The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, 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: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Pete Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance, Audit & Budgets Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Watkins gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that there were two items he would like to request the Board to consider adding to the agenda. The first item would be discussion and direction to the Human Resources Department, in regards to the County Attorney's position. He stated that he would like this item placed under the County Manager's Reports, and the item be placed for possible action today. The second item pertained to a resolution that Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, would be bringing to the Board relating to the action of the Legislature Ways and Means Committee, Chapter 154.011(1) of the Florida Statutes. He requested that this item also be placed for possible action today.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to add to the agenda the two items presented above by Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of November 29, 1994, with the following corrections being made:
Page 5, Line 13 - Strike: "She discussed the $200,000 incentive grant and explained that the County ask that the persons receiving the grant put in an equal effort."
Page 58, Line 8 - Amend: but "she did not agree with the manner in which some things were done in order to further the request of the Board majority."
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Regular Minutes of November 29, 1994, as corrected.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of December 13, 1994, with the following corrections being made:
Page 10, Line 19 & 20 - Correct: "natural" to "human"
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Regular Minutes of December 13, 1994, as corrected.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Minutes of December 16, 1994, PACE Group, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
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 Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Accounts Allowed/Tax Deeds
Request to acknowledge receipt of the unclaimed excess proceeds due landowners on applications for tax deeds in the amount of $466.05.
Bonds - Contractor
Request to approve the following Contractor Bonds:
1763-95 Innovation Industries, Inc. DBA Jack & Andy's
Electric (Electrical Contractor)
3093-95 Landes Construction & Development Inc.
5350-95 James Walton Ward DBA Southeast Roofing Inc.
5351-95 Robert E. Bowen DBA B & A Heating & Air Cond.
(Heating & Air Conditioning)
5352-95 Ethridge Construction, Inc. (General Contractor)
5353-95 William S. West
5354-95 James York DBA York Bridge Concepts (Marine)
5358-95 Century Air Conditioning & Heating Inc.
(Air Conditioning & Heating)
4927-96 Roddy M. Russell (Siding Installation)
5356-96 George Kenneth Aycock/Southern Power & Controls
Request to approve and authorize proper signatures on the following Satisfaction of Assessment Liens:
Harbor Shores Unit II
Pine Island Land Co. $1,163.94
Astor Forest Campsites
David Mouron $1,847.12
Stephen K. Wolfe & Patricia Sharon Wolfe $1,405.78
Ocala Forest Campsites No. 4
Jeanie M. Smith $ 901.12
South Pine Lakes Subdivision
Charles Andrews $ 635.52
Lake Eustis Village Subdivision
Daniel and Joann Glaser $1,148.18
St. Johns Waterfront Estate
Dallas E. & Doris Muskopf
(currently owned by Keith F. King) $ 544.64
Jeffery L. & Anita L. Rudd $5,082.73
Request to approve and authorize proper signatures on the following Satisfactions:
(a) Satisfaction and Release of Lien, Judgment-Creditor Lake County (Code Enforcement Board) against Judgment-Debtor Leif Ormesher, in the amount of $1,100.00.
(b) Satisfaction of Judgment, State of Florida vs. Richard Daniel Shock, Case Number 88-14CFA, in the amount of $250.00.
(c) Satisfaction of Judgment, In the Interest of Phillip Jackson, a child, and Lou Ann Hyatt, Case Number 82-689-CJ, in the amount of $100.00.
(d) Satisfaction of Judgment, In the Interest of Phillip Joe Jackson, a child, and Lou Ann Hyatt, Case Number 82-135 & 81-1107-CJ, in the amount of $150.00.
(e) Satisfaction of Judgment, In the Interest of Phillip J. Jackson, a child, and Louann Hyatt, Case Number 81-798-CJ, in the amount of $150.00.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/TIMES CERTAIN
IMPACT FEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, addressed the Board to discuss the request to waive the impact fee for Ministry Center Complex being built by the First Baptist Church, Christian Care Center. Mr. Wahl explained that waivers are not allowed on impact fees, but a method in which the Board would like staff to address such issues needed to be determined. He requested additional clarification, or direction, as to how the Board would like staff to develop this method, in terms of a policy.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Mr. Art A. Ayris, CCC Administrator, First Baptist Church, appeared before the Board and explained that six structures have not been demolished, but they would be and those uses would be moved to new structures. Mr. Richey explained that the City of Leesburg would be charged to determine the traffic impact fee, and the evaluation based on the uses, and then determine what the credits would be. He stated that the 19,000 square feet of structures that have been demolished, or are scheduled to be demolished, would substantially reduce the impact fees. If there was a shortfall with the credits, Mr. Richey indicated that he would most likely revisit the Board for assistance in dealing with the credits based on his client's community service. Mr. Richey stated that he had suggested that this issue be addressed in the new Impact Fee Ordinance being proposed, because right now it requires that the non-profit pay it, or the County pays it.
Mr. Wahl explained that the Board's direction has been related to the Community Action Agency developing a referral agreement with the church. If it was the Board's desire, Mr. Wahl stated that there may be a way to approach an in-kind service provision for not-for-profit corporations that would be charged off in lieu of impact fees, or those public purpose services that are provided by 5013C of the Internal Revenue Service Code, but needed to be confined within the ordinance and further clarified and developed by policy.
Commr. Swartz explained that the Impact Fee Ordinance requires that the impact fee be paid, and it cannot be waived. When the County starts considering such issues, as the one before the Board, it would not be a waiver of fees, but would be the Board considering looking into another part of County government funding. He suggested that, as one alternative, the Board could divert the funds given to non-profit agencies for operation and hold them in a reserve to pay for impact fees for other non-profits, but the Board would have to look back at the other non-profits who have, in the past, built and paid these fees. He did not feel that any member of the Board opposed the City of Leesburg entering into an agreement to insure that those fees, that are due and payable, are paid at such time that the buildings are demolished and the new ones are built, and the impact is created and the appropriate credit being given.
Mr. Hoban informed the Board that different cities contact the County for an interpretation of the County Impact Fee Ordinance.
No action was needed by the Board.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained to the Board the changes that had been made to the ordinance pertaining to the County Manager's position.
Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Tavares, appeared before the Board and addressed the new paragraph established in the proposed ordinance, which gives the Board the ability to waive the minimum qualifications for both the County Manager, and the County Attorney, as it establishes an Interim position. She stated that the Board needed to have some flexibility, because an emergency may arise, such as a resignation, and the Board would need to move forward. She cautioned that this would leave the Board with no qualifications other than whatever the Board would determine at that particular time. Ms. Bonifay stated that, only having five years requirement as a practicing member of the Bar, would not be very stringent given the responsibility of that position.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance 1995-1, as follows by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 1990-5, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE POSITION OF COUNTY MANAGER; AMENDING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE COUNTY MANAGER; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Under the discussion of the proposed ordinance for the County Attorney's position, Commr. Cadwell explained that originally he had voted in opposition to this issue, but he planned on supporting it today, because it was a common sense approach to the issue.
Commr. Gerber opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Hanson explained that she would support the proposed ordinance, because it justified the direction taken by the majority of the Board, and it made all rules in conformance.
There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, presented an explanation of the minimum qualifications established in the proposed ordinance.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance 1995-2, as follows by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 1990-6, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE POSITION OF COUNTY ATTORNEY; AMENDING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Approval to establish April 4, 1995, and April 18, 1995, as the dates for Student Government Day.
Community Services/Libraries/Grants/Accounts Allowed
Approval and authorization for Chairman to sign State Aid to Libraries Grant Agreement, in the amount of $145,168, and to encumber and expend funds.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning and Development
Approval and authorization for Chairman to sign GIS Software License Agreement. (Noted Fiscal Impact: $11,999.00)
Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements/Deeds
Acceptance of a Non-Exclusive Private Easement Deed from James E. and Joan Quinn.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies
Approval and signature on Cooperative Agreement Between Lake County and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission with respect to improvements at the Astor-Butler Street Boat Ramp.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Grants/State Agencies
Approval and signature on Tri-Party Development Project Grant Agreement Between State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Orange County, and Lake County for improvements at St. Johns Lake.
Bids/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Road Projects
Approval to award Countywide Resurfacing Project No. 1-95, Bid No. B-2-5-04 to C. A. Meyer Paving and Construction Company in the amount of $641,753.89, authorization for Chairman to sign Interlocal Agreements with the Cities of Eustis, Leesburg, Mount Dora, Tavares, and Umatilla for payment of their roads included in this bid, and approval to encumber and expend funds from the Transportation Trust Fund in the amount of $353,634.83, and from the Landfill Capital Enterprise Fund in the amount of $8,129.55 for resurfacing at the Astatula Landfill.
Grants/Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management
Approval and authorization for Chairman to sign DEP Grant Amendment, Contract #AP1001, for the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Management Program (FAC Chapter 16C-54). (Noted Fiscal Impact: $12,000)
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Approval to execute Change Order No. 2 to Getford Road/Hicks Ditch Road Design-Build Project No. 15-93, for drainage improvements in the amount of $6,700 - Commissioner District 4.
Roads-County and State
Acceptance of Maintenance Map on Gray's Airport Road (#5-7310) at intersection with Lake Griffin Road (#5-7611).
Deeds/Roads-County and State
Acceptance of the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:
John E. Griner and Francisco DeSousa
Arthur Hubbard and Jean Hubbard
Wendell Gaertner and Paula Gaertner
Bloomfield Ave. #3-3026
T. Andrew Pughe, Carolyn J. Pughe, Richard C. Brown and Nancy Ann Brown
N. Buckhill Rd. #3-2739
O. Donald Green and Maxine Green
EmEnEl Grove Rd. #5-8037
Alfred A. Cosentino and Concetta C. Consentino
SR 46 and Hunter Ave.
Mark V. Knowles
Liberty Baptist Church, Inc.
Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State
Approval of a Resolution to post "No Parking Anytime" signs on Lakeshore Dr. (2-1040) approximately 300 feet north and south of its intersection with Amber Av. (2-1044), as well as on Amber Av. for the last 200 feet before its intersection with Lakeshore Dr.
Approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 764 by Joseph Coursey to vacate streets and lots, Tavadora Subdivision, Sec. 6, Twp. 20, Rge. 26, Lane Park Area - Commissioner District 3.
Request approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue Purchase Orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, State Contract, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM Repairs, sole source and proprietor source; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
D) Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities from Annual
Bids, State Contract, G.S.A., or Cooperative Bids.
PUBLIC SERVICES $17,000.00
Florida Crushed Stone/Authorization to extend Bids #4-4-28,
Crushed Rock for an additional year per the original terms and
conditions and issue a Blanket Purchase Order within budgeted
PUBLIC SERVICES $15,000.00
Dixie Lime and Stone Co. for Maintenance Area I; Florida
Crushed Stone Co. for Maintenance Area II; M. J. Stavola for
Maintenance Area III/Authorization to extend Bid #4-4-02, Lime
Rock for an additional year per the original terms and
conditions and issue Blanket Purchase Orders within budgeted
CITIZEN QUESTIONS AND COMMENT PERIOD
Ms. Jean Kaminski addressed the Board and requested that the members of the Board speak up, in order for the audience to be able to hear them.
COMMITTEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, was present to discuss the ranking of the three most qualified surveyors, as recommended by the Selection Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the final ranking of surveyors recommended by the Committee appointed December 20, 1994, as follows: 1. John B. Webb & Associates; 2. Jones, Hoechst & Associates, Inc.; 3. Florida Geodetic Surveying; appointment of the Committee as a Negotiating Committee with authorization to negotiate price with the highest ranked firm subject to the requirements and limitations of the approved Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) contract; and authorization for the Chairman to execute a contract with the highest ranked firm subject to review and approval by the County Attorney and the requirements and limitations of the CDBG contract.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS
Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the Board to discuss the proposed amendment to the Service Agreement between Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, Inc. and Lake County. He stated that staff had received direction from the Board to go back to Ogden Martin and discuss the capital cost for the mercury emission system, and to see whether Ogden Martin would participate in the share of that cost. Mr. Roche noted the letter from Ogden Martin dated December 20, 1994, and stated that Mr. Kyle Garrett, Manager - Facility Administration, was present to answer questions of the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding the intent of Page 3, (g), Paragraph 2, with Mr. Garrett informing the Board that this paragraph was deleted by Ogden Martin. Mr. Garrett continued to explain the paragraphs that followed.
Mr. Roche explained that the County would not pay any more for Unit I than for Unit II. The County would pay when the system was installed and then Ogden Martin would reimburse the County. It was noted that the Assumed Capital Improvement Debt Service shall mean, with respect to Billing Year ending March, 1996, an amount equal to $74,233.92, and with respect to Billing Years ending March, 1997 through 2014, an amount equal to $97,645.23.
Commr. Good stated his concern with the installation of a system that would reduce the mercury and then years later having to put in another technology to address furin and dioxin emissions. He stated that the Board needed to keep in mind that the system to be installed may not resolve all regulatory problems and would not be a permanent solution.
Commr. Swartz explained that, since the County had only obligated itself to 130,000 tons, Ogden Martin unfortunately had a great leeway in what it chose to take. He stated that Pasco County could choose not to accept it, because Pasco was utilizing their full capacity, and it was not operating as a merchant plant. He requested a time certain from staff to bring back to this Board for consideration, the determination of charges at the landfill for Ogden Martin's out-of-county waste disposal.
Mr. Roche explained that the County was currently charging Ogden Martin full cost for ash disposal, which would be $26 per ton, even though Ogden Martin has not agreed to this amount and was currently paying $12 per ton. He noted that this information would be brought to the Board on February 7, 1995.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board needed to have, as background information, a very detailed analysis of the landfill costs. He stated that he would like to make the approval of the request subject to the Finance Department evaluating the debt service, to insure that the interest rate calculation had been done correctly.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to amend the Service Agreement between Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, Inc. and Lake County, and that it be subject to the Finance Department reviewing the interest rate calculations under the definition of "Assumed Capital Improvement Debt Service"; that on Page 3, (g), the second paragraph beginning with "If such tests" and going through "non-satisfaction of such conditions." be stricken from the Agreement, and that the Chairman be authorized to sign on behalf of the Board.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, presented the request to the Board. It was noted that Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management Services, was present to answer questions of the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution 1995-6 authorizing a draw of $9,000,000 on the Line of Credit with Sun Bank, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/SOLID WASTE
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that this was the first Interlocal Agreement with a city in Lake County, the City of Eustis, relating to the payment of Solid Waste Management System Fees.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to sign the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Eustis regarding the payment and application of Solid Waste System Fees, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT BUSINESS
Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management Services, appeared before the Board to present a brief summary of the bids received to implement the permanent closure of the Astatula Phase I Landfill. Mr. Roche explained that the initial budget for this item was $5.1 million. He stated that the recommendation from Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) was Ronald Adams Contractor, Inc., in the amount of $4,047,889. Mr. Roche stated that Adams has requested that their bid be withdrawn, due to calculation errors that they made. It was noted that the request for withdrawal was made in a timely manner.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that, if an immediate request was made to withdraw the bid, and the company could demonstrate a mathematical error, the bid bond could be returned. Mr. Hoban explained that the company immediately identified their errors, in writing, and cited the case law that supported their position, which amounted to $180,000 worth of mistakes. The County Attorney's Office was recommending that Adams be allowed to withdraw their bid.
Mr. Gary DeBo, Construction Contract Manager, addressed the Board to discuss the response made by the attorney representing Adams, and noted that the first error addressed was not a mistake, but the second error eluded to by the attorney amounted to $180,000 and was a mistake. It was noted that the County Attorney's Office disputed one of the mistakes.
Mr. Hoban explained that, in reaching a recommendation, the Purchasing Department and the County Attorney's Office contacted a number of other counties across the State and requested their philosophy on this type of issue. After contacting Orange County, Seminole County, and Pinellas County, it was determined that, if the company asked immediately before the award was made, they generally, as a matter of policy, allowed the bid bond to be withdrawn. He noted that Pinellas County, in the past, did not take this direction, and would sue for the bid bonds, but ended up having too many losses, and therefore, stopped going after bid bonds in such cases.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the recommendation to award Bid Number B-5-5-8, for the construction for the Lake County Solid Waste Management Phase I Closure, to the second lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, Grubbs Construction Company, in the amount of $4,490,000, as recommended by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J), and the County Attorney's Office.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board accepted staff's recommendation to release the bid bond of Ronald Adams Contractor, Inc.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/CONTRACTS, LEASES
AND AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, was present to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Lease Agreement between the City of Clermont and Lake County for the use of the City's old police station, to be used as the Sheriff's South Lake County Substation, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
COUNTY ATTORNEY/STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and requested policy guidance as to DCA v. Don Bailey and Mary Ann Bailey, and DCA v. A. E. Langley. He questioned whether the Board wanted to aggressively defend the lawsuits, or continue monitoring the cases.
DCA v. Don Bailey and Mary Ann Bailey
Commr. Cadwell explained that the majority of the Board had approved the issue pertaining to the Baileys when it came before the Board, without the vote of former Commr. Don Bailey. He suggested that the Board proceed with the recommendation of Mr. Hoban and merely monitor the progress of the case and stay abreast of the situation, until such time the Board felt it needed to get involved.
Mr. Don Bailey appeared before the Board and requested that the burden be placed on him to negotiate with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Commr. Swartz explained that he had read the documents that had been submitted by DCA in their appeal of the Development Orders. He stated that he would like to see an internal review to determine whether the action taken be staff was consistent with the approaches the County had taken in terms of its Comprehensive Plan, and whether the County was adhering to the Plan, and to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and enforcing them fairly and equally.
Mr. Hoban noted that the 2 p.m. workshop on the LDR Amendments would involve a minor subdivision regulations proposal.
Commr. Cadwell explained that he would not have a problem with the internal review, but when the cases came before the Board, the staff gave staff reports, which stated their opinions and recommendations. He stated that staff could reiterate this information, or expound on how they came up with their recommendations.
Discussion occurred regarding the issue of DCA challenging such cases, if the County was adhering to the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs, and treating all cases the same. It was determined, through discussion, that it might help the County to avoid other challenges in the future, if an internal review was made. The review would determine whether the past practice with these types of issues have been consistent.
Commr. Gerber explained that, rather than reviewing the direction that had been taken on cases over the past year, staff should use its energy on the development of the new LDRs relating to subdivisions and other issues that everyone would have to abide by. She did not feel there was a purpose for going back and making a determination as to whether the issues in the past were handled properly.
Commr. Swartz explained that, if there was any inconsistency between the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan would be the document that would override the LDRs. If there were items in the Plan that needed to be clarified or changed, they needed to come as a result of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He explained that, by reading DCA's account, there were portions of the Plan, with regard to two developments, where the County did not follow its own rules and regulations.
Commr. Cadwell felt that Commr. Swartz was requesting that staff prepare a defense for the Board's action without taking any official action to intercede. He agreed with Commr. Gerber that this would be a waste of time and money.
Discussion occurred regarding whether there was a requirement, in the Comprehensive Plan, for a flood insurance study to be done in certain situations.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing A. E. Langley, appeared before the Board and explained that the two cases being discussed were two separate cases. She would reserve her comments to the Langley case, due to the Board acknowledging these were two different cases.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion for staff to continue to monitor the DCA v. Don and Mary Ann Bailey case and keep the Board abreast of the activity in the case and report back.
Noting that the case before the Board was in District 2, Commr. Cadwell withdrew his motion.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to direct staff to continue to monitor the DCA v. Don and Mary Ann Bailey case, and that, if they find that there are things that staff did, which may have complicated this case and caused DCA to question the County's consistency with what was written in the Comprehensive Plan, that they bring that information back to the Board.
DCA v. A. E. Langley
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that the Langley case was slightly different from the Bailey case, because it involved a preliminary plat and a PUD, as opposed to a large lot split, but the basic question would be whether staff should aggressively defend the case, or monitor, or intervene and oppose the case.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing A. E. Langley, appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Langley was the owner and developer of a PUD called Pretty Lake. She stated that the two cases involved two entirely different issues. Ms. Bonifay explained that, the only reason that Mr. Langley was in this position was to oversight, or neglect, of the County, in that, pursuant to State Rule and Statute, the County never sent in and rendered the Development Order on the Pretty Lake PUD at the time of its approval in 1990. First, the issue involved the current Comprehensive Plan being applied, because of the failure of the County to render the Development Order; secondly, the County had unconsciously withheld granting of any determination on vested rights to Mr. Langley. This application had been pending for months, and the County had now imposed an illegal moratorium through the County Attorney's Office wherein, as of December 12, 1994, it would issue no further vested rights determinations in Lake County. Ms. Bonifay urged that the County move to try to remedy what it could in this case. In regards to the vested rights issue, she felt that this was not a Board policy, and there had been no public hearing to determine that the County would not be in the vested rights business anymore. She noted that some of the vested rights cases have been pending for more than a year, which was causing those individuals material and substantial economic damage. Ms. Bonifay noted that, on October 30, 1991, there was an approved PUD in place for this project, and there were also approved final development plans, and permits in hand, and substantial expenditures were incurred by Mr. Langley, in trying to move forward with the development of the project.
Mr. Hoban noted that the County Attorney's Office disagreed with the last statement made by Ms. Bonifay. He noted that, in June, 1992, the County passed Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which granted very limited vesting for PUDs. In December, 1993, the County granted extensive vesting for PUDs.
Ms. Bonifay informed the Board that she was currently researching whether or not DCA took a separate action and appealed only those portions which apply to the Green Swamp.
Mr. Hoban explained that there was vesting language in the July 16, 1991 Comprehensive Plan. In June, 1992, LDRs were written and passed, which implemented the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that DCA's challenge to the Comprehensive Plan pertained to the vesting language, which the LDRs were based on. In March, 1993, the vesting language was changed in the Comprehensive Plan, and DCA dropped its objections to the vesting. The County then passed an ordinance in December, 1993, vesting PUDs extensively, which DCA has challenged. He stated that the County was in the process of settling the last challenge. Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Rolon W. Reed, Interim County Attorney, was in the process of conducting a thorough review of the entire process for vesting and preparing to make a general presentation to the Board.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the County had the right to withhold vesting determinations pending a presentation to the Board. She stated that this should be a policy determination by this Board, and not by the Attorney, as to whether the Board was going to issue a moratorium on vesting determinations.
Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Reed had a question on both the language and the internal procedures the County uses to issue a vested determination. He explained that a vesting determination had been made last week based strictly on statutory vesting, as interpreted by DCA, but it was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
Commr. Swartz stated that staff, the County Attorney's Office, and the Planning Department are dealing with an ordinance that was found not to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, all of the provisions under which they had been issuing vesting rights determinations, have been challenged by DCA. The issues not being challenged are common and statutory vesting, which require looking at each individual case. He stated that DCA not only challenged the various vested rights that were allowed, but also challenged the process, which provides for no public hearing, and no public notification.
Mr. Hoban explained that, if the County cannot meet the 45 day deadline, the deadline would be extended by the amount of time it takes the County to make its determination.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to monitor the DCA v. A. E. Langley case, and if there was information of which this Board needed to become aware of, that the County was somehow operating inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Board be advised.
Commr. Cadwell referred to the last comment in the memorandum received from Mr. Reed regarding a decision from the Board and stated that the Board's choice should be to support DCA's effort in their opinion of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/E-9-1-1
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, addressed the Board and stated that action was postponed on the request to approve the contract between Lake County and Mr. Jimmy Lin for the re-write, installation, and implementation of new E9-1-1 software, and Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, was directed to contact other agencies to determine whether there were other alternatives to this issue. He noted that the Board had a revised Custom Software Development Agreement with the developer being recommended for approval.
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, was present to discuss the issue. Mr. Thorburn stated that the only area of revision was the area of concern with the warranty, which now provides for an additional 90 days of warranty for the product. He presented a brief overview of the issue and informed the Board that he had been given new information from Commr. Swartz that there may be a potential for Sequent Computer Systems Inc. to reconsider their maintenance on the existing system. He stated that the Board had several options it could consider, as follows: (1) it could consider negotiations with Sequent; or (2) forklift the system and consider alternatives to replacing the operating system of software and hardware and completely replace the whole enhanced 9-1-1 system; or (3) accept the agreement being presented for the re-write of the software, with the County having the source code, because should the County not choose to continue with the support from this vendor, the County has the flexibility, under this plan, to look at other vendors and opportunities in the long-term. He stated that Mr. Bert McDonald, Technical Advisor, Sprint United Telephone, was present to answer questions of the Board. Mr. Thorburn noted that his recommendation was still option number three. He stated that, as of two years ago, the County was told by Sequent that they were going to give the County a two year maintenance program, that would not be extended beyond their normal five year plan, plus 90 days, which they have in their existing contract, which he felt was justification for the Board to look at an alternative to having obsolete hardware and software for their enhanced 9-1-1 system. He was notified by Commr. Swartz that Sequent may consider, because of the nature of the 9-1-1 system, extending that warranty.
Commr. Swartz noted that the County had been faced with an apparent time constraint to make a decision on a sole source contract. He discussed Lake County's unique system and noted that the County had been operating as its own in-house telephone company, with its own 9-1-1 system. He wanted to make sure that the Board did not repeat some of the decisions that were made in the 1987-88 time frame and take a thoughtful look at what would be best for Lake County. Commr. Swartz explained that Sequent had not made a decision to not continue to support the computer that currently exists in the County, but they have said that their policy states that, five years after a machine was not manufactured any longer, they may not continue, but even in that case, they must notify the County 90 days from the August 9th date, which would be the five year anniversary. In talking with them, there seemed to be a willingness to come to a decision very quickly for the County, as to their ability to service the County's equipment for a somewhat longer time, so that the County could go through a more thoughtful process, perhaps even going to bid. Commr. Swartz was concerned about getting into a sole source, and he was not suggesting Option 1.
Mr. Thorburn explained that the first option was to proceed with Sequent to see whether or not they would continue to support the hardware and give the County assurances that there are enough parts to impeccably fix it.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the first course of action should be to get some additional time, so that the County would not be forced into a sole source type of contract that had not been bid.
Mr. Thorburn discussed the position that the County would be in, if, in fact, Sequent could not support the system after the 90 days.
Mr. Bert McDonald, Sprint United Telephone, appeared before the Board and explained that the question that the Board needed to address was what would be the status of the County's system at any given time after your existing contract expires. Mr. McDonald felt that it would be almost undeterminable, because depending upon the status of the equipment and software at that moment, and depending upon a failure that were to occur after that moment, was going to determine those dynamics. He stated that the County might revert to an entirely basic 9-1-1 system in the County, if the County had a total software operational failure. He noted that the County would not have time, in 90 days, to re-write software. He further stated that the Board needed to determine how to maintain quality continuity of service without a gap. Mr. McDonald explained that he was not aware of anyone in Lake County that could provide it with the type of software that it needed. He stated that any good computer programmer could, with enough time, design the same system.
Commr. Good addressed Page 1 of the Custom Software Development Agreement, and the paragraph pertaining to the Ownership of Development Plan. He questioned whether the County would own the program that would do the enhancements.
After discussion of the paragraph, Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that it would need to be re-written and amended to clearly state its intent.
Commr. Good stated that, if the County could somehow maintain the unique data base and improve the software and still recover the expenditures, the County may have advanced the industry, which would not be the County's intended purpose, but it would have provided a higher level of service in maintaining the health, safety and welfare of Lake County.
Commr. Swartz addressed Page 7, 22. Termination of Agreement and stated his concern with the language. He stated that it would prudent for the Board to first and try to make an attempt to get Sequent to give the County an individual decision with some future date of guarantee that dealt with maintaining the system, which would give the County more time to go out for bids, and not end up with a contract that had terms in it, such as Page 6 of the proposed agreement, 17. Intellectual Property Infringement Claims.
Mr. Wahl informed the Board that, even though Mr. Thorburn had not talked with Sequent within one year, the part of the $40,000 settlement with GTE was based upon the County's concern, and the state of concern over Sequent's inability or their rejection of intent to provide continued support to the County's system. He did not feel there was any objection of trying to get Sequent to continue to support it, but he was doubtful that, where they have a limited number of these systems, it puts the County in a very unlikely position to bet against what may become a disaster. He explained that Mr. Thorburn, because of Mr. Lin's past involvement and background, was suggesting him, because he was the most economical, and could provide the software that was being requested at a significantly less cost than other providers would have to charge the County to become familiar with its system.
Commr. Good noted that it was the uniqueness of the County's data base that gives the County options to do some things that other systems cannot do. If the Board can save the County money by going out to bid, or something along those lines, and not put the data base in jeopardy, Commr. Good felt that this direction should be pursued by the Board. He stated that the Board needed some reassurance that the data base would be protected and still get the best deal the County can get. Commr. Good stated that a second option may be for the County Attorney to review the contract before the Board and bring a revised one back for Mr. Lin to consider, as well as the Board, and to find ways in the contract that would reduce the County's liabilities.
Discussion occurred regarding the direction that the Board wanted to take in terms of all fairness to Mr. Lin.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to negotiate with Mr. Jimmy Lin, as a sole source provider for 9-1-1 software, and to ask the County Attorney's Office, and the 9-1-1 Office, to sit down and answer the questions in regards to the contract, and bring a contract back for approval, with the cost not to exceed $100,000.
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber explained that she was leaning on supporting the motion, because of Mr. Thorburn's track record as a fiscally responsible staff member, and the Board being able to review the contract again.
Mr. Thorburn questioned whether the Board wanted him to pursue with Sequent, the option of whether they would extend, which would give the Board more time, or to write the software, but to look at other alternatives, in the event that any negotiations contractually break down.
Commr. Swartz made a motion to amend the motion on the floor, to instruct staff, during the interim of negotiating to finalize the contract with Mr. Lin, with the Chairman's signature, to send a letter directly to Sequent explaining the concern about the dates into the future and impressing upon them the importance of trying to get a guaranteed extension to their maintenance and support of the Sequent computer now in existence with the County, in order to provide additional time and flexibility to whatever process this Board ended up choosing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the amendment presented by Commr. Swartz could be made part of the original motion, or the Board could vote on the amendment. At this time, Commr. Cadwell amended his motion, with Commr. Hanson amending her second to the motion, to include the above language provided by Commr. Swartz.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which included the amended language. The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Swartz voting "no".
Commr. Swartz stated that he would have voted in favor of the amendment, because of the importance of getting extra time, but he voted no on the motion, because he wanted a message sent to staff that he does not like sole source contracts up against the wall when he is told that he does not have any other choices. He stated that the Board was faced with the same thing on the incinerator, and the mercury emissions, and it was important that staff realized that the Board needed to get these things timely, so that other alternatives could be considered, and not be given only one choice, and a short period of time, to consider that one and only choice.
Commr. Good stated that he was voting in favor of the motion, and that he was doing this with reservations, and with the idea that this contract would come back, and the Board could look at limiting the County's liabilities in the future.
Commr. Swartz explained that it was important that the Chairperson be the one to send the letter to the management at Sequent, and he would assist in providing her with that information.
Ms. Barbara Lehman, Director, Finance, Audit & Budgets Department, addressed the Board to request approval of the Calendar of Events for Fiscal Year 1995/96. Ms. Lehman introduced Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Director of Budget; Ms. Tracy Zeller, Senior Budget Analyst; and Mr. Kevin McDonald, Senior Budget Analyst. Ms. Lehman explained that her office would be checking the hearing dates for the School Board meetings to try and void any conflict in scheduling. The public hearings would be scheduled for 6 or 6:30 p.m., in order to encourage public attendance. She explained that the Board would be presented with a line item budget by department at the budget workshops starting in July. Each department will be presenting an overview of their department. Ms. Lehman stated that certain information had been requested by the Board, which included the following:
1. Detail information on solid waste
2. Road and School impact fees received.
3. A listing of all grants received.
4. A matching of department expenses with sources of funding.
5. Definitions of personnel terms including full-time, part-time,
permanent part-time and the applicable benefits.
6. A comparison of 1993 actual expenses to 1994 actual expenses.
7. Listing of authorized positions and proposed changes, related
salary and fringe benefit expense.
8. Detail listing of capital outlay expenses and justification,
whether new or replacement.
Commr. Cadwell expressed his appreciation to Ms. Lehman for meeting individually with each of the Commissioners ahead of time and getting their ideas. He directed the Board's attention to the dates on the calendar and stressed the importance of getting a County Manager as quickly as possible.
Commr. Gerber informed the Board that she had talked with Ms. Lehman and Ms. LaMarche about the Board Retreat and tying the budget into that meeting, and instead of having this meeting in January, as in the past, they discussed having it after the mid-year budget revisions, but before the new budget begins. A proposed time had been determined as the week of April 10, 1995.
Commr. Swartz felt it was a good idea that the Retreat have some relationship to the budget, but the Board may need to consider having it before April 7, 1995, in order to look at the Board's priorities.
Commr. Cadwell discussed having the Retreat meeting prior to March 9, 1995, which had been scheduled as the budget orientation with all departments.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, reminded the Board that the budget process for the departments had already started, and if the Retreat meeting could be held before March 9, 1995, this would allow the Board time to give the departments what they need in finalizing their budgets for submittal on April 7, 1995.
After further discussion, the Board scheduled the Board Retreat for March 14, 1995.
Commr. Swartz discussed the policy that places all of the mid-year cash balances that come forward into a special reserve, and stated that he discussed with Ms. Lehman the design of her budget forms, which would include cost saving measures that would be identified by each department. Commr. Swartz stated that he would still like to see the Board move to a system whereby an individual, or department, or a division within a department, or a sub-group within a division, can come up with a plan of operation that would provide cost savings to the County, and to find some way to encourage that type of innovation. He noted that there was statutory authority that would allow the Board to pay, or reimburse, or give bonuses in effect, to either individuals or groups that are able to do this without it becoming a part of their salary base.
Commr. Hanson explained that the system being described by Commr. Swartz was similar to something that was started approximately four years ago, and a fund was set forth, but it never had the momentum that it needed from the Board. She stated that this would be a very positive move for Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the Florida League of Cities had an innovative cities program that they do every year, and the Board could contact the League to get the format that they use for their program.
Mr. Wahl stated that the Board adopted such a program that established the incentive for the cost saving initiative, but he was not aware of the Board awarding anyone.
Discussion occurred regarding placing the policy in the County newsletter.
Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted to see whether the Board could provide more citizen involvement earlier in the budget process at mid-year. He suggested staff take the necessary steps to start encouraging people to come to the meetings where the budget would first be developed.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Calendar of Events Fiscal Year 1995/96, as presented by Ms. Barbara Lehman, Director, Finance, Audit & Budgets Department.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, was present to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to accept the Quit-Claim Deed from the City of Umatilla - Umatilla Landfill.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, reminded the Board that it had approved to add two items to the agenda for discussion.
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, appeared before the Board and stated that the health units had been asked by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to cut their budgets by 35%. He discussed the programs that would be cut, which were the ones that were very important to low income and medicare/medicaid residents. He stated that many of the services that are not going to be provided may fall back on the County to look at funding.
Mr. Wahl stated that the resolution being proposed would be recognizing the need to review, for the purpose of reduction or elimination, but not to specifically pinpoint those specific services.
Commr. Swartz suggested that HRS concentrate their cuts at levels above the County local Public Health Unit and encourage them to find cuts that exist above that level.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution 1995-7, to include additional language that talked about aiming those budget reductions at other than direct service applications.
COUNTY ATTORNEY/HUMAN RESOURCES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, directed the Board's attention to Memorandum No. 95-01-009 from Ms. Lois Martin, Director of Human Resources, requesting direction for the recruitment of a County Attorney.
Ms. Martin addressed the Board and explained that she had received 12 applicants for the County Attorney's position, and of those applicants, three meet the approved minimum qualifications. She stated that the Selection Committee had been scheduled for a meeting in keeping with the schedule, and she wanted to be able to provide the Board with an alternative, if the Board wished to pursue it.
Commr. Cadwell requested that the Board act on the request from Ms. Martin after the lunch hour, so that the Board could have an opportunity to review the material just presented by Ms. Martin.
Commr. Swartz addressed his agenda item pertaining to the formation of a Citizen Review Committee to evaluate procedures and the organization of the Planning, Zoning, and Permitting Departments. He noted that the individuals he had contacted would welcome the opportunity to work with staff, to search for ways to improve these particular services. Commr. Swartz stated that he discussed his intent with Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, who indicated to him that he felt it would be productive, and that he would like to work with these people. Commr. Swartz explained to each of the individuals listed that the Board would first have to agree to develop such a committee, and secondly, their names would be put forward to serve. He explained that, even though the Cabinet looked at the departments, it did not look at them in detail. Commr. Swartz stated that he would consider any other individuals that the Board wanted to submit at this time, to serve on the Committee.
Discussion occurred regarding the manner in which the proposed Committee was formed and presented to the Board by Commr. Swartz.
Commr. Hanson agreed that this would be a step beyond what the Kitchen Cabinet was to do, and it would be a more indepth and hands-on activity within the departments.
Commr. Swartz explained that a resolution would be created for the Sunshine Committee. As he spoke to each individual, Commr. Swartz explained that he was simply putting their name forward, and that the Board may want to choose other people. Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the list was a cross section of individuals, and he, as well as the group individually, do not have a problem considering any other people. He noted that an individual representing agriculture had not been placed on the list.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would present a name, from the Agriculture Committee, to represent the agriculture field.
Discussion occurred regarding the size of the Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved an Ad Hoc Committee to work in the area of Planning, Zoning and Development Departments, as indicated in his memorandum, and a resolution to be brought back, which sets up the Committee, to provide for 11 members, and adding one additional member, which Commr. Hanson would be bringing forward representing agriculture permitting issues.
It was noted that the following individuals were selected to serve on the Committee, as presented by Commr. Swartz:
Carl Ludecke Steve Shamrock
Keith Riddle Liz Barker
Debbie Stivender Sandy Minkoff
George E. Wood Ray Gilley
Willie Morgan Brent Humphrey
Commr. Gerber introduced Ms. Polly Haines, the new intern reporter for the North Lake Outpost.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Proclamation 1995-4 naming February 12-18, 1995 as FBLA-Phi Beta Lambda week in Lake County.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:45 p.m.
COUNTY ATTORNEY/HUMAN RESOURCES
Ms. Lois Martin, Director of Human Resources, addressed the Board to discuss Memorandum No. 95-01-009 and requested direction on the continued recruitment of a County Attorney's position. Ms. Martin explained that, if the Board decided to go out for a consulting firm to do the hunt, the 30 to 45 days would be without re-advertising. If the Board wanted to let the firm re-advertise it from beginning to end, the time frame would be extended, but would not go beyond her original schedule.
Commr. Swartz suggested looking at one of the Personnel search firms, David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD, or Slavin, Nevins and Associates, Inc., because he did not feel that re-advertising would have significant different results.
Ms. Martin explained that Long Associates, a local consulting firm in Florida, had merged with David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD, and if the Board wanted to stay within the State of Florida, it would have an excellent resource, because of this merger.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the County could legally expand the contract it currently has with David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD. It was noted by Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, that the contract could be amended, if that was the Board's desire.
Commr. Swartz discussed putting together a scope of services for David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD, and getting them to give the Board a price, and letting the Board look it, as an amendment to their contract. He suggested that the firm be asked to bring the Board the top 3-5 candidates for consideration, with the members of the County Attorney Selection Advisory Committee sitting in the public interviews and sharing their thoughts.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff to contact David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD, and ask them to give the Board a proposal based on a scope of services, and to bring back an amendment to their contract for that scope of service, and a price not to exceed, for the selection of the County Attorney's position.
Commr. Swartz felt it would be helpful for those members of the Advisory Committee, when advising them of the Board's action, to ask them to sit in the interviews, and to review the resumes. It was the consensus of the Board that this direction be taken.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES - WORKSHOP
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, addressed the Board to present an update on the Transportation Impact Fees. He noted that the Board had requested that Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. (RS&H) determine their cost to perform a trip generation rate study that could be used to develop the impact fees for the County. Mr. Knight stated that he talked with Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, about doing a trip rate study in-house, which would consist of approximately 16 sites and taking about 6-9 months to complete. Mr. Knight noted that the contract with RS&H was running out, and if the Board did take action, or request additional information from the consultants, the contract would need to be extended.
Commr. Cadwell explained that he had received support from the Board for staff to bring back how a trip rate study could be done.
Mr. Don Griffey addressed the Board and explained the approach that would be taken to do the in-house trip rate study, and the equipment that would be used, and stated that the study would have to be added into the staff's current work load.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he hoped the Board would agree to have the in-house study done, even though it would take 6-9 months, because this much time would be needed, in order to get a truer number, which would be a number that the majority Board could agree was the right number.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board was contemplating making no changes in the impact fees within the next 6-9 months, it would leave the County with an impact fee that would be about 1/3 of what it had been calculated in the study. He stated that a responsible approach would be to adopt the impact fee giving full credit for the gas tax, which in effect does not exist, but would bring the collection of impact fees up to about 2/3's of what the calculated fee had been, and then based on the outcome of the trip rate study, the Board would be faced with a choice of seeing numbers that are higher, or possibly lower, but 2/3's of the impact fee would put a three bedroom at approximately $1,400, and the fee that had actually been calculated was $2,138. Commr. Swartz could not understand that, while the Board accepted all of the other impact fees that the consultants provided, the Board would reject the transportation fee, even at the 66% level thus getting further behind in terms of the funds the County had available to make road improvements. He stated that he would support going to the fee that the study showed initially giving full credit for the three cents of gas tax during the time in which some additional information could be achieved.
Commr. Hanson stated last time she voted against the motion to move forward, because it did not allow anything for transportation. She felt the Board, in good conscious, could not approve $2,800 or $3,800 for a three bedroom house for impact fees. If the Board takes the impact fees, as proposed, and gives credit for the gas tax, and allows for each category to be figured at 73%, it would amount to approximately $2,200 for a three bedroom home. She stated that she did not feel the Board needed to move forward with a study, because the study would show the impact, and the County would be up to $3,800 for impact fees, for a three bedroom house. This would be the proposed amount at 100% with no gas tax credit. The Board could not do this to the people in Lake County, because of the affordable housing, and if this holds true for houses, it would hold true all the way through for industrial buildings and commercial buildings, and she could not vote for it. Commr. Hanson stated that, no matter what the study showed, the County had to have a figure that would be realistic and reasonable for Lake County and still have an impact fee.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the Board had been satisfied with the number and had moved forward with the transportation impact fee today, he would still propose giving a 3-6 month period for people who are already in the system and have already gotten their financing, or starting forward to get through the system before the new fee came on board. If the County does the in-house trip rate study in the 6-9 month period, the County could still have an implementation date of 12 months. He discussed the effect the impact fees would have on big developments versus the smaller "mom and pop" businesses.
Commr. Swartz discussed an implementation schedule for phasing the fees, and stated that, by staying at a fee that would be 33% of what the study showed, and getting additional numbers, it would put the Board in the position of having even more data that could possibly show even higher numbers. He stated that a reasonable position would be to adopt the fee at the 66% level, which would get the County up on its transportation fees.
Discussion occurred regarding the information provided by Mr. Knight in the January 17, 1995 Memorandum, which indicated an amount of $2,135 for a three bedroom house, if the Board adopted 95% on the fees. It was noted that this amount would be with no change to the transportation fee. If the transportation fee changed from $649 to $1,414, the total amount of impact fees for the three bedroom home would be $3,000.
Commr. Hanson explained that the Board should, across the Board, be consistent, if it is going to adopt at 66%, and include transportation.
Discussion occurred regarding the school impact fees and over one-half of the fees being a credit against the PECO funds.
Commr. Swartz suggested collecting the fees at the 66% level, which gives full credit for gas tax money, while the Board does whatever additional studies it wanted to do.
Commr. Gerber explained that it would be very difficult to establish a fixed percentage that would apply fairly across the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding counties where commercial was charged by square footage and residential was calculated by formula, and the statistics reflected in the County Impact Fee Comparison that was provided in the backup material.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board had the foresight in years past, it would have adopted some of the fees a few years ago, so that it would not have to adopt them now. If the Board continued to delay adopting fees that have some relationship to costs, the County would always be faced with this "sticker shock".
He addressed the issue of affordable housing and the State law, which allows for funding for affordable housing, and stated that this was being ignored in the calculations, as some of the other things that the County was doing in this area. For industrial, it had been the Board's intention to establish a job incentive, or an economic fund, and to establish approximately $200,000-250,000 in that fund to offset the difference in impact fees, in order to make the County competitive with surrounding counties.
Commr. Hanson addressed the issue of affordable housing and stated that the County had not, so far, subsidized the impact fees for low income housing, but had only assisted with the down payment cost for the housing. She stated that it would be wrong to want to use these funds to subsidize the impact fees when it needed to go towards down payment assistance, to help with weatherization to the houses that needed to be rehabilitated.
Commr. Swartz explained that the three cents, which was not actually there, would be used to reduce the impact fee by 33%. He stated that he did not want to use gas tax money to subsidize transportation and come back and increase the gas tax on the citizens of Lake County.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was in favor of the transportation impact fee, and all of the residential impact fees, and she felt the Sadowski money was going to be there. She informed the Board that she had written a letter to the School Board, and they wanted a workshop on this issue.
Commr. Good discussed the statistics displayed in the Florida Department of Commerce abstracts, 1993 Florida County Comparisons.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board could approve impact fees at different percentages, for example, road impact fees for residential at 95%, and industrial at 70%, and commercial at 60%.
Commr. Swartz explained that impact fees work soundly on the basis of rational nexus, and he could not see how differentiating the percentages could be justified. He suggested that the Board instruct staff, as it did last week, to prepare the transportation ordinance, at what amounts to a 66% fee, which allows for the full three cents gas tax credit for the entire impact fee land uses, but however, giving the County Attorney the option of seeing whether he could find a hole in the rational nexus, and if so, he could bring that back, and if that existed, and the majority of the Board wanted to impose only portions of those fees, it would have the opportunity to do so at the two public hearings that are yet to come. He stated that today the County does not have sufficient gas tax monies to maintain the existing road network. He further stated that, if there was a majority of this Board that would like to move forward with the fees at 66%, he would support the RS&H study, or the in-house study, to further analyze where there may be modifications.
Commr. Hanson discussed the 66% amount, which would be $2,800, and stated that, because of this amount, she could not support the proposal made by Commr. Swartz. She stated that she would support a percentage that was across the Board that would keep the amount at $2,200 for residential. She discussed the industrial and business impact fees, which generally pay for more than their share of the property taxes, in comparison to the services that they demand. She questioned whether it would be possible if this could be part of the rational nexus that would get credit against those extra taxes that are being paid and would be a more reasonable dollar amount for impact fees.
Mr. Knight indicated that he would look into the option presented by Commr. Hanson, in order to determine whether anyone had ever done a separate credit analysis for industrial/commercial.
Mr. Andrew Wheeler, Director, Real Estate, Economic and Urban Planning, RS&H, was present to answer questions of the Board.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated the he felt the Board had two issues before it, one, the study that had been done by RS&H and the implementation of that schedule, and two, the economic effect of implementing that schedule. Mr. Richey stated that he met with the League of Cities to discuss impact fees, and the League was concerned about the discrepancies that were derived from the different methodologies, and the end result of the schedule, which were relayed to the League. He informed the Board that the League, in conjunction with the Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, were asking that the Board do an economic evaluation of the implementation of those fees. He suggested that someone independent of everyone present needed to perform this task and get paid to do so. He stated that the League and the Chamber of Commerce have been in touch with a real estate research group, and he had requested that they give to him a proposal, on taking the RS&H study and the proposed schedule, and studying the economic effect to Lake County over the next years, and advising him, as well as the Board, as to how they should be implemented. Mr. Richey stated that he hoped to have the proposal from that group, along with the proposal from Hank Fishkind and Associates, to present to the Board next week. He stated that there are many counties that are like Lake County and infringe upon metropolitan areas, and he suggested that a comprehensive study be done of all of those urbanizing areas and how they have structured their impact fees. Mr. Richey explained that a proposal can be put together in 60-90 days, and that he would be proposing to the Board a joint venture to pay for the study, which would cost approximately $20,000-25,000 for an independent economic evaluation of the proposed fee schedule, in relation to the overall ad valorem and tax base of Lake County.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would support a proposal to look at the economic impact and what it would mean to Lake County.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board review the information compiled on the road issue, and the Single Family Housing Units - Permits Issued 1980-1993, which shows a comparison between counties with impact fees, and without impact fees.
Mr. Richey stated that he would like County staff to meet with the consultant, once the proposal was completed, and provide the information referred to by Commr. Swartz.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and commented that she would be interested in the research that Mr. Hoban would be performing, and that she would be willing to provide him with an abundance of case law to review. Ms. Bonifay explained that the County needed to have a legally defensible impact fee ordinance, and that was why no one adopts at 100%, because no formula can be that accurate. She further explained that anyone can pick a percentage, but you must look at the absolute real numbers of units, but even then, you do not know the exact value of the units. Ms. Bonifay stated that it was the economics of the issue that was missing. She further stated that, if the County wanted to have a legally defensible fee, it was going to have to give credit, whether it was PECO funding, or gas tax funds, or whatever.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, President, Homebuilders Association, explained that it appeared the only fee that was being questioned today, as far as methodology, numbers and percentages, was transportation, and that the other findings of RS&H had been accepted. She explained that each one of the fees was figured on a different set of numbers, but that the Board was looking at 100% of the figure for transportation. Ms. Kaminski informed the Board that she had taken the opportunity to look at what this does to the non-residential, and in instances, it was proposed at two and three thousand percent increases. She explained that, traditionally, Lake County had had a very high unemployment rate and had only recently begun to come into the State figures and averages. She stated that Lake County needed jobs to support the tax base, and to keep the young people here. She requested that the Board consider all of these issues when making its decision.
Mr. Hubert Hartman addressed the Board and stated that he had previously presented to the Board a chart showing the problems that the typical homeowner faces today in Lake County. Mr. Hartman referred to the charts he had available today and explained that the cost of running the schools in Lake County in the past 12 years has gone up 247% in the budgets; the County's budget has gone up 150%; and there are over 52,000 social security recipients in the County bringing in 31 million dollars a month. He stated that the population of children in the schools had gone down from 16% in 1982, to 13% of the population today, and yet the budget had gone out of site. He further stated that there had been a 35% increase in the State of Florida population, yet Lake County had increased 48% principally from the retiree community. Mr. Hartman requested that the Board not ask the people in the County to subsidize the increased costs, as they have been doing during the past 12 years, and to consider the plight of the average taxpayer.
Ms. Leslie Little, City of Leesburg, addressed the Board and stated that the Board needed to consider what the increased impact fees would do to the industrial/commercial sector. She stated that there was approximately 3% of the County actually in industrial development, and approximately 18-19% in commercial. She suggested that the County invest in jobs and make sure they are permanent jobs, and that they have benefits and social security. Ms. Little addressed the cost of leasable space, and the impact that the fees would have on it, and responded to other areas of discussion by the Board.
Mr. Mark Sechman, City Planner, City of Tavares, appeared before the Board and informed the Board that he had included the Pinellas County trip lengths into the formula, which he presented to the Board several weeks ago. He stated that he was going to finalize the spreadsheet and make it available to the Commissioners for consideration.
Mr. Knight explained that he met with Mr. Sechman and discussed, in depth, the Pinellas study, and stated that he could not see Lake County taking on this philosophy at this point in time. He explained that Lake County uses the Orange County transportation, because Orlando was now expanding and incorporating Lake County into the Greater Orlando urban area transportation study, and it was also closer in proximity. Mr. Knight stated that Lake County could not take on the Pinellas study without incurring costs to do indepth studies.
Mr. Sechman responded that all of Lake County does not act like Pinellas County, but the urban areas are similar.
Mr. George Winters addressed the Board and stated that the County had studied this problem for the last four years, and it seemed that the Board wanted to study it some more. He questioned what the impact would be, if the County chose not to place reasonable impact fees. Mr. Winters stated that the impact would be shifted right back to the taxpayers where it has been for the last 20 years. He encouraged the Board to raise them incrementally, and to not do any more studies.
Ms. Patricia Mayhill, City of Eustis, addressed the Board reiterated issues that the City had previously brought to the Board. She stated that consideration had been given to the adoption of the additional three cents gas tax. The City was recommending that the additional two cents be adopted, so that the entire five cents would be used. She stated that the City envisioned the two cents helping to stage in the impact fees for the next 3-5 years, and would become part of the credit. At the end of that period, the two cents could be reverted back to a local option gas tax and placed within that program. She informed Mr. Richey of this recommendation and stated that this would be a very valid inclusion in his economic analysis.
Discussion occurred regarding the three cents gas tax actually being a mathematical credit to reduce the impact fee, with clarification being made that the money did not actually exist.
Commr. Swartz stated that, knowing that the three cents does not exist, he would still be willing to adopt the fees as if the three cents did exist, in order to phase this in, and go with the 66% figure.
Commr. Good stated that he was concerned about having a legally defensible impact fee, and after considering the formula, which he felt the consultants would not have brought forward unless it was defensible, if this generates real impacts, and there was not a mistake in the formula, and those kind of impacts really occur in commercial spaces, to do anything other than this would cause the County to fall more and more behind. He stated that, if these are real numbers, the County should proceed to pay for what it does, and he was ready to formulate a motion, if the discussion was at a point where the Board was ready to do that.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would agree with Commr. Good, if he wanted to make a motion, so that the Board could at least move foward. He felt that the Board had the opportunity to get an additional economic evaluation, and to let the County Attorney's Office look at any type of division of the rational nexus.
Commr. Cadwell explained that, even though he was not convinced that the numbers before the Board are the real numbers, he would support a motion to move ahead with the percentage discussed so far.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the Board would agree to allow Mr. Knight, as part of these figures, to look at a credit for ad valorem taxes that are paid by the commercial industry that may be more than their fair share.
It was noted that the suggestion made by Commr. Hanson would be considered by the Board, with direction being given to Mr. Knight.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would be more comfortable supporting the 66%, or even the 100%, if the job incentive fund was something that had been here for awhile, and the County had it here to work with and to use, but she could see the County using up the job incentive fund in no time. She referred to the fees shown for Orange County and stressed that, when looking at some of the fees being proposed, Lake County was proposing twice what Orange County was charging. Commr. Gerber explained that Lake County had to remain competitive, and she felt 100% would be too much. She stated that the Board needed to move forward with the in-house study as quickly as possible, with hopes that it could be done within 6-9 months.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to move forward on the in-house study on the trip rate; to ask Mr. Hoban to come back next week with the Chairman's answer on the issue regarding differential rates; to ask Mr. Richey, through the United Chambers and the League of Cities, to bring their proposal, to do an independent study, back on what they think that would entail, as far as the County's involvement goes.
Commr. Hanson directed Mr. Knight, once again, to look at credit to the industrial impact fees and commercial impact fees.
Mr. Richey informed the Board that he would be able to bring the proposal back to the Board in 60-90 days.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt it would be a mistake and shortsighted to not, at least, begin to move forward on the fees before the Board, because this would be delaying the issue another nine months to one year, at which time, the Board, once again, would be talking about an impact fee, which right now, at 66%, approximates the cost of the transportation improvements that are demanded that are required by the new growth. He stated that, to wait another six months would be unconscionable, and he would vote against the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".
Commr. Good made a motion to move forward with developing the ordinance for putting into place impact fees for transportation.
After further discussion of the fees, Commr. Good withdrew his motion.
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS - WORKSHOP
Commr. Cadwell discussed postponing the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Amendments workshop.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that staff had been instructed to bring impact fees, before they are impact fees, at 95%, and to go ahead for advertising as soon as possible. Mr. Hoban explained that an amendment to the LDRs cannot be passed by the Board, unless it has first been presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that his office was recommending that this provision be eliminated from the LDR's, because it would speed up the adoption of every amendment to the LDR's by one month. Staff would continue to show everything to the Planning and Zoning Commission regardless. He requested that, at the same time the four impact fee ordinances are being amended, the Board could also adopt an amendment to the LDRs that deletes the requirement that everything go by ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which would speed up everything in the process by one month.
After discussion of the issue presented by Mr. Hoban, and no action being taken, the Board rescheduled the LDR Amendments Workshop to January 25, 1995, at 9 a.m.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
ATTEST: RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK