceptance of an Agreement between Lake County and Titan U.S. 27, Inc., and Maronda Homes, Inc. of Florida for the Issuance of Building Permits while Platting is in Progress for the Westchester PUD (Phase I), subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Resolutions/Public Services/Parks and Recreation
Request for approval and execution of Resolution Proclaiming July, 1994 as Recreation and Parks Month in Lake County.
Budgets/Public Services/Mosquito-Aquatic Weed Control
Request for approval and execution of Detailed Work Plan Budget for Arthropod Control for Fiscal Year Beginning October 1, 1994 and Ending September 30, 1995.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies/Water Resources
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman's signature on a Joint Agreement Between St. John's River Water Management District and Lake County for Conducting a Field Test on an Experimental Drainage Filtration System, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Contracts, Leases & Agreement/State Agencies
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman's signature on a Joint Agreement Between St. John's River Water Management District and Lake County for Aerial Topographic Mapping, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request for approval and execution of Change Order No. 1 to Project No. 10-94, Emeralda Island Road "Part" Resurfacing and Pipe Work, to place rubble along the lake and road edge of Emeralda Island Road in the amount of $9,750.00 from the Transportation Trust Fund - Commissioner District 5.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects/Landfills
Request for approval and execution of Change Order No. 2 to Project No. 10-94, Emeralda Island Road "Part" Resurfacing and Pipe Work, to furnish guardrails and end anchors for the Astatula Landfill in the amount of $9,700.00 from the Landfill Enterprise Fund Account Number 421.5046730.513.8600630 - Commissioner District 3.
Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution accepting Lake Drive #4-7898A, South Lake Drive #4-7898B and Overlook Drive #4-7898C into the County Maintained Road System.
Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution accepting Bogle Street #3-3125B, Pine Street #3-3125A and Spring Drive #3-3126B into the County Maintained Road System.
Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution accepting Palmetto Drive #3-4139 and Circle Drive #3-4139A into the County Maintained Road System.
Resolutions/Subdivisions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution accepting the following roads in Lake Eustis Village into the County Maintained Road System: Mary Lane #5-5841, Lakeview Drive #5-5841A, Lake Bradley #5-5941, Orange Grove Lane #5-5941A, Stuart Lane #5-5941B, Grace Lane #5-5941C and Dale Place #5-5942A.
Request to authorize and accept Resolution correcting the SA-78 Lake Eustis Village Subdivision Assessment Roll.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Acceptance of the following deeds:
Wilfred N. Gordon and Jean M. Gordon
Lee Street #4-9788B
Statutory Warranty Deeds
A. B. Wadlow and Shirley Wadlow
Marguerite Ave. #1-5805
Susan T. Aicher
Edwards Rd. #5-7009
Dennis P. and Sandra L. Campbell
Fisherman's Rd. #4-8589
Scott L. and Frances A. Przybelinski
Rancho Lane #4-8787
Charles R. and Dianne O. Russ
Green Swamp Rd. #2-0439
Estes P. Morrow
Oswalt Rd. #2-0840
Saint Joseph and Ruby Lee Moore
Micro Racetrack Rd. #1-6202
Robert P. and Nova J. Scott as Trustees, and Rosemary
Maxwell Rd. #5-7967 and Silver Dr. #5-8068
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request for approval of the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Applicant: John P. and Velma L. Palermo
Lot 1, Blk 48, Mt. Plymouth,
Recommend: Reserve 25 feet from center
line on Interlachen Dr.
#4-4289A and reserve 25 feet
from center line on Overbrook
Street (reserve platted right-of-way).
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request for approval of the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Applicant: Bert T. & Bertha C. Yarnell
Location: Lot 2, Blk. F, 2nd Add. to Sec "A",
Recommend: Reserve 25 feet from center line on
Teho St. #4-4187A and reserve 25 feet
from center line on Carnoustie Dr. #4-4188B
A) Authorization to Seek Bids, Proposal and Professional Services.
1) SOLID WASTE $ 30,000
Authorization to seek bids and award to the low most responsive bidder for the purchase of one each new Cab and Chassis with a twenty foot aluminum Van Body to be used as the Household Hazardous Waste Mobile Receiving Vehicle.
2) SOLID WASTE $ 66,000
Authorization to seek bids and award to the low most responsive bidder for the purchase of two each new aluminum tank trailers to be used to haul leachate.
3) COUNTYWIDE $206,000
Authorization to seek bids and award to the low most responsive bidder(s) for the County's annual need for herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers. Lake County will be the Lead Agency in this SICOP Co-operative bid.
D) Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities from Annual Bids, State Contract, G.S.A., or Cooperative Bids.
1) COUNTYWIDE $ 35,000
Delco Oil, Inc./Authorization to extend Bid #B-2-3-54, Lubricants and Oil for an additional year, per the original terms and conditions of the bid and issue blanket Purchase Orders within budgeted funds. Original bid was approved on August 3, 1993 for $35,000.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations, explained the request to accept the replatting of Harbor Hills Planned Unit Development located in Sec. 13, Twp. 18S, Rge. 24E, generally located in the Lady Lake Area. Mr. Stubbs stated that the lot lines were being adjusted to add additional lots within the existing subdivision.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, reviewed a replat of the subdivision with the Board and explained that there will be 31 additional lots.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the replatting of the Harbor Hills Planned Unit Development, as stated above, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board to discuss the Selection Committee's recommendation of surveying firms. Mr. Stivender explained that he would be comfortable working with any of the six firms being recommended. He also explained the rotating system that would be used each time a firm was selected for a project.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Selection Committee's recommendation of surveying firms deemed most highly qualified to perform countywide consulting services on a rotating basis.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COMMITTEES
Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, appeared before the Board to discuss the recommendation of the Tourist Development Council (TDC) to award a contract to the advertising agency, Cramer-Krasselt. Mr. Warren explained that the TDC was not unhappy with the Husebo Advertising contract, but the Cramer-Krasselt agency gave a strong presentation, and the TDC felt they could give them opportunities pertaining to sales promotion and cooperative advertising, because they are a national company.
Commr. Hanson stated that she served on the Selection Committee, and the TDC felt that Husebo Advertising had done a very good job for Lake County, and the tourism dollars continued to increase. However, the presentation made by Cramer-Krasselt was very strong with their new ideas on cooperatives and partnerships. She stated that the concern was not to lose the local relationship that the TDC had with Husebo Advertising. Commr. Hanson stated, for the record, that the TDC felt that Husebo Advertising had done an outstanding job getting the TDC off to a good start.
Mr. Warren stated that the contract with Husebo Advertising would be effective through the end of September, 1994, and the contract with Cramer-Krasselt would be brought into line with the new fiscal year.
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve to award the contract to Cramer-Krasselt, as recommended by the Tourist Development Council (TDC), and to encumber funds in an estimated amount of $80,000.00.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson explained that the recommended advertising agency had done a lot of research into Lake County, and even though they are a large firm, the Committee felt that the County would benefit from their services.
It was noted that staff was responding to correspondence received from a company that did not make the short list.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Mr. Warren introduced Ms. Fran Mathews, Cramer-Krasselt, who had attended the meeting.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
The Chairman called for public comment and questions. There being none, the Board continued with the scheduled agenda.
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/COMMUNITY SERVICES
Discussion occurred regarding the request for authorization for the Chairman to sign an Agreement between Lake County and Lake County Funeral Directors Association, Inc. for the burial of indigent persons and livery service from site of death to the morgue.
Commr. Gerber presented questions regarding the cremation of unclaimed bodies, and the charges being made for livery service.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained that an unclaimed body cannot be cremated without a court order. It was noted that an order has been unattainable in Lake County.
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, explained that the livery services are included with the burial contract. He noted that last year there were approximately 26 unclaimed bodies.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to sign an Agreement between Lake County and Lake County Funeral Directors Association, Inc., as stated above.
The motion was carried by a 3-1 vote, with Commr. Gerber voting "no", and Commr. Bailey not being present for the discussion or vote.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that, with the changes in the Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations on cable television, Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Information Services, has been in discussion with the cities of Lake County with the intent that the County has an opportunity to go to a uniform franchising agreement. He noted that there have been multiple meetings and discussions with the cities and their attorneys, and the recommendation before the Board today was to repeal the existing cable television ordinance and adopt a new ordinance that was consistent with what was before the Board today. If the Board was agreeable with what was before it, staff needed permission to advertise the proposed ordinance for the purposes of adoption and for purposes to repeal the old ordinance.
Mr. Bruce Thorburn appeared before the Board and explained that the City of Leesburg took the 1992 Lake County ordinance and made changes and adaptations in their ordinance. Mr. Thorburn stated that he was recommending that the Board adopt the countywide ordinance and the wording from the City of Leesburg ordinance, which had stricter compliances and penalties.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, since the Board was approving the request for a public hearing, the ordinance from the City of Leesburg be provided to the Board and scheduled for consideration at the same time.
Mr. Wahl stated that it would be best to schedule the ordinances as two separate issues.
Mr. Rex Taylor, City Manager, Leesburg, appeared before the Board and explained that the City was trying to address the many changes in technology, and the ordinance before the Board deals strictly with cable television. Mr. Taylor stated that he agreed with Mr. Wahl that the City ordinance needed to be dealt with in a single ordinance by itself. He welcomed the Board to review the ordinance developed by the City, which addressed changes in technology in the future.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize staff to advertise both the ordinance before the Board today, and in addition, the Leesburg ordinance dealing with other modes of transmission.
RESOLUTIONS/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, addressed the proposed standards and specifications for water and wastewater improvements, which were sent to each of the cities, and informed the Board that numerous contacts have been made between staff and the cities on this issue. Mr. Wahl stated that a request had been received from the City of Eustis to postpone action on the adoption of the standards for two weeks, so that the City could visit with the staff further.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he has been contacted by several of the cities about the issue before the Board, and specifically the City of Eustis who requested that the Board table the issue.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to have the original Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan (PBS&J) report, with underlined language, or strike throughs, or additions, as it has been changed, so that he can review it and determine the changes and additions. He stated that he wanted to make sure that it contains the standards that the County needed to have, and that it was compatible with the cities, who may inherit those systems at some point. Once the Board members get a copy of the original work product and how it has been modified, the Board may want to have a workshop with the cities to review it.
Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, addressed the Board and stated that, in order to make sure that all of the cities are involved, and the requests from the Board are complete, the Board may want this issue to be postponed for 30 days.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone, for 30 days, the request to approve a Resolution Adopting the Lake County Standards and Specifications for Water and Wastewater improvements and providing for an effective date.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/GRANTS
PARKS AND RECREATION/STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, requested the withdrawal of the request to enter into a Project Grant Agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP), and to have the item placed on the same agenda that the Board would be considering the rezoning issue.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to reschedule the above issue, as stated by Mr. Wahl, until the Regular Board Meeting on July 26, 1994.
It was noted that direction had previously been given to staff to meet with the people from the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the project, in terms of what was being proposed, and to discuss the reduction to the size of the parking area, and to recognize the uniqueness of the location and access. The Board directed that staff make sure that the direction given by the Board was completed before the next hearing.
BUDGETS/PUBLIC SERVICES/ARTHROPOD CONTROL
Discussion occurred regarding the request to execute the Arthropod Control Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 1993-94.
Commr. Swartz informed the Board that he had received calls regarding the spraying for aquatic vegetation or mosquito control, and he has talked with Mr. Eric Cotsenmoyer, Director of Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management about trying to use video taping, so that it would indicate the date and time that a response was made to a complaint.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that staff would look at the suggestion of video taping, which he felt would be more useful for the aquatic plant issue.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and stated that he had already looked into the pricing of the video taping and using the airboats.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the execution of the Arthropod Control Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 1993-94, in the amount of $51.00.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, reported that the Board had requested that staff go back and review the insurance recommendation for the County Probation clients.
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, appeared before the Board and informed the Board that 33 insurance companies were surveyed by letter, with the letter being followed up by a phone call to each agency. Mr. Smith stated that four different policies were available for the Probation clients. He noted that the only local agency was Harford Insurance and that the prices of the premiums range from $8.25 for 12 months of coverage down to $2.50 for 50 hours. He also noted that Plan 3 offered by MacMillan-Buchanan, Inc., Brevard County, would be the lowest cost at $2.50 per 50 hours, and Harford Insurance would be the highest at $4.30 per 50 hours. Mr. Smith stated that there were approximately 300 individuals for this budget year, as compared to next year, which has been estimated at 900 individuals being placed on probation. Mr. Smith explained that the probation clients would be paying the fee.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize staff to enter into a contract with MacMillan-Buchanan Inc., as indicated in their Plan 3 for the County's probation clients.
Commr. Swartz requested the record to reflect that Board had requested that this issue be brought back before it, so that it could look at additional options.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
DEEDS/RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS & EASEMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Applicant: Kinanco, Inc.
Location: Block 71, Mt. Plymouth, Section "A"
Recommend: Reserve 25 feet from centerline of
Sackamaxon Dr. #4-4289 and reserve
25 feet from centerline of Shinnecock
Hills Ave. (reserve platted R/W)
COUNTY ATTORNEY/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that the Board had requested a discussion on vested rights. Mr. Gaylord directed the Board's attention to two memorandums that he had supplied to the Board, one dealing with Statutory Vested Rights, and one dealing with Common Law Vested Rights, as far as what the law was understood to be in the State of Florida. Mr. Gaylord stated that there had been a challenge to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) on the County statutory vested rights, and today the Board needed to advise whether it wanted to take action or not. Mr. Gaylord stated that he had taken the Future Land Use Map and had placed on it another map developed by staff to show all of the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). He stated that the significance of vested rights and PUDs would appear to be those areas that may be in conflict. If there was a PUD in an urban, or an urban expansion, or a suburban area that was consistent with the densities allocated to those areas, then there would not be a conflict. Mr. Gaylord stated that there are few conflicts, which would be in the areas in the Green Swamp, as well as those areas in the rural. He noted that there are approximately 766 dwelling units in the Green Swamp area, which would fall into the conflict category. At this time, Mr. Gaylord reviewed the other number of PUDs under the rural land use designation, which amounted to 1,217 dwelling units. Mr. Gaylord stated that the Board has 30 days from date of the filing of a LDR challenge to address the matter, and if the Board decides not to address the matter, the petitioner has the opportunity to go to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and hold an informal hearing to make the determination.
Commr. Bailey questioned whether there would be costs involved with the petitioner taking this issue to DCA, if the Board chose not to address it.
Mr. Gaylord stated that these matters generally involve each party having the responsibility of paying its own costs and expenses.
Commr. Swartz explained that the Board needed to determine whether or not the LDRs are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not the Board was going to try to use the LDRs as a way to avoid what the Comprehensive Plan says. Commr. Swartz addressed the map provided to the Board by Mr. Gaylord, which showed the location of the PUDs, and stated that many of these would be inconsistent, not only with the Land Use Map, but with all of the rest of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and they would get vested for intensity and density, and may be vested based on the language in the LDRs from the other requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Gaylord explained that the vesting language in the LDR provides that PUDs are vested, and it has a provision in there on an ongoing basis. If you do not have the statutory vesting provisions in there, you would actually be talking about common law provisions. He stated that this would be a policy issue for the Board and not a legal issue, as to how to deal with the whole issue.
Commr. Swartz questioned where in the Comprehensive Plan there was language that would authorize the vesting of PUDs that are inconsistent.
Mr. Gaylord explained that the Comprehensive Plan provides that the Board of County Commissioners is to come forward with a vesting ordinance. The vested language that you have under the PUDs is under that ordinance.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether the language that was within the Comprehensive Plan for vested rights is consistent with the language that was adopted in the LDRs.
Mr. Gaylord stated that it provides that, in the Comprehensive Plan, an ordinance would be forthcoming, and it does not say what the terms of the ordinance will be. He explained that the Board is not necessarily limited by the language in the Comprehensive Plan itself. He felt that it anticipates that the language would be expanded.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Comprehensive Plan also says that the details of the ordinance shall be guided by the principles of statutory vesting and common law vesting. He then referred to Policy 1-12A.2: Vested Rights Ordinance. "The vested rights ordinance shall provide more specific definitions of the above tests and shall provide an administrative procedure by which a property owner may demonstrate that private property rights are vested against the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan." He stated that the Board did not approve this in the LDRs.
Mr. Gaylord explained that it provides that you can make the specific definitions, as long as they are consistent with statutory and common law vesting.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Gaylord would make an argument that the Board could also, if it chose, vest CP zoning, MP zoning and any other zoning.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt that this was exactly what the previous Board had chosen to do.
Mr. Gaylord addressed the distinction between zoning and PUDs. Commr. Cadwell stated that the same discussion occurred when the Board approved the vesting language. Someone has now filed a suit saying that language was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that, unless the majority of the Board has changed their minds on the original vote, the Board should move forward and defend the suit.
Commr. Swartz explained that the Board was attempting, through the LDRs, to put language back into the Comprehensive Plan that is even more liberal, in terms of what it allows, than what was in the original 1991 Comprehensive Plan, which the County had to change. He stated that throughout the process where the Board dealt with the LDRs, he supported a position that he thought was consistent with common law vesting, which essentially said, for those developments that have, in fact, obtained common law vesting through their actions, then, under the administrative procedure, the Board provided for that, but when that was stricken, the Board eliminated any administrative procedure, and now the Board has effectively vested all of those without looking to see whether or not they meet the statutory, or common law requirement.
Mr. Gaylord stated that the County's position was defensible.
Commr. Hanson stated that, whether it comes from the Comprehensive Plan, or an ordinance in the Comprehensive Plan, if in the Plan the County vested industrial zoning, and if the County came forward in the LDRs for an ordinance and then said the County was going to vest PUDs, the rational was the same.
Commr. Swartz referred to Policy 1-12A.2, Vested Rights Ordinance, and questioned where in the LDRs there is a more specific definition of the "above test" and what is the administrative procedure by which the property owner may demonstrate those rights. Commr. Swartz stressed that it does not test them, and it blanket approves them and vests them.
Mr. Gaylord referred to Exhibit 2 provided in his memorandum dated June 20, 1994, regarding PUDs, and to the list of district court cases provided in his June 27, 1994 memorandum.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, appeared before the Board and addressed the case law presented to the Board and explained that statutory vesting can occur in a confessed PUD. He explained that this can happen when you have a final local development order.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board was getting ready to enter, once again, a slippery slope of wasting a lot of staff time, and ultimately that means taxpayer dollars, to defend something that is indefensible. He stated that the LDRs do not provide more specific definitions of the "above tests" i.e. statutory and common law, in fact it is quite the opposite, and they do not provide an administrative procedure whereby the property owner may demonstrate, because it simply gives it to them without having to demonstrate. Commr. Swartz stated that this was why the LDRs were inconsistent on this issue, and the Board will, once again, be making a mistake to go forward, and the case law is not all on the side of PUDs, and is quite the contrary. There are some cases whereby when somebody has shown clear evidence where the government has issued a development order that they have relied in, and they have spent substantial sums of money, that they can therefore be granted under the common law vesting. That is not what the County has done, and that is what the County is obligated to do under Policy 1-12A.2.
Commr. Hanson suggested again that the Board did not do this for industrial zoning, and therefore, this should be discretionary on the Board's part to vest PUDs. She stated that, if the Board does not vest PUDs, her concern is that the Board will be excluding an opportunity to have planned community developments in Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to defend the County's Lake Development Regulations (LDRs) in the Lake County Conservation Council vs. Lake County; Statutory Vested Rights case.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the Board was not just vesting density by this action, but was vesting, from depending on when it was approved, all or some of all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, which means that those PUDs may not meet even the requirements that came into place in the 1991 Plan, and certainly not the 1993 Plan. He stated that the Board was vesting them in a blanket way rather than requiring them, as the Comprehensive Plan says, to demonstrate that they are vested under the provisions of this Plan.
Mr. Hoban stated that statutory vesting says that a final local development order and development has commenced and is continuing in good faith. Mr. Hoban stated that, as Mr. Gaylord pointed out, this is a case of first impression, which means this is the first time it has been asked to be interpreted this way.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would not support the motion, because she did not support the LDRs initially.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "no".
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Raymond Gilley and Mr. Carl H. Lunderstadt to the newly created positions on the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for a two year term.
Commr. Cadwell requested that staff present to the Board, in writing, information regarding their professional opinion about using local vendors when giving out County contracts.
Commr. Hanson addressed the letter received from the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission of Mid-Florida (EDC) regarding whether the Board wished to contact the Legislature on casino gambling.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board wanted to prepare a resolution to support EDC's position not to support casino gambling.
Commr. Bailey informed the Board that the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) had not taken a position on the issue.
No action was taken by the Board on the above issue.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2 p.m. for the discussion on impact fees.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that several weeks ago the County had participated in a effort to rid the waterways, boat ramps, etc. from trash and debris. The County has historically waived the solid waste fee for those kinds of activities. He requested that he Board waive an approximate solid waste fee of $32.00 for this instance.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to waive the solid waste fee, which has been estimated to be $32.00, as requested by Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager.
REPORTS/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, appeared before the Board to discuss the Final Lake County Comprehensive Impact Fee Study. Mr. Knight stated that the Board had wanted to revise the Impact Fee Study that had been completed by Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. (RS&H) in 1991. He explained that basically the same methodology was used to update the figures, as indicated in the June 1994 Comprehensive Impact Fee Study. Mr. Knight introduced Mr. Andy Wheeler and Ms. Carmen Chronister from RS&H.
Mr. Knight addressed the Transportation Impact Fees and provided the Board with revised pages that identified the new construction cost methodology and schedule. Mr. Knight explained Page 1-18 that was revised, and which indicated the Average Cost per Lane-Mile. He stated that the DOT costs are now reflected with the DOT improvements, and the County roadway costs are now reflected with County roadway improvements. He discussed Table 1-10, which was revised and presented a new impact fee chart, and stated that the impact fees and the Net Impact Fee costs are substantially greater than what was presented originally in the study. The primary factor was the County roadway costs being associated with State roadway improvements, and State roadway costs being associated with County roadway improvements. Mr. Knight discussed the primary changes in more detail and provided the Board with a Comparative Impact Fee Summary. He stated that currently the transportation impact fees are adopted at 85 percent, and the new figures indicate fees at 100 percent.
Commr. Swartz stated that, as the Board looks at the handout and the analysis in the original binder, the net impact fee would not be 100 percent, because of a 30 percent gasoline impact fee credit, which would indicate that the County would be spending gas tax money to pay for approximately 30 percent of the impact fee approved projects. As the Board decides what to do with the fees, Commr. Swartz stated that it needed to be aware that staff has been before it, in preliminary stages, to discuss how the transfer of State roads to the County may impact the gas tax funds, but that the Board had given tentative approval to staff to meet with cities to discuss the issue of having to use impact fee monies on projects, because the County does not have sufficient gas tax monies. Commr. Swartz stated that, if the County spends approximately 30 percent of the money that is spent on new impacts that comes from gas tax monies, that is gas tax monies that the County does not have to maintain the current system. He felt that the Board needed to make sure that those projects, that are impact fee eligible, be paid with impact fee funds, and that the gas tax money not be used on those projects, because there will not be enough gas tax monies to maintain the existing road network, and when the State reallocation of roads is presented to the County, the situation will become worse.
Mr. Knight stated that he would have to do more research to determine the credit other counties are giving for the use of gas tax monies.
Ms. Chronister addressed the Board and presented a detailed analysis as to all of the fuel taxes collected and considered in the calculation of a credit.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County does not have sufficient monies coming in from gas tax sources to fund the needed road maintenance program for the County as it exists today. He stated that approximately 9 cents of the 37 cents was being diverted to pay and give a credit against impact fees to reduce the impact fees, therefore, gas tax monies are being spent on impact fee eligible projects at a time that the County was running out of gas tax money. This was based on the retrospective analysis of what had been spent in the past, but it would be totally appropriate, if the Board wants to move forward into the future, to say that this is too much gas tax money being used particularly at a time when it is not sufficient, to reduce the impact fee by using gas tax funds. He explained that staff has attempted, on numerous occasions, to express the need to enact new gas taxes that were authorized by the Legislature. Commr. Swartz stated that he does not support diverting 9 cents of the 37 cents, and it may be that the Board wants to phase the impact fee money out as the County phases in a higher impact fee that more fully covers the actual impact of the road network that needs to be created by the new development. He indicated that the Board may want to cut the 9 cents to 6 cents in a year, and cut it to 3 cents the following year, and then evaluate where the County stands. Commr. Swartz stated that he has indicated to Mr. Stivender that, when he comes to the Board and requests additional gas tax pennies, he will not vote for them, as long as he knows that the County is diverting gas tax to impact fee eligible projects.
Commr. Cadwell expressed his concern for the need to find a balance to the situation being presented, because there are many other departments that do not have the appropriate funding to achieve their goals.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County needed to derive in fees, as close to the cost as can be estimated the impact to be, which would include the amount of gas tax credit that would be allowed and the ultimate number. At this time, Commr. Swartz discussed other credit situations handled by the County. He suggested that the Board adopt a figure no less than 95 percent in the first year, and then next year reduce the gas tax from 9 cents to perhaps 6 cents, and the following year reduce it further to 3 cents, and then look at again in terms of how the road system is being maintained. Commr. Swartz stated that the Board would be faced with a situation of letting the road network degrade, or a gas tax increase, unless the Board chose to make sure that as much of the impact demand that is created is funded through that demand rather than subsidizing.
Discussion occurred regarding the impact fees, in relation to the new individuals that move into the County.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would be in favor of impact fees that are equitable recognizing that the County would be receiving fewer and fewer funds from State and Federal sources to provide infrastructure. She suggested that an evaluation be prepared on impact fees, in order to know what the impact was going to be on a community.
Mr. Knight addressed impact fees for the provision of law enforcement facilities. He explained that the previous methodology used to determine the number of Calls for Service (CFS) was not used in the current study, because the law enforcement offices are now fully computerized. Mr. Knight directed the Board's attention to Page 2 and clarified that the Lake County Sheriff's Department provides dispatch services to five local police departments, not seven, as indicated in the study. Therefore, this number should be corrected. Mr. Knight referred to Page 4-11, which indicated a $42.00 impact fee for one single-family residential dwelling unit.
Commr. Swartz stated that, based on the single-family dwelling unit, if you use the $42.00 impact fee calculation, it puts the County at about 90 percent of the actual cost including the credit, with the credit in this instance being a General Fund credit. He referred to Page 4-9 and the information provided on capital expenditures and total expenditures.
Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. addressed the Board and discussed the issue of capital outlay.
Mr. Wheeler explained that the information shown on Page 4-9 regarding Capital Expenditures represents actual expenditures taken from the Office of Management and would be impact fee eligible.
Sheriff Knupp stated that he would reserve further comment on the information being discussed, until he could further review the study.
Mr. Wheeler pointed out that, when you look at the total expenditures for the Sheriff's Department, only about 4 percent of the funds have gone towards capital expenditures, which he felt was a remarkable figure. He noted that, on Page 4-8, it states under Capital Costs, "This excludes capital items on the Sheriff's Department fixed asset inventory which are used for correctional services."
Mr. Knight explained that the fire protection methodology, in essence, did not change from the 1991 study. He referred to Page 2-1, which explained that "The Cities of Mascotte and Groveland are provided fire protection services in their respective districts, which include some unincorporated areas. However, the county does provide backup services to both of these districts." The net impact fee would be $137.00 per single-family residential dwelling unit.
Chief Craig Haun appeared before the Board and stated that he had looked at the study, and the only question he had about the study was the relationship between the cost of service versus the equipment sent. He stated that he supports what is being indicated in the study, so that the process can be initiated.
Mr. Knight stated that it would be an option of the Board as to whether the impact fee process could be initiated in-house.
Emergency Medical Services
Mr. Knight explained that the district change is different in this study. If the County goes forward with the impact fee, the County would have to enter into an interlocal agreement with South Lake Hospital District, in order to have them use and implement the fee. He referred to Page 3-10, which indicated an impact fee in the amount of $23.00 per single-family residential dwelling unit.
Mr. Knight informed the Board that the primary change from the 1991 study involved the more indepth capital items that were identified basically with the development of the Tavares Middle School, the South Lake High School, and the Spring Creek Elementary School. He explained that better information has been presented as to the actual true costs of the development. He directed the Board's attention to Page 5-15, which provided the credit information, and the net impact costs.
Mr. Gene Molnar, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board and explained that the big difference between 1991 and now is the size of the school sites, and the first study did not take into account the equipping of schools. Mr. Molnar discussed the current school sizes, and the enrollment numbers.
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Knight referred to Page 6-1 and the last sentence, which stated "This independent determination would require the immediate inventory addition of 37.49 acres to meet these stricter standards." He informed the Board that the County does not have the ability to adopt an impact fee at the level of service that currently exists. He referred to Page 6-13, which indicated the net impact fee, if the 37.49 acre requirement was met.
Commr. Swartz discussed another alternative which would involve amending the Comprehensive Plan, in order to stop the deteriorating level of service, and making it possible to collect the impact fee. He explained that he would be in favor of having a duel calculation that includes passive land that is in public ownership, or public, but either way, a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be needed. He stated that he would support an amendment and instructing staff to prepare the amendment for the next appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendment process, to establish the level of service needed.
Commr. Hanson explained that she would like to see the numbers brought back to the Board first before any action was taken for an amendment.
Commr. Swartz stated that the amendment could be placed in the works, as soon as possible, so that, by the time the Board was ready to adopt the fees, the Comprehensive Plan would be effective. He stated that the level of service for parks and recreation has declined each year.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to authorize staff to prepare the necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Recreation Open Space, and to prepare a duel track for both active and passive recreation within the Comprehensive Plan.
Under discussion, the definition of "passive" was addressed.
Mr. Knight explained the deadline involved with the amendment process.
Commr. Swart explained that his motion was to move forward as soon as possible, in orber to be as timely as possible.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Mr. Knight informed the Board that currently the State guidelines identify the level of service for the libraries. He stated that, under the current level of service, the County was required to have an additional 75,000 square feet of library space, to bring the County up to the point where it can meet the required level of service standard, in order to implement the impact fees. He stated that it was his understanding that the Library Board was also making a recommendation that the County have higher levels of service for libraries in the County. He referred to Page 7-9, which indicated the net impact fees.
Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Coordinator, addressed the Board and stated that the County was in the process of developing a long range plan of service. The Library Board was recommending the adoption of a level of service at .6 square feet of library space per capita. She noted that the library space is currently at .15 square feet per capita.
Mr. Wheeler explained that it needed to be noted that there was a deficiency in the existing level of library service, which needed to be reflected in the long range plan. The study indicated that the library facilities would need to be improved by the amount of these existing deficiencies, in order to bring the library system up to the statewide recognized level of service provision.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board should go ahead and establish the fee based on what is currently in existence. As improvements are made from non-impact fee sources, that level will go up and will be recalculated at the higher level of service.
Ms. Breeden noted that the statewide plan is due this week.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, since the County was not required to have a level of service, the Board can have a goal adopted by the Board, which ascribes to a goal of a higher level of service, and to the extent that the Board puts capital funds in there to achieve that level of service, or state discretionary funds that may help. He stated that he could not see any reason to not get a fee on the books, so that some funds being generated can go into capital improvements, even if it just maintains the books.
Ms. Breeden stated that she would be more comfortable if there was a commitment from the Board to have goals set.
Commr. Gerber expressed the need to talk with the State Library, because of the amount involved.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved for Reynolds, Smith and Hills to come back with a recalculated figure, which would represent the existing levels of service for library service, and that Ms. Breeden, through discovery, find out what the County needs to do as far as a grant and impact fees and what levels of service reductions would have affecting that.
Mr. Knight stated that RS&H will incorporate all changes for transportation; the library analysis will be recalculated based on the existing level of service; and the recreation fees will be recalculated based on the existing level of service, and a passive evaluation will be made.
It was noted that the final report would be brought back to the Board by RS&H at the first meeting in August at a time certain.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
ATTEST: CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK