The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Wednesday, June 7, 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; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Commr. Richard Swartz was not present. Others present were: Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance, Audit & Budgets; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTE APPROVAL
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of March 28, 1995 (Special Meeting), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of April 6, 1995 (Regular Meeting), the following change was requested:
On Page 28, Line 5, change pertinencies to appurtenances.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 6, 1995 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 13, 1995 (Special Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 17, 1995 (Special Meeting), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of April 25, 1995 (Regular Meeting), the following change was requested:
On Page 16, Line 11, delete the word never.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 25, 1995 (Regular Meeting), as amended.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 27, 1995 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board postponed the Minutes of May 16, 1995 (Regular Meeting) until the Board Meeting of June 20, 1995.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, requested that Items II. A. 1. and 2., under Reports, on Addendum No. 1, be moved up on the Agenda and addressed immediately after the first Time Certain issue, because Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, was scheduled to go to Daytona Beach to handle a legal matter for the County and, due to the fact that Mr. Duncan was involved in the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) issue, he wanted him to be present, during the discussion, in order to answer any questions there might be from the Board regarding the matter.
It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
Commr. Gerber noted that she would be adding a discussion item to the Agenda, under her Commissioners' Business.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, noted that she would be adding two updates to the Agenda, under her County Manager's business, under Reports.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
CLERK OF COURTS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed
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 Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Bonds - Contractor
Request to approve Contractor Bonds, New, as follows:
New
4640-95 David McBride (Residential)
5379-95 Felix D. Pregasen (Air Conditioning)
5380-95 Doug M. Basham d/b/a Network Rangers (Electrician)
5381-95 Southern Tradition Inv., Inc. d/b/a Southern Tradition Construction (Carpentry)
5382-95 Emerson J. Kelly (Electrical)
5383-95 Alan D. Brotz/Swim Systems, Inc. (Electrical)
5384-95 Darrell A. Randall d/b/a U & R Electric, Inc. (Electrical)
5385-95 Robert House Roofing (Roofing)
5386-96 Dennis Ray Fletcher d/b/a Fletchers Heating & Air
(Regular Air Conditioning)
5387-95 Donna Mahnken/Main Line Electrical Contractors, Inc.
(Electrical)
5388-96 Clermont Pool & Spa Supply
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges
Request to approve Satisfaction and Release of Liens, as follows, and authorized proper signatures on same:
C. B. Marshall and Rose M. Marotta, in the amount of $500.00, Case No. CEB 98-91.
Paul R. Grigsby, in the amount of $3,300.00, Case No.
CEB-126-91.
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges
Request to approve Satisfaction of Judgments, as follows, and authorized proper signatures on same:
Robert White, a Child, and James White, in the amount of $50.00, Case No. 87-1272-CJ.
James Robert White, in the amount of $250.00, Case No. 81-899.
Kevin Lewis Hummel, in the amount of $250.00, Case No.
94-934-CFA.
State of Florida vs. Tommy Ray Turner, in the amount of $35.00, Case No. 91-2520MMA0101.
State of Florida vs. William Wayne Peterson, in the amount of $250.00, Case No. 94-146-CFA.
State of Florida vs. Alicia Anthony, in the amount of $250.00, Case No. 88-632-CFA.
Accounts Allowed
Request to acknowledge receipt of increase in mileage allowance rate from 25 cents per mile to 29 cents per mile, for business use of a privately owned vehicle by public officers, employees, and authorized persons, effective July 1, 1995.
Accounting/Reports
Request to acknowledge receipt of Balance Sheets of Green Swamp Land Authority, General and Acquisition Funds; Statement of Revenues and Appropriation Expenditures; and supplemental information contained in the schedule of Cash Receipts and Disbursements, as of April 30, 1995, and prepared by Greenlee, Kurras, Rice & Brown, PA, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services.
Accounts Allowed/Deeds
Request to acknowledge receipt of unclaimed excess proceeds for tax deeds totaling $995.75.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission, regarding: Application for amendment of Certificates Nos. 106-W and 120-S in Lake County by Southern States Utilities, Inc.; Order Amending Certificates to Include Additional Territory and Closing Docket; Docket No. 950163-WS, Order No.
PSC-95-0569-FOF-WS. A motion for reconsideration must be filed within fifteen (15) days and Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the issuance of this order with the Director, Division of Records and Reporting.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice from the Public Service Commission, Division of Records & Reporting, To All Interested Parties, regarding: Case Assignment and Scheduling Record, Docket No. 940027-TL; Resolution by Lake County Board of Commissioners for extended area service (EAS) from the Mount Dora, Eustis, and Umatilla exchanges to the Deland exchange.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice from Florida Public Service Commission to Florida's Counties. Subject: Data Request for Docket No. 930220-TL, Related to Proposed Changes to Rule
25-4.003, FAC, Definitions, and to Rules 24-4.057 through 25-4.064, FAC, Extended Area Service. Response is to be returned no later than June 12, 1995, to David Johnson, Division of Research and Regulatory Review, Florida Public Service Commission, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0872.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge that public notice was hereby given on May 10, 1995, regarding the application of J. Swiderski Utilities, to amend its Certificate(s) No(s) 441-W & 371S, for water and/or wastewater service, to add territory in Lake County, as follows: King's Cove Subdivision - Third Addition, Fourth Addition, Fifth Addition, and Sixth Addition, Unit 7 and Tract B, with any objection being made 30 days from this date to the Director, Division of Records and Reporting, Florida Public Service Commission, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-0870, with a copy to J. Swiderski Utilities, Inc., 10041 U.S. Hwy. 441, Suite B, Leesburg, Florida, 34788.
Ordinances/Municipalities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 95-01, from the City of Eustis, voluntarily annexing .31 acres of vacant land on the east and west sides of Lakeshore Drive, Eustis Heights Subdivision, into the corporate limits of the City of Eustis.
Resolutions/Municipalities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Tavares, to consider the enactment of proposed Resolution Nos. 95-09 and 95-10 and Ordinance No. 95-14, which will allow the City of Tavares to develop a Tax Increment Financing District for the greater downtown area, as indicated on map included in backup material. The Resolutions and Ordinance will be considered at the following public meetings:
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 1, 1995, 3:00 p.m.
Tavares City Council Meeting, June 7, 1995, 5:00 p.m.
Tavares City Council will hear second reading of Ordinance
No. 95-14, June 21, 1995, 5:00 p.m.
All meetings will be held in Tavares City Council Chambers, City Hall, 201 East Main Street, Tavares, Florida.
Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Budget Transfers/E911
Resolutions/Sheriff
Request to approve Budget Transfers and Resolution, as requested by the Office of Finance, Audit and Budgets, as follows:
BUDGET TRANSFERS
Fund: General
Department: Constitutional Officers - Sheriff
From: Contingency - Sheriff $10,000
To: Transfer/Law Enforcement -
Operating $10,000
Transfer No.: 95-172
Justification: Pursuant to Florida Statute 30.49, the Sheriff is requesting that $10,000 of the Sheriff's Contingency be transferred to Law Enforcement - Operating.
Fund: E911
Department: Information Services
From: Other Current Charges $60,000
From: Communications $15,000
To: Machinery & Equipment $75,000
Transfer No.: 95-175
Justification: Replacement of E911 computer equipment budgeted and approved by Board of County Commissioners. Transfer of funds to cover purchase price of equipment.
RESOLUTIONS
Fund: General
Department: Board Support
Revenue: Donations - Special Events $ 2,275
Expenditures: Special Events $ 2,275
Budget No.: 95-173
Justification: Resolution to receive donations from private sources for special events held by the Board of County Commissioners.
RESOLUTIONS/COMMITTEES
PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION
Commr. Gerber presented a Proclamation to Ms. Linda Phillips, Director, Lake County March of Dimes, honoring the 25th anniversary of WalkAmerica and proclaiming April 29, 1995 as WalkAmerica Day in Lake County.
RESOLUTIONS/COUNTY EMPLOYEES
PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS
Commr. Gerber presented Resolutions from Leon County to Mr. Thomas Depaola and Mr. William D. Nicodem, for their service to the community of Leon County during the "Summer of Storms", from July through October, 1994.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
Commr. Gerber presented Employee Awards, as follows:
Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service to the County
Mr. John A. Carlson, Equipment Operator III, Solid Waste Management Services, Solid Waste Disposal Operations Division
Mr. Archie Lambert, Equipment Operator III, Solid Waste Management Services, Solid Waste Disposal Operations Division (Not present for presentation)
Mr. Charles (Chuck) J. Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, Public Services, Special Services Division, Parks Services
Mr. William J. Willis, Firefighter/ Mechanic, Fire and Emergency Services, Fire/Rescue Division
Plaque to Employee with Twenty Years of Service to the County
Mr. Clarence Morgan, Assistant Area Maintenance Supervisor, Public Services, Roads Division, Maintenance Area I, Leesburg (Not present for presentation)
COMMITTEES
LAKE COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AWARDS
Commr. Gerber presented Lake County Boards and Committees Awards, as follows:
Presentation of Plaque
Lake County Board of Adjustments
Mr. Matthews W. Rice, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Board of Adjustments from 1980-1995
Presentation of Certificates
Lake County Sports Committee
Mr. Scott Taylor Flowers, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Sports Committee from 1993-1995
Mr. Cole Whitaker, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Sports Committee from 1992-1995
(Not present for presentation)
Mr. Ron Williams, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Sports Committee from 1993-1995
Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board
Mr. Denis Holman, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board
TIMES CERTAIN
COMMITTEES/ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/OUTDOOR RECREATION
Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for funding for projects under the Lake County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, as selected for funding under the Capital Improvement Program. He stated that the Advisory Board would be doing some master planning during the Summer and Fall and would be coming back to the Board with some recommendations, regarding the direction for Parks and Recreation, as well as with some recommendations on this particular program, noting that it was in its third year and would expire in two years.
Ms. Debbie Stivender, Vice Chairman, Lake County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, appeared before the Board stating that the projects (11) submitted to the Advisory Board this year totaled $878,955.00. She reviewed each project with the Board and answered questions regarding same.
Ms. Sharon Semento and her daughter Karen appeared before the Board with a small scale version of the children's playground planned for the City of Eustis, for the Board's perusal. She thanked the Advisory Board for their support of the project.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Lake County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for approval of eleven Capital Improvement Project Recommendations for Funding for FY 1995-96, in the amount of $200,001.00.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
Mr. Don Braksick, a resident of Leesburg, appeared before the Board to discuss the issue of the Camp Moon Trailer and RV Park, located on the Church of God property, in Bassville Park. He reviewed a copy of the original deed with the Board, which states that the property in question was to be used exclusively for church purposes, at which time he presented background history of the park. He stated that he had checked all the deeds associated with said property, back to 1950, and did not find approval for the trailer park, however, was led by County staff to believe that approval for the park was given on one of the deeds. He questioned why the deeds were not reviewed by the Planning and Development Department.
Mr. Braksick discussed various issues that he felt was a breach of the deed restrictions and questioned whether the property contained two RV parks. He stated that the property had a condition placed on it by the Board that it could only operate from November, 1990 to March, 1991 and that the case was supposed to be reviewed in 1992. He questioned whether the review ever took place and, if so, where the Minutes of said review were located. He stated that the County should have a log in the Clerk's Office, or the Board Office, showing actions of review.
Mr. Braksick stated that the park has rotten 4 x 4 electrical posts, plants climbing over electrical outlets, electrical outlets without covers, and some outlets attached to the poles by tape. He stated that some were not weatherproof, some have loose screws and bolts missing, as well as an old wiring system, and that the system did not have ground rods on each of the posts. He questioned whether it met Section 3.02.08 of the County's regulations. He stated that the terms of the 1991 CUP had been breached, as well as the terms set by the applicant and Lake County, therefore, felt the CUP should be canceled and the applicant required to restate his intentions with the RV and trailer sites. He stated that there was an odor in his neighborhood and he was informed by an inspector that the motel was on the same sewer line as the RV park. He stated that many of the residents of his neighborhood question the need of the park. He stated that, if the park is a for-profit business, during the Winter months, he felt that some type of county permit should be filed and he questioned whether the motel was being used as a for-profit business.
Mr. Braksick stated that he felt there was a need for two permanent positions for Planning and Development and Property Records, to be utilized for reviews, to make sure that a mistake like this one never happens again. He thanked those individuals who had helped him, during his research.
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board stating that staff does not normally go back and inspect older developments, that the Building Department and the Code Compliance Department only does that on a formal complaint. He stated that the County does not have the staff to do so, that they basically handle new applications. He noted that the County had not received any formal complaints regarding the park, however, would meet with the Building Department and get back to the Board at a later date, regarding the matter.
Commr. Gerber suggested having the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services check out the facility.
Commr. Swartz addressed each of the concerns raised by Mr. Braksick and questioned whether staff had determined that the portion of the CUP that was approved in 1991 was in compliance.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, appeared before the Board stating that staff had looked at the site on numerous occasions, however, with regard to the sites that were approved, did not know, had not inspected, nor directed anyone else to inspect whether they had gone in. He stated that the 36 hookups across the street from the sites in question were in place prior to the zoning and were never included in the CUP, however, it was known that they were always going to be used for church related activities for the youth camp. He stated that he did not know how it could be regulated today, other than the fact that it is an RV site.
Commr. Swartz stated that the concerns Mr. Braksick raised should be reviewed and it should be determined whether or not the park is being safely operated, with regard to the water, sewer, and electrical issues. He stated that it should also be determined whether it is in compliance with the terms of the 1991 CUP. He stated that he did not see the Board taking any action this date, other than to just respond to and review the concerns that were raised and make sure that there are no real problems.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, appeared before the Board stating that she had originally represented the Church of God of Anderson, Indiana, who was the original owner of the Camp Moon property. She stated that said property had been subject to a number of conditional use permits and rezonings over time and that her client had filed for a rezoning to Community Facilities District, in an attempt to clean up a lot of the old CUPs. She stated that the property was under option by another entity, who went forward without her client's knowledge and reported that they owned the property and were going to make it into a boot camp, which got the residents very concerned, and, as a result, the church withdrew their application for rezoning and the sale did not culminate to that individual.
Ms. Bonifay stated that another group, the Church of God of Cleveland, Tennessee, who had originally looked at the project for use as a church camp facility, came into the picture and her clients indicated they would be willing to sell the property, as is, and that they were not moving forward with any further rezonings, given the community reaction. She stated that she was retained by the Church of God of Cleveland, Tennessee, and had obtained waivers from both sides, to represent them in the closing of the property, which she did, telling them what the status was and they purchased it, based on the zoning that was in place at the time, with the intent to use it as a church camp. She stated that she had not been in contact with them since the purchase, but it was her understanding that they were going to continue to use it. She stated that she would notify them of the issues raised this date and that she would be happy to work with staff, or put them in touch with the appropriate church leadership, to discuss the issues.
Mr. Braksick requested immediate action on the safety of the electrical boxes, noting that children pass through the park and he was concerned about it.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board was agreeable to have staff and HRS review the public health, safety, and welfare issues and determine whether or not they were in compliance with the 1991 CUP and, if there were any problems related to it, he would expect staff to work with the owners to bring the problems into compliance and, if it cannot be resolved in that manner, then it would come back to the Board and be subject to a public hearing. Due to that fact, he felt the matter should not be discussed any further this date.
Mr. Braksick requested that "No Parking" signs be installed on Hwy. 473, due to the fact that the park had violated parking restrictions, as well.
Mr. David Woodland, a resident of Scottish Highlands, appeared before the Board and questioned the right-of-way setbacks for the RV park.
Commr. Swartz stated that it depended on when the setback was required, noting that the County has a different setback today then what it may have had years ago, however, noted that those issues would be reviewed within the context of when the project and the facilities were put in.
Mr. Woodland then read excerpts from a memorandum from Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, to Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, in which he stated that he had no doubt the camp included several trailer facilities, which pre-dated the subdivision that grew up around it. He stated that the memorandum stated the use on the west side of Camp Moon should have been included with the 1975 CUPs, but were not, nor were they included in the 1990 and 1991 amendments, as well. He questioned the fact that, if they did not include the CUPs, what the status of it was.
Commr. Swartz stated that the 1991 amendments were raised primarily and almost exclusively over eight additional Rvs, which were to be put on the east side of the road, in a particular area. He stated that the Board only reviewed the portion of the request that came from that particular area. He stated that the request was not to review and include all the other areas, so they were not a part of the review. He stated that staff understood the areas of concern and would be looking at them, to try to ensure that there were no public health, safety, or welfare issues that needed to be remedied, and, if there were, they would work with the applicant to try to get them taken care of.
No action was taken at this time.
COMMITTEES (CONT'D.)
LAKE COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AWARDS (CONT'D.)
Presentation of Certificates
Lake County Sports Committee
Commr. Gerber presented Mr. Cole Whitaker with a certificate, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Sports Committee from 1992-1995. She noted that Mr. Whitaker was not present during the earlier presentations.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board the fact that, on March 28, 1995, the Board dealt with a request by Winter Park Design and Build and Mr. Cliff Myer, to change his PUD for the Deer Island project, to permit a home that was built in the wrong location to stay in place and permit a pool that was under construction at said home to be completed. He stated that the majority of the Board voted to permit the house to remain in place, however, refused to permit the pool to be completed. He stated that, on April 28, 1995, a lawsuit was filed, on behalf of Mr. Myer, in Winter Park, seeking a mandatory injunction, ordering the County to do the opposite of what they had voted on and permit the completion of the pool.
Mr. Reed stated that, after a hearing on May 18, 1995, Judge Mark Hill signed an order directing the County to take steps to permit the completion of the pool. He stated that the day he received the order, he filed a Notice of Appeal, and questioned whether the Board felt he should or should not pursue the appeal. He stated that he had only heard from one Commissioner regarding the matter and, in the meantime, the lawyer for the plaintiff had him before Judge Hill, on May 31, 1995, seeking a Dissolution of the Automatic Stay he had obtained for the Board. He requested the Judge to give him another week, to allow him to meet with the Board, to see what they wanted to do, however, the Stay was scheduled to run out June 8, 1995 and he needed some direction regarding the matter.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the County Attorney's Office had acted properly, however, did not feel that the County should pursue the matter further. He stated that it bothered him to see a pool being installed that violated the setbacks, as outlined in the PUD, however, felt that, due to the circumstances that surrounded the case, did not feel that it would be wise for the County to continue to pursue it.
Commr. Hanson noted that she concurred with Commr. Swartz, in that the County should drop the proceedings.
A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Hanson to instruct the County Attorney's Office to drop its current appeal, with regard to Lot 6, Block B, The Deer Island Club, and proceed with Judge Hill's order to allow the pool in question to go forward, within the limited confines that it is currently permitted for.
Under discussion, Mr. Reed stated that it was not the County's option to drop the legal action. He stated that they could drop the current appeal, however, the action would still be alive.
Staff was asked to look into all the issues surrounding this case and take appropriate action, as necessary.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, brought to the attention of the Board the issue of the settlement proposal from Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), relative to payment for detention services rendered at the old Lake County Jail, in 1992. He commended Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, for doing an outstanding job, with regard to this matter.
Mr. Duncan appeared before the Board and gave a brief background history of what had transpired, regarding this case, since he had come on board with the County Attorney's Office and was given the case to handle. He stated that the $27,044.26 that the INS office was willing to pay to the County, for services rendered, would more than pay for the actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the County in 1992.
Commr. Swartz referred to a letter that was submitted to Mr. Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, from Mr. Arthur S. Cooper, III, Chief Contracting Officer, with the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, in which he stated that the proposal discounted costs associated with county employees, due to the fact that they feel such costs are inherently associated with governmental activities. However, if the County was prepared to make a statement that such costs would not have been incurred, if not for activities associated with supporting INS, they might reconsider the proposal, and suggested that the Board accept the settlement proposal, in the amount of $27,044.26, however, indicate that the additional costs were only incurred because of those activities expressly associated with not only supporting INS, but supporting INS in an immediate turn around time, within a matter of days.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board authorized staff to immediately advise the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of the County's willingness to accept their offer and settlement, in the amount of $27,044.26, and to further prepare the statement that would be necessary to show the additional costs that were incurred and request their reconsideration beyond the amount that the County is accepting as a settlement.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, requested to pull Items 12 and 26 from the County Manager's Consent Agenda, for clarification.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Community Services/Reports/Public Health
Request from Community Services to acknowledge receipt of the County Public Health Unit (CPHU) Activities and Expenditure Report, for period ending March 31, 1995.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
Community Services/Grants/Committees
Request from Community Services for approval to amend the Agreement Between Lake County and Childhood Development Services, Inc., for Annual Grant Funding, in the amount of $5,000.00, utilizing funds from the Citizens' Commission for Children. This contract is administered by the Division of Social Services, in the Department of Community Services.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
Facilities and Capital Improvements
Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of Change Order to Metric's GMP contract, for facilities renovation, at a lump sum cost of $79,240.00.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request from Human Resources for approval of Certificates for Employees with One Year of Service to the County.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request from Human Resources for approval of Certificates for Employees with Three Years of Service to the County.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request from Human Resources for approval of additional and corrected job classifications, from David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., per their letter dated April 7, 1995.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Planning and Development
Grants
Request from Planning and Development for approval of Contract Amendment No. 1, to current contract with John B. Webb & Associates, to purchase additional surveying services related to Community Development Block Grant.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Planning and Development/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for approval to release Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $3,592.00, for maintenance of improvements in East Umatilla Subdivision.
Planning and Development/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for approval of Replat of Highland Lakes, Phase 3, Lots 820 through 829, inclusive, and Lots 849 through 897 (Highland Lakes, Phase 5) - Commission District 2, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney's Office.
Planning and Development/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for approval of Replat of a portion of Tracts 18, 19, 30 and 31, Lake Highlands Company Plat (Trails of Montverde, Second Addition) - Commission District 2, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney's Office.
Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions/Planning and Development
Resolutions/Roads-County and State/Bonds
Request from Planning and Development for acceptance of Final Plat of Hills of Lake Louisa Subdivision; Irrevocable Letter of Credit and Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $10,456.14; and approval of Resolution accepting the following roads into the County Maintenance System: Grand Bay Boulevard (2-0639A), Center Pointe Court (2-0639B), Sandy View Court (2-0639C), White Sand Court (2-0639D), and Meadow Crest Lane (2-0639E).
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval to release Maintenance Bond, for Martin Paving, in the amount of $30,040.00.
Budgets/Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval and authorization for Chairman to sign Annual Certified Budget for Arthropod Control for FY 1994-95 Mid-Year Adjustment.
Water Authority/Committees/Road Projects/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to add Mr. Will Davis, Executive Director of the Lake County Water Authority, or designee, to the previously approved Selection and Negotiating Committee for Lake Minneola and Lake Minnehaha Bridge Design Project No. 11-95 - Commission District 2.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/State Agencies
Public Services/Roads-County and State
Request from Public Services for approval and authorization for Chairman's signature on the License Agreements for the Tranplan System (FSUTMS) and the NIS System Agreements with the State of Florida, for use of their program to gather information to update our Transportation Model.
State Agencies/Committees/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval and authorization to participate jointly with the St. Johns River Water Management District; approval of Selection and Negotiating Committee members to represent Lake County; and approval to enter into a three party contract with a successful vendor for aerial topographic mapping, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney's Office. This is a revision to an item previously approved at the July 5, 1994 Board Meeting.
Committees/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Purchasing
Public Services/Roads-County and State
Request from Public Services for approval of the final ranking and authorization for the Negotiating Committee to proceed with contract negotiations, in accordance with the Lake County Purchasing Manual, Section 4, Board of County Commissioners Acquisition of Consultant Professional Services Policy, for the East Lake County Transportation Analysis and the Eustis
By-Pass Corridor Study, Project No. 3-95, RPS-5-5-03.
Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County and State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval of a Resolution to post a "Stop" sign on Turner Drive (5-6764), at its intersection with Pine Ridge Drive (5-6664).
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/State Agencies
Municipalities/Road Projects/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval of an Interlocal Agreement Between Lake County and the Oklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority in Lake County Relating to Boat Ramp Improvements at Astor on Pearl Street; request to award East Pearl Street Boat Ramp Replacement Project No. R-10, Bid No. B-6-5-19, to Professional Dirt Service, Inc.; and request to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $29,890.00 - Commission District 4. Fiscal impact to the County is $24,890.00 - the Lake County Water Authority has agreed to fund the additional $5,000.00.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads and Easements/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval and authorization for Chairman's signature on an Easement and Statutory Warranty Deed, from Lake County to Alfred and Mary Leonard, 2020 North Fern Circle, Leesburg.
Deeds/Roads-County and State/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to accept the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:
David R. Lichtinger, D.O., P.A.
Corley Island (1-3412)
Rhonda Lee Carr
Peru (5-7961)
Marshall Howard
CR 435
Public Services/Municipalities/Roads-County and State
Request from Public Services for approval and authorization for Chairman's signature on the Street Annexation of Old Highway 50 and Mohawk, within the City of Minneola.
Accounts Allowed/Purchasing
Request from Purchasing for approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue purchase orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, state contracts, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM repairs, sole source and proprietor source; and approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
A) Authorization to Seek Bids, Proposals and Professional Services
DIVISION AMOUNT
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT $47,750.00
Authorization to seek proposals for a Software Management System for Address/Parcel, Permitting, Inspection, Plan Review, Contracting Licensing and Code Enforcement Tracking. Proposals will be obtained, per guidelines specified in Lake County Purchasing Procedure LC-7. Funding for this project was Board approved during the
FY 94-95 budget process, Account No. 001.1048110.524.8300640.
DIVISION AMOUNT
PUBLIC SERVICES $ 7,930.00
Florida Geodetic Surveying/Authorization for the Chairman to sign an amendment to their Continuing Contract for Countywide Professional Consulting Services, to survey Merry Road Right-of-Way, pending the County Attorney's approval. On February 7, 1995, the Board approved permission to quote, per the guidelines of Lake County Procedure LC-13, Acquisition, Selection, Work Assignment and Contract Negotiations for Continuing Contract for Consulting Services. Funding for this service is available from Account No. 115.5056610.541.8600672.
Resolutions/Policies and Procedures/Purchasing
Request from Purchasing for approval of Resolution amending Resolution No. 1991-74, which specifies the fees to be charged for copies of Public Records. It is recommended that the fee for copies of Public Records be changed from fifteen cents to four cents per one-sided copy and an additional four cents for each
two-sided duplicated copy. It is also recommended that the amended Resolution be repealed, once it is established under the new Lake County Policy for Records Management.
Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval to authorize waiver of special assessment balance for the following account:
No. 798011 - Martha Koons - $88.41
Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval to authorize waiver of special assessment balance for the following account:
No. 791034 - Ronald and Sharon Hill - $21.42
Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval to authorize waiver of special assessment balances for the following accounts:
No. 795015 - Vicki Hill - $21.40
No. 652012 - Michael Brissette - $7.90
No. 794014 - Charles Allen - $16.13
No. 661083 - A. M. Collins, Jr. - $10.49
No. 661308 - A. M. Collins, Jr. - $5.30
No. 653016 - Luther Hunt - $10.66
No. 653005 - Mary/Leroy Rood - $6.12
Accounts Allowed/Assessments
Request from Solid Waste for approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Assessment Liens, for 38 road assessments, as follows:
Harbor Shores
Terasa Jane Gisele Fraser $ 776.91
Highland Lakes Subdivision
Marshall H. Gaard 906.24
Marshall H. Gaard 456.05
Lakeview Heights, First Addition
Warren S. and Helen Marler 1,053.88
James W. Parker 1,280.87
Woodland Hills Subdivision
Thomas W. Kent 322.34
Astor Forest Campsites
Wendell and Gretta Wheeler 1,628.18
James and Jane Sanchez 2,065.52
Edward F. Bender 2,083.10
Ralph Cresce 1,541.19
Charles M. Davis 2,167.99
Kenneth J. and Dian Vianello 2,494.89
Thomas M. Burford 1,690.90
Bruce H. and Katherine Friend 1,557.21
Bruce H. and Katherine Friend 1,557.21
A. M. Collins 1,351.52
Ethel P. Beaver McGlashan 1,741.41
T. O. and Betty G. McLelland 1,751.67
James E. and Tina Farquhar 1,259.03
James E. and Tina Farquhar 1,259.03
William J. and Elli G. Barker 1,582.08
Mary Janelle Baker Rowland 2,892.71
Ronnie C. and Linda Jo Marks 1,481.14
Ronnie C. and Linda Jo Marks 1,502.35
Roger J. and Sandra McGrath 1,580.15
Roger J. and Sandra McGrath 1,580.15
John E. and Dorothy Coleman and Ronald F. Coleman 2,300.01
A. M. Collins, Jr. 10,771.11
Michael S. Heavener and John O. Outlaw, Jr.
and R. Wayne Jeffers 3,438.07
William H. and Nancy Spalding 1,612.13
Lucy Shapiro 1,624.93
Joseph L. McCall 1,609.82
Howey Subdivision "A"
Ernest C. and Candace L. Wragg 1,530.12
Crest Haven Addition
Elizabeth Jean Parker 1,051.05
Florida Fruitland Park Tropical Homesites
Roger K. and Geraldine Steiger 1,392.56
Sorrento Shores Subdivision
S & K Realty 6,916.49
Hilltop Subdivision
Kathy A. Robbins 1,260.10
Birr Park Subdivision
David H. Nelson 3,013.06
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
Office of Tourism
Request from Office of Tourism for approval and execution of a Painted Display Agreement Between Lake County and POA Acquisition Corporation, for the rental of three (3) billboards on the Florida Turnpike; and approval to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $12,420.00.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant had originally requested approval for four (4) building permits, however, wished to change that to five (5) permits and requested that the agreement in question be changed to reflect same.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Planning and Development for approval of Agreement Between Lake County and Siena Home Corporation Relating to the Issuance of Five Building Permits While Platting is in Progress, for the Lake Crescent Pines Subdivision, 104 lots - Commission District 2.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BIDS/ROAD PROJECTS/PUBLIC SERVICES
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, explained this request, stating that, for clarification, the request should be for $80,273.10, rather than $30,273.10. She stated that the County's share of the request would be $30,273.10, but the bid would be in the amount of $80,273.10.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval to award John's Lake Parking Lot Improvement Project No. R-9, Bid No. B-6-5-17, to Superior Asphalt Company, Inc., in the amount of $80,273.10; and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $30,273.10 (the County's share), from the Boating Improvement Fund - Commission District 2.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT'D.)
OFFICE OF TOURISM/COMMITTEES
A brief discussion occurred regarding this request, at which time Commr. Swartz requested to be updated regarding the matter, due to the fact that he had been on vacation and was not aware of what had transpired during his absence.
Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, appeared before the Board stating that the Tourist Development Council went out for bid, for the Tourism Research Study, with seven companies and then the Tourist Development Council Subcommittee shortlisted those firms to three. He stated that they selected the firm that they felt was the most appropriate company to handle review of the total tourist product in Lake County and were now requesting approval of the Board to meet with said firms and negotiate the scope of services and cost of said services. He stated that they would come back before the Board, with a recommendation from the TDC, before any monies would be expended.
It was noted that the firms were ranked, as follows:
Glatting, Jackson, Kercher, Anglin, Lopez, Rinehart
Arthur Anderson & Company
Entertainment Properties, Inc.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Gerber noted that the estimate for the Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart study was $150,000.00; the estimate for Arthur Anderson & Company was approximately $100,000.00; and the estimate for Entertainment Properties, Inc. was approximately $100,000.00.
Commr. Hanson stated that she assumed the study would cost approximately $30,000.00.
It was noted that bed tax monies would be used to pay for the study, however, the Subcommittee would be very cautious about how said funds were spent.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to approve a request from the Office of Tourism for approval to establish a Negotiating Committee, to negotiate with vendors, as ranked by the Tourist Development Council, as noted, for the Tourism Research Study for Lake County.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he would support the motion, however, would look very carefully at the work product and the cost involved. He suggested that Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, and the Negotiating Committee, when meeting with the firm of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, the number one ranked firm to do the study, to obtain an alternative that would provide some guidance to the County for a review, such as the one that the County did for the Economic Element.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
No one present wished to address the Board.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COMMUNITY SERVICES/GRANTS/STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the County's cash match for this request was going to be $27,477.00. He stated that this year was the first year that some municipalities were participating, being Leesburg, Eustis and Mt. Dora. He stated that the cities of Eustis and Mt. Dora were implementing some youth recreational programs and the City of Leesburg was hiring a School Resource Officer, to work in the elementary and middle schools. He stated that it was an expansion of the program that the County had in previous years.
Upon being questioned about the matter, Mr. Smith explained the difference between the Operation Redirect Program and the Genesis Program.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval and authorization for the Chairman's signature on the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, Anti-Drug Abuse Act Grant funds, for FY 1995-96, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney's Office. ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/INFORMATION SERVICES/BUDGET TRANSFERS/E911
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that, in September of 1994, the Board approved another amendment to the 911 agreement with Sprint United Telephone of Florida, and, as a result of that amendment, the County was able to save a recurring cost of approximately $70,000.00, for operating costs. He stated that, over the past year, in looking at hardware and operating system software, he obtained some ballpark figures, ranging from $131,000.00 to $145,000.00, for the project in question. He requested approval to transfer funds, for this year only, from those funds, where monies have not been used this year, into Capital, to fund this project. He assured the Board that those monies will be used very stringently.
A brief discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Thorburn answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Information Services for approval of a budgetary transfer of funds of $75,000.00 to Capital, for the operating software and hardware for the E9-1-1 project, and to obtain proposals for same, based on the recommendation specifications of Mr. Jimmy Lin, Hybrid Systems, Inc.
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES
INFORMATION SERVICES
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it had been an ongoing project for approximately one and one-half years of trying to figure out a way of regulating cable television under a single umbrella, countywide. He stated that the cities have now individually passed interlocal agreements with the County, in order to negotiate a single countywide cable television franchise, so that the pricing, barriers, etc. are done uniformly, countywide.
Commr. Cadwell thanked Mr. Thorburn for his participation with the cities on this project.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Information Services for approval of Interlocal Agreements with the cities of Eustis, Fruitland Park, Howey-in-the-Hills, Lady Lake, Leesburg, Mount Dora, Tavares, and Umatilla, to participate in a countywide franchise with Lake County Cablevision.
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/INFORMATION SERVICES
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that a condition of the contract that the Board signed with Mr. Jimmy Lin, Hybrid Systems, Inc., in March of this year, was that, within 90 days, he would come up with a payment schedule for this project, for completion, as well as a time line for completion. He stated that the September 30, 1995 deadline has now passed, for the hardware, but he was confident that the County could at least pull the system in enough for the data base management system to be done manually, prior to the automatic functions. He noted that the delay would not effect the quality, or the operation, of the E911 system.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Information Services for approval of the E9-1-1 System software completion schedule and the payment schedule for services rendered, per the pre-approved software contact with Mr. Jimmy Lin, Hybrid Systems, Inc.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that Mr. Dennis Holman, who had received a certificate earlier in the meeting in appreciation for his service as a member of the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board, had changed jobs and would no longer be eligible to hold the Local Private for Profit Transportation Industry position on said Board. She stated that she had spoken to Mr. Paul Williamson, who had expressed an interest in the position, and that he sounded very enthusiastic about the opportunity to serve on said Board. She noted that he would be eligible to serve.
A brief discussion occurred regarding this request, at which time Ms. Strum answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Commr. Cadwell thanked Ms. Strum for her work with said Board, noting that she was doing a great job.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Paul C. Williamson to the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board, representing the Local Private for Profit Transportation Industry position, to complete the unexpired term of Mr. Denis Holman, which expires March 2, 1996.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she had not had a chance to review the applications of the individuals being requested for appointment to vacancies on the Lake County Agriculture Advisory Committee this date, therefore, requested postponement of said appointments until the Board Meeting of June 20, 1995. She requested Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager, to check with the current members, to see which ones would like to remain on said Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board postponed action regarding the appointment of five individuals to vacancies on the Lake County Agriculture Advisory Committee until the Board Meeting of June 20, 1995.
COMMISSIONERS/POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager, explained the difference between two policies that had been set up for the purpose of governing use of the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers (Board Room), stating that Version One would restrict use of the Board Room to the Board of County Commissioners, Board of County Commissioners' Boards and Committees, other governing bodies, and staff, and Version Two would allow any recognized organization to use the Board Room, with the understanding that a fee would be charged to cover necessary staff presence for equipment usage and/or security.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was directed that the language other governmental agencies, under Paragraph III, Directives, also be included in the language contained in Paragraph I, Objective, for Version One of the Policy. On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Version One (Policy LCC-29) of two versions submitted, as the policy that will be used in governing the use of the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers (Board Room), limiting the use of same to the Board of County Commissioners, Staff, and Boards and Committees established by the Board of County Commissioners, with the addition of clarifying language, in that the language other governmental agencies will be added to Paragraph I, Objective.
Discussion occurred regarding utilization of the Training Room, as soon as it is available, and the issue of liability, with regard to the use of said room.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, pointed out the fact that, if a group meets after 5:00 p.m., the County will have to keep the Administration Building open, therefore, will have to have security officers available and will have to pay overtime to those employees who will be needed until said meeting is adjourned.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board modified Version One (Policy LCC-29), to allow a charge, where appropriate, for use of the Training Room and/or the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers (Board Room).
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, explained this request, stating that it concerned a defendant who had been acquitted in a criminal prosecution case.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Interim County Attorney for approval to pay costs incurred in the case of the State of Florida v. Richard Bedford, in the amount of $277.00.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, explained this request, stating that the City of Tavares had approached the County a couple of years ago, concerning possible acquisition of some property in downtown Tavares, specifically Lake Region Packing Association. He stated that it had fallen by the wayside, due to lack of interest, however, interest had peaked once again, in a large part because of problems that the County is having with parking, aesthetic problems that Lake Region causes for the City of Tavares, and the fact that the City would like to increase Wooten Park, by acquiring said property. He stated that staff met with Mr. Tony Otte, City Manager for the City of Tavares, a Commissioner from the City of Tavares, Commr. Cadwell, and numerous individuals from the Lake Region Packing Association and that they were interested in entering into negotiations for said property, however, staff felt that the first step in the process would be to acquire an appraisal of the property, to determine if it was an economically feasible project. He stated that he had spoken to Mr. Fred Kurras, a local appraiser, about the matter and Mr. Kurras indicated it would cost approximately $5,000-8,000.00 for the appraisal. He noted that the City of Tavares had said matter on their agenda, as a recommendation for approval, with said cost being split 50/50 between the County and the City of Tavares.
Mr. Duncan stated that, apparently, two years ago, one of the concerns was with the railroad company that runs a line through the parcel (10 acres) in question, however, that issue has since been resolved and they have agreed that it would be something that they would be interested in. He stated that there are environmental problems that exist on the property, however, they are working with the State of Florida, in cleaning up said problems.
Commr. Swartz stated that he supported looking at the options, to find out if something could come of it, because the long-term benefits of the acquisition, if it could be accomplished, would be good for the County and the City of Tavares. However, he cautioned the Board about the fact that he had previously met with some representatives of Lake Region Packing Association, to discuss acquisition of the property, and, while they seemed very willing to try to do something, the types of numbers that they were giving, at that time, were not ones that he felt the County would be able to proceed with. He stated that perhaps the situation had changed since then and the County might be able to get to a more realistic approach and the only way to do that would be through an appraisal, in conjunction with the City of Tavares.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Lake Region Packing Association had assured him they would remain in Lake County and in Tavares, noting that the County would not want to be a party to their leaving the County, or the City.
Ms. Whittle, Interim County Manager, interjected that Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, would be bringing a proposal to the Board, in the near future, for an appraisal on some other parcels of property within the City of Tavares, which would possibly solve some of the parking problems facing the County.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Interim County Attorney, Ms. Sue Whittle, for approval of an Interlocal Agreement Between Lake County and the City of Tavares, for an appraisal of a parcel of property owned by the Lake Region Packing Association, with the cost of the appraisal to be split 50/50 between the County and the City of Tavares.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY PROPERTY
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, explained this request, stating that it involved a parcel of property that Ms. Phyllis Cross donated to the County in 1994, which did not have a lot of value for her, however, did have for the County. He stated that, according to the Florida Statutes, Ms. Cross would be responsible for the pro-rata taxes due on the property, in the amount of $194.74, however, due to the fact that Ms. Cross gave the property to the County and made nothing on it for herself, recommended that she not have to pay said taxes.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Interim County Attorney, Mr. Rolon Reed, for approval for the County to pay pro-rata taxes, in the amount of $194.74, on a parcel of property that Ms. Phyllis Cross donated to the County in 1994.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
STATE AGENCIES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, explained this request, stating that it involved a case in which he once represented a client who had since withdrawn from the case. He stated that, in following the Florida Bar's Rules of Ethics, he had not participated in this request, in any way, shape, or form, since being hired as Interim County Attorney. He stated that all negotiations had been handled by Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, noting that he had prepared all the documentation contained in the Board's backup material, regarding the case, and that he had not seen them until they were placed in the books containing said backup material.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the fact that Commr. Good had been involved in the case, prior to this date, as a petitioner and whether or not he could participate in the discussion this date.
Mr. Reed assured him that he could participate in the discussion and vote on the matter. He then turned the matter over to Mr. Hoban and left the room.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Hoban agreed with Mr. Reed's statement that Commr. Good could participate in the discussion and vote this date.
Mr. Hoban stated that he agreed, noting that, according to Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes, unless Commr. Good had a personal financial gain, or loss, he had an obligation to consider and vote on the matter before the Board.
Mr. Hoban stated that he had had a conversation with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) the prior day, regarding the language contained in the Board's backup material about this case, and that they proposed three very minor changes to Section 1.02.00, Vesting for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Section 1.02.02, Common Law Vested Rights, which he distributed and displayed on the monitor, for the Board's perusal. He stated that they were stylistic changes, not substantive, therefore, requested the Board's approval of same.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and objected to said changes, noting that, when he and other attorneys file information with the State and are on the list as intervenors and there is communication between the parties, after they intervene, they need to be provided with any correspondence regarding the case, however, noted that, if they do not put forth the effort to obtain the information themselves, they do not receive it. He suggested that the Board not take action this date, regarding this case, and allow all the information that has been provided to the County and the State to be provided to those individuals who had legally intervened, so that the effected parties could be prepared to discuss the matter.
Mr. Hoban interjected that this case had not been advertised as a public hearing, that it was merely a workshop, for staff and the Board to discuss the case. He stated that the most staff expected from the Board this date was direction to advertise, pursuant to the Florida Statutes, for a settlement agreement. He noted that this was the first time the Board had seen the information provided to them, regarding this case.
Commr. Swartz requested staff to brief the Board on the documents that were before them this date and then the matter could be rescheduled for a workshop, to consider any further deletions, additions, or changes that the Board might want to make.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) had faxed to him the day before this meeting a proposed six page Settlement Agreement, however, noted that he had only put two sections on the monitor, which he felt were the most pertinent parts. He stated that Tab A of the Settlement Agreement was to adopt an ordinance and substantiate Exhibit A (contained in the Board's backup material), which he noted is the proposed vesting ordinance for Section I. He stated that Exhibit A was the whole meat of the Settlement Agreement, with the stylistic changes, as noted. He stated that his intention this date was to go through Exhibit A and see if it was the direction that the Board wanted to go, whether they wanted to make changes, back up, or go forward. He stated that staff just needed direction regarding same.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether the Board was obligated, under the proposed agreement, to settle to a time certain and was informed that they were not.
Mr. Hoban pointed out the fact that DCA would like for the County to agree not to implement the provisions of the current vesting ordinance, until the County repeals the ordinance and adopts a new one, and to not issue vested rights determinations on those cases in the pipeline.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would not agree to such a request, because some of the cases had been in the pipeline since 1993. She stated that she felt it was an unreasonable request by DCA.
Mr. Hoban reviewed the handout he had distributed, pertaining to Section 1.01.00, Vesting for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, which gives a definition for Statutory Vested Rights and Common Law Vested Rights, stating that it was very similar to the ordinance which Mr. Frank Gaylord, former County Attorney, was close to acquiring an agreement on from DCA last Fall. He stated that he had shortened and modified it, at which time he pointed out the changes he had made. He stated that there were two options for Common Law Vested Rights and noted that the County staff would probably do a lot less work, with regard to vested rights determinations, which he noted are extremely time consuming, from a county standpoint, if they went with Option 1, which states that Lake County shall only recognize common law vesting that is judicially determined. He noted that he had done approximately 40 to 45 vested rights determinations since being in Lake County and that the overwhelming majority (95-98%) of the cases were common law vested claims. He stated that staff sees very few statutory vesting claims, at this point in time.
Commr. Hanson questioned what the driving force was for
Option 1.
Mr. Hoban stated that it was an option that was suggested to him by Mr. Reed. He then reviewed Option 2, for Common Law Vested Rights, which he noted states that the County will grant common law vesting and make the determination and the County Manager will sign it. He stated that it would be determined by whether the County had ever taken an act of government, whether the applicant had demonstrated good faith, and whether there had been substantial amounts of money spent.
Commr. Hanson questioned how Mr. Reed could have excused himself from this meeting, yet participated in the discussion regarding vested rights.
Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Reed had mentioned to him, in passing, that he might want to consider Option 1, which would give the Board another option.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel Mr. Reed's suggestion should have been listed as an option and given to the Board for consideration.
Mr. Hoban disagreed, stating that he was allowed, having heard an idea, to put it on paper and present it to the Board for consideration.
Mr. Hoban then reviewed Section 1.02.03, Vested Rights in the Wekiva - Chapter 7, with the Board, stating that it was almost an exact duplicate of the current vested rights ordinance for the Wekiva. He stated that it was taken, almost word for word, out of the Comprehensive Plan and changed nothing in the current ordinance.
Commr. Hanson requested Mr. Hoban to make sure whether it was word for word or almost word for word.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the fact that the $250.00 charge for the vesting procedure probably did not cover the County's cost for investigation - time wise, personnel wise, etc.
Mr. Hoban stated that it did not, however, Commr. Hanson stated that it probably depended on the issue and the application, noting that some would cost much more than others.
It was noted that a third option might be to look again at the fee schedule and determine how much the procedure will cost the County, if people will need to be added to do the work, in time, energy, and cost involved, to make said determination.
Mr. Hoban referred to Section 1.02.04, Lot Not Created Pursuant to Subdivision Regulations, stating that it may not be, technically, statutory or common law vesting, but that it was a vesting procedure that the County has had to use, at lease once a month, or every other month, and that he had had a discussion with DCA about the matter. He stated that they could see the need for it, noting that, if the County had issued a building permit on a lot that was not legally created and the individual built a house on that lot, it would be tough to then take the building permit away from the individual, thus, the reason for said provision.
Mr. Hoban referred to Section 1.02.05, Vested Rights Certificates, stating that it states that a person may request a vested rights determination from the County. He stated that it was very similar to the current provision regarding same.
Mr. Hoban referred to Section 1.02.06, Subsequent Approval; Ability to Make Application, stating that it may only be used, at this point in time, by one or two individuals, at most. He stated that it states, if the County has denied the individual, initially, and they sue the County and win the case, that the County would put them back in place and time, whereas, if the County had granted them approval, they could proceed forward.
Mr. Hoban stated that the sections he reviewed would be included as Exhibit A in the Settlement Agreement, however, along with this ordinance, the County Attorney's Office was proposing, to be adopted at the same time, but not pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, two other ordinances, one being the Expiration of Development Orders and the other being Old Development Orders, which he elaborated on. He stated that the only thing the County Attorney's Office was proposing was that the County adopt fair and reasonable expiration dates. He stated that every county he contacted about the matter had expiration dates, therefore, suggested that Lake County start implementing expiration dates on its development orders. He further elaborated on the matter.
Mr. Hoban stated, for informational purposes, that staff was preparing, under Section 14.20.02, Old Development Orders, language that states the effective date of the new ordinance, if adopted, is the date that would be the effective date for every old development order in the County, which he noted is probably in the hundreds. He noted that the old vesting ordinance, which is under attack by DCA at the present time, was an attempt to put expiration dates in development orders. He further noted that the Board of 1991, consisting of Commr. Bailey, Commr. Gregg, and Commr. Bakich, felt that expiration dates were important, therefore, when they did vested rights ordinances, they contained expiration dates. He stated that staff was recommending, this date, that the Board adopt some fair and reasonable expiration dates.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether this would apply to common law vesting, or statutory vesting.
Mr. Hoban stated that it would be irrespective of both and would apply to both. He stated that, if one came to the County with a 1978 development order and could prove that they had common law vesting, this ordinance would state that, even with common law vesting, said individual would need to proceed, within one, two, or five years, to the next step, or start building, or they would lose it, even with the common law vesting.
Discussion occurred regarding a time frame of two years for PUDs, at which time it was noted that, at one time, the County had time frames, however, they took them away and were now proposing that they be put back in.
Commr. Swartz questioned which set of plans an individual would come under, if the individual had a development order that was considered to be vested, prior to the 1991 plan. He stated that it was an issue that would need to be clarified.
Mr. Hoban stated that he would make it very clear in the next draft that he would bring to the Board.
Commr. Gerber questioned the extension aspects, to which Mr. Hoban stated that he had proposed a one time, one year extension - no more.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would propose making it four years, with no extensions, or even five years, with no extensions, then the individual knows what the rules are and can work within that time frame.
Commr. Swartz stated that the old Code provided for extensions for good cause with the idea that, if one was struggling to get a water management district permit and was continuing in good faith and had been delayed, or was struggling to get permitting through Lake County and, for good cause, had been delayed, then he/she could get the extension, but, if the individual had done nothing, then he/she should not get the extension.
Mr. Hoban interjected that the second LDR Review Committee recommended five years, with the rationale that St. Johns River Water Management District permits are good for five years, as well as DOT permits, therefore, all permits will expire at the same time.
Mr. Hoban stated that Section 14.20.01, Expiration of Development Orders, is written as follows:
Preliminary Plat
Construction Plans for Plats
Master Park Plan
Construction Plans for Master Park Plans
Site Plans - Final
Construction Plans for Site Plans
Commr. Swartz stated that he would be more inclined to see a situation where the County states that, for a Preliminary Plat, where the individual has achieved a point at which they have their St. Johns River Water Management District permit and it has three years remaining on it, the County will give them up to three years, or mirror what the St. Johns River Water Management District allows them, under the initial permit, and beyond that point, they would come under the new rule.
Mr. Hoban stated that he could insert language mirroring the St. Johns River Water Management District permits, noting that they would have the old St. Johns River Water Management District rules, the County's old rules, the new St. Johns River Water Management District rules and the County's new rules, for everything but intensity and density.
Commr. Swartz suggested that there be some finality in it, noting that, at some point, the individual would come under the rules, as they exist.
Mr. Hoban stated that he would make that modification.
Mr. Hoban then referred to Section 14.20.03, Vested Rights Certificates, noting that the County has issued approximately 70 vested rights determinations, with most having time deadlines. He stated that staff was saying that, if there are time deadlines for vested rights determinations that have been issued, the County would be tracking those deadlines, not what the County is proposing this date. He stated that that section states those dates are good.
Mr. Hoban then referred to the Lot of Record Ordinance, stating that, when staff wrote the ordinance, immediately after the Comprehensive Plan, they were under the assumption that, if DOT built a road, or the County built a road, and not a developer, one did not have Common Law Vesting, because there was no reliance. He stated that that was the position taken by Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, former County Attorney, and was now the position taken by DCA. He stated that Mr. Frank Gaylord, former County Attorney, had a different opinion, in that he felt Statutory Vesting would apply. He stated that the individual had to file a development order, commence construction, and finish the project, it just so happened that DOT built the road, or the County built the road.
Mr. Hoban discussed a situation that had occurred in the Lake Jem area and noted that he had spoken with Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, about the matter and it was his opinion that the County should recognize Statutory Vesting in such situations. He stated that he had also discussed the matter with DCA and they stated that, because the County was doing everything else, they would give in on that issue. He stated that they were willing to go along with the assumption that, if the road was in place, they did not care who the road was built by - DOT, the County, or a developer, and that it should be considered vested and a Lot of Record Ordinance was simply another vesting ordinance.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Hoban stated that, with the new interpretation of the road, the County is saying that it does not care what the Future Land Use Map shows, because it is immaterial to the County now. He stated that the County is saying that the road is in place, so the individual is vested, period.
Commr. Swartz stated that, even if the road is in place, in a rural land use designation, one could not create one acre lots. He stated that the new interpretation would not change that.
Mr. Hoban stated that the vesting ordinance is saying that the County does not care if one is in a rural designation, if they are on a county maintained road and on a legally created lot of one acre, they can pull four building permits for those four lots.
Commr. Hanson stated that it was consistent with what the County had before, except that it allows it on DOT roads, in addition to county maintained roads.
Commr. Gerber stated that, if they are not, they would have to aggregate to whatever the land use is, or five acres, whichever is greater.
Commr. Swartz stated that that would be different and he did not understand why that was.
Mr. Hoban gave the Board the example that he gave to DCA, regarding the matter, and stated that this ordinance says, for lot splits, the date of aggregation is not March 2, 1993, like it is for plats, but the effective date of the new ordinance. He stated that it is not strictly in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, however, he had a discussion with DCA about the consequences of trying to force lot splits to go back to a March 2, 1993 date, particularly where there are houses on the ground, with lots sold, and reliance on the county ordinance that was in place. He stated that they agreed the County could have an aggregation date, as of the effective date of the new ordinance, not March 2, 1993.
Commr. Swartz stated that the date the County was dealing with, during the Comprehensive Plan, in November of 1993, was a 1981 date. He stated that it was at that point that he suggested using the same date as the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and wipe out the sins of the past. However, he felt the County was getting ready to move the sins of the past into the future a little further. He questioned whether the County was ever going to stop and say that one has to legally create a lot and stated that he felt the Board needed to have some additional meetings with staff regarding the matter.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff look further at the section of the Comprehensive Plan that deals with vested rights and the fact that it requires that a Procedure and Policy be set up under which those vested rights are granted. He stated that he did not want to see the County continue with the process, as it has been set out. He stated that he wanted to see some type of staff review and recommendation and then a public hearing, where vested rights are finalized and formalized and people know it. He stated that he would like for the public to know that these things are being issued. He stated that he felt there needs to be a better process than just shuffling paperwork through an administrative process where someone puts their signature on it and the County does not even know that it has happened.
Mr. Hoban questioned whether Commr. Swartz was stating that he felt surrounding property owners should be notified about vested rights determinations.
Commr. Swartz stated that it would not be a bad idea, because an affected property owner might want to appeal it, but they may never know that it happened.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed that there needs to be a tracking system, because at the present time nothing has happened on many of these cases, but, felt that it should be set up on a time frame just like the road vacations are.
Commr. Gerber stated that, rather than schedule a workshop, she felt that the Board needed to start with one-on-ones first, to make sure that the Commissioners understand what it is that is before them and what it is doing and make sure that all the affected parties and others have the ability to have access to all the settlement agreements and proposed language for the vested rights ordinance.
Commr. Hanson brought up the fact that DCA recommended that the County not issue any vested rights and that she felt the Board needed to determine whether they were going to pass a moratorium to do that. She stated that she felt the Board needed to take a stand and not allow DCA to have the County just sit on it, which is what has happened for a long time, more than six months.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt what the language states is that the County will not issue vested rights determinations, based on the ordinance. He stated that it does not state that the County cannot issue vested rights determinations, based on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which provides for statutory and common law vesting.
Commr. Hanson stated, however, that until that ordinance is repealed, the County needs to continue with the ordinance that it has, or place a moratorium for common law vesting.
Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the Board could ask staff to correspond with DCA and determine whether or not the County can issue vested rights determinations, based on the language that is in the County's adopted, accepted, Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it is the law.
Mr. Hoban stated that, when he interpreted it, he interpreted it to be that the County could still do common law and statutory vesting, they just could not do it, pursuant to that ordinance, however, he would recheck it.
It was noted that the County could enter into the agreement and it would not create a moratorium on the ability to issue vested rights determinations.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that she represented intervenors in the original proceeding that was filed in June of 1994 and that she felt the Board needed to have some other points of consideration, other than just staff's view of who the affected parties are and what is in the ordinance, before the Board directs staff to go back and recheck it. She referred to some statements that were made by Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, at the beginning of this discussion, and stated that she felt they were inaccurate, in that he had stated that he had nothing to do with this matter and that he was worried about a conflict of interest. She stated that that bias existed throughout these proceedings and that he only became concerned about a conflict of interest, when raised by other parties.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the Board would check their public records, they would see that Mr. Reed wrote the Board a memorandum on February 1, 1995, signed only by him, on Vesting - Preliminary Report, regarding the status of the litigation and listing a proposed settlement agreement that had been prepared by Mr. Frank Gaylord, former County Attorney, and categorizing projects that he felt were either vested, or non-vested, or what their status was. She stated that she had received a letter in December of 1994, from Mr. Hoban, stating that, after Mr. Reed took office, he had determined that no vested rights would be issued until he, personally, had reviewed the situation.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she writes continuous letters to staff, asking for the status on vested rights, however, is told that only Mr. Reed deals with the issue of vested rights and, to date, with the exception of one, in which Mr. Reed was very much involved, has a vested rights determination of any of her clients been issued. She stated that all the remaining ones have been withheld, despite repeated questions and concerns on her part, therefore, she felt it would behoove the Board to take some action this date, whether it is at DCA's request, or not, as to whether or not they are going to instruct the County Attorney to abide by the existing rules and regulations and procedures of Lake County, which is to issue vested rights determinations that are pending, or that are in the pipeline, noting that there are a number of them.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she had reviewed the list she received from the County Attorney's Office and it did not match any of her records. She stated that she had sent them a list of those records where there were errors too numerous to address this date. She stated that a number of opinions which have been issued, that they have in their files, for clients, are not even listed as having been issued by the County and others have wrong status and dates. She stated that Mr. Reed had been involved in this issue and that, by his excusing himself from the discussion, in no way meant that he had absolved himself of any potential conflict.
Commr. Swartz disagreed with Ms. Bonifay's interpretation, noting that he felt there was a difference between being actively involved in the presentation and preparation of the vested rights ordinance and the settlement agreement that the County is going forward with and commenting on individual vested rights cases that the County is dealing with. He stated that the purpose of the discussion this date was to allow staff to bring to the Board what they had in front of them, in terms of a settlement agreement and a proposed vested rights ordinance, to let the Board have an opportunity to hear about it. He stated that no action would be taken this date, regarding the matter, other than to instruct staff to do some reviewing and look at some issues. He stated that the Board would meet again and get additional information and make sure that all affected parties had the information that the Board had available, and then, at some point, schedule a workshop meeting, to continue to deal with the issue.
Commr. Hanson questioned who was issuing the vested rights determinations for the County and was informed that the Interim County Manager, Ms. Sue Whittle, was doing so.
Mr. Hoban stated that the vast number of the ones in the pipeline were for preliminary plats, construction plans, site plans, and master park plans. He stated that the problem he had in writing the vested rights determinations for the County Manager's signature was which deadlines to use, since he could not use the Chapter I deadlines. He questioned whether he, or Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, should take it upon themselves to establish a policy decision of what time deadlines there should be.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had a problem with the fact that the matter had not been brought back to the Board before now. She stated that the County could not just sit on the applications.
Commr. Gerber stated that a second problem was that the County had to have a vesting ordinance, if they wanted to move forward with the issue.
Commr. Good stated that the whole point of this discussion was to allow staff to bring information to the Board, so that they could begin to develop the proper language for vesting, in light of the fact that Ordinance No. 1993-19 had been challenged. He stated that the real problem, if the Board wanted to address it, was the language, that the Board had not yet agreed upon, as a Board. He stated that it was the Board's responsibility to develop that policy and give it to the County Attorney's Office.
Commr. Hanson concurred, however, pointed out the fact that the County had a County Attorney that was setting policy and she felt the Board needed to address it.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County Attorney's Office was working under a handicap of having before it only general guidelines that appear in the Comprehensive Plan, upon which they can rely on. He stated that the ordinance that was adopted by the Board, challenged, and found to be inconsistent was not something that they could use, so they were operating under a handicap, aside from anything else. He stated that the Board would not be taking any action regarding it, this date, other than to ask staff to review it, obtain additional information, and sit down with them, to make sure they understand it, and that a workshop meeting would be scheduled at a later date. He stated that staff had been requested to correspond with DCA and confirm the fact that there was no impediment to the County issuing vested rights determinations, but that they would have to be based on the broad Statutory and Common Law Vesting language that is in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board stating that Option 1, under Section 1.02.00, Vesting for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, was unacceptable; that Option 2 confuses Common Law and Statutory Vesting; and that the County had not done for the Wekiva what they had done for the rest of the County. She questioned why the Board was confusing the public, by having all the dates in a separate ordinance and not in the Vested Rights Ordinance. She stated that the County was right back to the ordinance that was found unacceptable by DCA, which is the one that had time frames in it for certain kinds of development approvals. She agreed that the procedures should be more defined, noting that they have always been in Chapter 14.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and suggested that they have some type of public hearing, before they sit down with staff, because, as it had been pointed out, there were thousands of ramifications to this action that might not come to the Board's attention through their own business experience and expertise, that might be beneficial to them, if brought to their attention.
Mr. Richey stated that, if the Board were to get involved in a public hearing process on vested rights letters, they were going to double the burden on staff and the expense to applicants. He suggested that the Board seriously look at the issue and address the interim versus the final, in separate ways.
Mr. Hoban pointed out, for the record, the fact that his discussion with Mr. Reed about Option 1 occurred during the first week or so of Mr. Reed being hired by the County as Interim County Attorney. He stated that Mr. Reed had made a suggestion and stated that he would like to see it some day, but it was made before he recused himself from the case, not after.
No action was taken regarding a request from the Interim County Attorney for approval of settlement of Department of Community Affairs v. Lake County and Lake Butler Groves, DOAH Case No. 94-5317GM (Vested Rights Case), until a later date, at which time a workshop meeting will be scheduled regarding same.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
SOLID WASTE
Mr. Lewis Stone, City Attorney, City of Eustis, appeared before the Board stating that the Florida Legislature had passed a Statute that provided that commercial recovered materials dealers (waste haulers) could not be run out of business by a local government requiring exclusive franchises, that anybody that can qualify is entitled to be in business. He stated that the Statute further provides for registration with the State, for a registration process with local government, and for the right of a local government to franchise, in a non-exclusive way, recovered materials dealers. He stated that the City of Eustis believes in, does, and will continue recycling and that their concern is not, in any way, to restrict the ability to recycle, but to address an issue that has been raised as to their ability to regulate recycling of commercial materials.
Mr. Stone stated that the City of Eustis passed an ordinance requiring registration and entering into a franchise agreement with the City of Eustis and sometime after that the County passed its ordinance requiring registration and entering into a franchise agreement with the County. He stated that the issue concerned those who have, heretofore, not registered, as required by the City or the County ordinance, nor have they made a decision to enter into a franchise agreement.
Mr. Stone stated that the City of Eustis and the County have additional obligations that may require the Board to take necessary actions to regulate others, to the extent that they would be infringing upon the County's Solid Waste Program. He stated that the City of Eustis believes it is crucial and a proper policing function of local government to require registration and franchising, particularly, in the policing aspect. He stated that there is a concern about the de minimis amount of non-recoverable materials that will be allowed to leave the City of Eustis and/or the County, as opposed to recoverable materials.
Mr. Stone stated that he was before the Board, this date, because the cities and the County have ordinances on their books that they are not enforcing and the cities are looking to the Board to make a clear cut judicial review of what their rights and the County's rights and responsibilities are, with regard to the matter.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the Board instruct the County Attorney's Office to review the County's ordinance and prepare a different ordinance, if they feel it is necessary, to regulate and franchise the vendors.
Mr. Hoban noted that staff would consult with the various city attorneys on the draft and obtain a consensus from them, before taking any action.
Commr. Good stated that he was hesitant to go forward, because he was not totally aware of where the Board had been on this issue, in terms of plunging into litigation. He stated that, when the attorneys look at this matter, they are going to have to look seriously at the quantification of what de minimis impact is, with regard to recycling.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether the County was having the same problem that the cities were having, in that people were refusing to enter into the franchise agreement and regulations that the County had established.
Mr. David Crowe, Interim Solid Waste Director, stated that there had been at least one company that refused to enter into a franchise agreement with the County for commercial recyclables and that said company was actively marketing themselves, based on a memorandum from the Department of Environmental Protection, regarding same.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that, when the County enacted the ordinance in question, he appeared before the Board, on behalf of some of the commercial companies that had been aggressively solicited by the company that Mr. Crowe alluded to. He stated that he, at that time, advised the Board that said company was aggressively marketing and entering into long term agreements with people who were in the County, based on their understanding that they did not have to do anything with the County. He stated that, since the County has not enforced the ordinance, said company has continued their actions, in a very aggressive way, not only in the County, but in the cities, as well. He stated that the issue needed to be addressed and addressed in a timely way, because said companies are very aggressive in marketing themselves and the contracts that they draw up are in their favor and put a great deal of burden on Lake County residents and businesses.
Commr. Swartz encouraged the County Attorney's Office to work with various City Attorney's Offices, to look at the issue and come up with what they view to be the best solution and approach for the County to take, given the contractual obligations that the County has on both ends of the solid waste issue.
Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, informed the Board that he had met with Mr. Stone and Mr. Crowe about the matter and that it was not a simple one to resolve, legally. He requested the Board's permission to consult with outside counsel, before advising them on the matter, because he felt the County needed the help of an expert in the field, which none of the County Attorneys are.
Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board and requested them to be sensitive to the fact that there were people in the County who had entered into long term agreements, during the time that the County had an ordinance, however, had not been enforcing it, and were now affected by it.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Swartz to approve a request from the Interim County Attorney for authorization to contact outside counsel, specializing in solid waste law, regarding the situation presently occurring in the County, with regard to independent waste haulers.
Under discussion, Commr. Good suggested that staff look at the County's ordinance and very closely examine the possibility of establishing de minimis impacts which are quantitative and bring same back to the Board for further discussion.
It was noted that time is of the essence.
The Chairman called for a vote on motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/STATE AGENCIES/ZONING
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, informed the Board that this issue had been adjourned from the May 2, 1995 Board Meeting, at which time Commr. Good had requested certain information regarding the case. He stated that it was his understanding that all the Commissioners had received said information and what remained before them this date was to decide whether or not to accept the concept that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) had given, that might form a basis for settling this case, namely, whether the deletion of densities assigned to other lands that have been acquired by public bodies suggests that increased densities might be applied elsewhere, in particular, the Bradshaw property. He stated that all he needed to know was whether said concept, which would be part of a settlement agreement, was viable by the Board.
It was noted that a lot of details would have to be worked out, once the Interim County Attorney knew what the County's position was on the matter.
Commr. Good stated that he had made the motion to delay action regarding this issue, based on the fact that he had not received maps showing the acquisition of public lands. He stated that, when he looked at the Land Use Map, he saw numbers that represented an ultimate buildout and that he was not of the opinion that the County needed to keep balancing that equation every time some numbers came off the map, in terms of developable units, by immediately putting them back on. He stated that he had indicated in the past that the County needed to develop a policy to address the issue and felt that this case might be the stimulus for that discussion.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he concurred with Commr. Good, however, felt that, if viable projects come before the Board at different times and there are pieces of pie available, the County should make those available, because the market is going to drive a lot of it. He stated that he felt the County needed to have that density, to disperse to the people.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it would work the same as the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights), or PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) concept, noting that they are transferred from one area that is very sensitive to another area. She agreed that the County needs a better plan, however, agreed with Commr. Cadwell that the County needed to move forward.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and answered a question about how the densities would be calculated for the parks, stating that, in 1991, the County took all the public lands around the St. Johns River Water Management District and identified them on the Future Land Use Map as public resource lands, then, subsequently did population projections. He stated that it was finalized and land use was allocated according to population projections, after which the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Lake County Water Authority purchased additional lands.
Commr. Swartz stated that it seemed the Board had before them two issues that were interrelated, one being the broader public policy that determines what the more specific policy, or solution, may be to the particular DOAH action before the Board this date and the other being the intention of trying to reallocate into areas where there was good justification for doing so. He further elaborated on the matter, indicating what he would and would not support.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he had corresponded with DCA and they indicated that the site in question was one of their yardsticks in looking at the County's Comprehensive Plan. He further elaborated on the matter, indicating the various things that he felt should be looked at, when looking at a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and questioned whether the Board wanted to settle this case, based on what DCA had asked the County to do, and allow his client to have the option of meeting timeliness on his DRI and Ms. Bonifay's client to meet timeliness. He stated that he felt the Board needed to look at cases, on a case by case basis.
It was noted that 1,323 acres were involved in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (the land use change being discussed this date for the Bradshaw family, represented by Ms. Bonifay), however, Mr. Richey's client owns 160 +/- acres of that 1,323 acres.
Mr. Richey stated that there is a lot of acreage involved in the amendment that is not represented by either Mr. Richey or Ms. Bonifay, because it was an ability for staff to have the map make sense.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing Mr. Charles Bradshaw, the owner of the property in question, appeared before the Board stating that, as she understood the agenda item, it was to ask the Board whether or not they would recommend going forward and authorize the County Attorney to enter into a settlement agreement with DCA, with the understanding that the only way they would sign off on the issue would be if the County would take all densities from state owned lands and allocate them to other areas which have a rural designation, or are seeking a higher designation. She stated that, even if they get past this hurdle and enter into a settlement agreement with DCA, it must be the subject of another public hearing and they will still have to come in and apply for development approvals from the County and they will then run up against timeliness issues, as well as any others in the development approval process. She encouraged the Board to make a decision one way or another, this date, as to whether or not to pursue the settlement agreement, in order to get the issue off dead center. She stated that, if the Board is not going to settle, then they need to set it for an Administrative Hearing and let a Hearing Officer decide the issue.
Commr. Good stated that, at this point in time, he was ready to have the Interim County Attorney negotiate the issue, but felt he was being asked to take 160 acres from one unit per five acres up to three units per one acre. He questioned whether that is what Mr. Reed was asking the Board to do.
Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment seeks to change from rural to suburban 1,323 acres. He referred to a memorandum he had written to the Board, dated April 3, 1995, in which he states that the amendment seeks to change from Rural to Suburban 1,323 acres of uplands, 511 acres of wetlands, and 168 acres of water, located just south of the turnpike, at the U.S. 27 overpass, where a new turnpike interchange is under construction. He stated that what he needed to know this date was whether the Board was willing to change that property from Rural to Suburban, on the basis of the fact that there has been a lot of public acquisition of other lands that, otherwise, might have been developed.
Commr. Good stated that, based on the fact that public lands opened up units, or potentially made units available, was not ready to make said change, based on that criteria.
Commr. Swartz clarified the issue, stating that the old Monterey DRI that exists, that is now called Royal Highlands, is in place, has been approved, and is going forward. He stated that it is not a part of the 1,323 acres being discussed this date, as it sits today.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, interjected that the development order does include 160 acres, which is a part of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that, in the DRI, it includes the original land that allowed for 1,500 residential units and 300 Rvs and that the development order was amended six months ago, to add another 160 acres, with a provision that states that the use of those additional acres would be limited to whatever the Comprehensive Plan designation was, period. He stated that, in no case would the development order increase the number of units from the 1,500, so, if the Board amended the Comprehensive Plan and provided for an additional 160 acres of Suburban, the overall density of his client's project, the DRI, stays at what it was under the development order, it does not increase, period. He stated that, if the Board did not approve the amendment, his client would be allowed to have on said land one unit per five acres of density. He stated that the development order does not change, it is just where the County puts the density that changes.
Commr. Swartz stated that he concurred with Commr. Good, in that he did not feel comfortable with taking additional dwelling units that had been purchased and brought into the public sector and putting them in this project. He stated that he would support Commr. Good, if it was his direction to the County Attorney not to pursue a settlement agreement that included taking dwelling units that had come into the public domain and using them as a way to enter into a settlement agreement and transfer those dwelling units over and then implement a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the 1,323 acres that changes to Suburban.
Mr. Richey questioned how he was to add 160 acres to a project without increasing the density, but reallocating that density within a greater legal area, without doing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Suburban. He stated that, as a condition of adding the 160 acres, his client presented to the Board that he wanted to be more sensitive to the environment and spread the density that was already approved out, thus the reason for the 160 acres being added.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, reappeared before the Board stating that the Board had adopted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She stated that they were not talking about whether or not the County was going to transmit it, whether they wanted to do it or not, or whether it was a good policy idea, that it had been adopted and forwarded to DCA with all the requisite legal requirements and was appealed by DCA, so, if the County did not enter into the settlement agreement, they would be going to an Administrative Hearing, which will mean more expense to the taxpayers of Lake County, as well as her client. She stated that the County already knows what DCA's position would be to the Hearing Officer, to settle the case, because they told the County what it would be. She stated that they had already worked out the numbers and her clients paid to do all the development analysis for the County.
Ms. Bonifay further elaborated on the matter stating that, if the County ever wants to have another Comprehensive Plan Amendment, from anything to anything, it will have to have a reallocation formula, whether they call it a mitigation bank, a credit bank, a TDR bank, or whatever. She stated that the sad thing for her client is that the County has an adopted Comprehensive Plan and has it in place and, if two of the Commissioners say it is not the right place, then the amendment should not have been adopted and forwarded to DCA. She stated that, if three Commissioners feel the County should go forward with it, then the County Attorney can at least negotiate a settlement agreement. She stated that she felt that was going to be the reality of any Comprehensive Plan Amendment in Lake County. She stated that her client would urge the Board, after almost two years of dealing with the issue, to resolve it.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had stated for a long time that, before Lake County would ever get a Comprehensive Plan passed, changing land use, it would require that other land use be designated. He stated that the County had beat the issue around enough and he felt the Board should give the County Attorney direction as to whether or not to proceed with a settlement that used that concept.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board would be saying that they approved and transmitted this project and were now unapproving it.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she followed all the required procedures of Lake County and State law and regardless of what happens in any given election, in any given year, the citizenry has to rely on certain governmental processes and certain governmental acts, which is called the theory of equitable estoppel. She stated that her client relied on that, went forward and went through the process, transmitted it, and the Board adopted it. She stated that, if the Board fails to defend the County's position in an Administrative Hearing, then she feels that her client has an equitable action against the Board and those members who will not support it, as well as having to proceed through an Administrative Hearing, so she did not feel that the County could let the State resolve the County's planning problems, that she felt it had other ramifications, in terms of what the County's exposure is, as a County.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, reappeared before the Board stating that they had before them a site specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that the only outstanding issue in the DOAH hearing was the allocation issue. He stated that the State proposed a way to settle that issue, by acknowledging the map amendments that took off the State lands, and, if that is not acceptable to the Board, they need to have Mr. Reed negotiate a settlement. He stated that, if DCA's suggestion was not palatable to the County, then he felt the burden was still on the Board to do something to legitimately and honestly defend an action of the prior Board, which his and Ms. Bonifay's clients relied on.
Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, stated that he did not feel the Board's only option would be to do what Mr. Richey or Ms. Bonifay said to do. He stated that he believed, once he knew what the position of the Board was, that he and DCA could work out something, however, would not know until it was brought back.
Commr. Hanson questioned what Mr. Hoban's opinion was on the matter.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that he felt any potential liability the Board might or might not have was a very fact specific thing and that he would have to review the facts of Mr. Richey's and Ms. Bonifay's clients, to know for sure, one way or another, how they could have had such reliance in such a short period of time, between the time the Board approved something and DCA appealed it.
Commr. Hanson questioned Mr. Knight's opinion on the matter.
Mr. Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, stated that the issue was not between the County and the attorneys' clients, it was between the County and DCA, because the County was in opposition to DCA and had the ability to enter into a settlement agreement and retain the land as a rural land use designation.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board directed the Interim County Attorney to reject the proposed settlement of the DOAH proceeding, begun by the Department of Community Affairs, concerning the Charles E. Bradshaw Land Use Plan Amendment, No. 94-1-1-2, and to seek other options regarding same.
Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voted "No".
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 3:25 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a fifteen minute recess.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/FUNDS
Commr. Hanson updated the Board on the Environmental Fund for Florida Campaign that the County started in March of this year. She stated that the results were very good, noting that the County had raised over $3,000.00 for said fund and that over 25% of the County employees had participated. She noted that 100% of Animal Control's employees participated.
Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, displayed a poster that those people participating in said program received. He stated that this was the first campaign of its kind in the State of Florida, therefore, Lake County became an overnight success. He thanked Commr. Hanson for bringing the matter to the forefront and noted that those individuals who participated enjoyed doing it.
Commr. Hanson thanked Mr. Barker and those County employees and Commissioners that participated for their work on the project.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY (CONT'D.)
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING/STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, explained this request, stating that it was an item that had been adjourned from the May 2, 1995 Board Meeting and involved a Department of Administrative Affairs proceeding, under which the DCA challenged the approval by the Board of a development order for a Sugarloaf Mountain project from 1994. He stated that there was pending before the County, the developer, and the County Attorney's Office a question of whether to agree to binding arbitration on the issue of vested rights and, in connection therewith, whether it was before the arbitrator, or the Hearing Office of DOAH, the question of what position should be asserted on that issue, on behalf of the County. He stated that the materials pertinent to whether or not the County should participate in the arbitration had been before the Board for a couple of months and, pursuant to a promise he had made at the last Board Meeting, had submitted two opinions, with regard to vested rights for Sugarloaf. He noted that one was prepared by him and one by Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and that they respectfully requested direction on what the County's position was on the matter and whether the Board wanted the County Attorney's Office to go to binding arbitration, or not.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, even though the majority of the Board wanted the County Attorney's Office to bring their opinions to the Board, he did not feel that it was healthy for the County Attorney's Office to bring two opinions for them and/or the Board to debate. He stated that he felt the County pays the County Attorney's Office to do their job and that Mr. Hoban's position, when this case was vested, was spelled out in his memorandum and he did not feel that anything had changed since then. He stated that it was very clear that the case was vested and he would hope that the Board would move forward quickly, this date, and uphold Mr. Hoban's opinion.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had read both opinions and felt the Board should move forward quickly, but with a different outcome than what Commr. Cadwell stated.
Commr. Gerber stated that she did not feel anyone would expect her to change her opinion on the matter, noting that she was not in favor of it, would not assume anything, never chose to believe that it was vested, and still did not feel that way. She stated that she felt the arbitration situation was the way to go, to let the parties involved duke it out.
Mr. Reed stated that, in a context where the County's position is adverse to DCA's, the County would be better off in binding arbitration. However, if the County's position is the same as DCA's, namely that the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI is not vested, the County would be better off not going to arbitration.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board had voted in the past that the DRI in question was vested and that it would seem to her that Mr. Reed's stand would be how he would defend that position, not to take another stand, at this point in time, after the Board had voted on the issue. She stated that the Board had not voted contrary to the original vote and that his job was to defend that vote, even though it was taken prior to his coming on board.
Mr. Reed stated that the Minutes of July 26, 1994 did not disclose a vote, by the Board, as to whether or not the project was or should be vested. He stated that the Minutes disclosed a debate among counsel and then disclosed a vote to approve the project. He stated that he gave the Board the two written opinions before them this date, pursuant to what he thought was a unanimous direction by the Board to present both sides, given at the May 2, 1995 Board Meeting.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was voting for it, because he was convinced, with the backup information provided to the Board from the County Attorney's Office at the time, that the project was vested and his vote was based on leaving the project as vested.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had listened to the tapes, as well, and would agree with Commr. Cadwell's statement, but would hope that the Board would agree that, while there may have been some independent decisions and the vote may have been based on some belief of whether it was vested or not, there was not the detailed review and analysis of vesting issues, to the extent of what the Board had before them this date, and he did not think an informed vote, specifically on the issue of vested was made, although the ultimate vote on the project may have been based on that belief by individual Commissioners. He stated that he did not feel that a specific determination was made that the project was vested, therefore, voted to approve the project.
Commr. Hanson stated that part of it was reliance on the County Attorney.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that, when DCA came up with the idea of the vested rights arbitration, they made it very clear to her and her clients that going to arbitration was the way to expedite the matter - that the main issue, the legal issue, was whether or not the project was vested, from DCA's prospective, based on the fact that the County issued two vested rights determinations and had issued a development order. She stated that she differed with Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, at which time she referred to transcripts of the July 26, 1994 Board Meeting, the May 19, 1994 Board Meeting, and the May 2, 1995 Board Meeting, approximately 130 pages of transcribed material, which she stated contradicted his statement in the three page memorandum that there was not a full and detailed account of the case. She stated that the bulk of all the transcripts deal with the issue of vested rights.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the discussions occurred at the two hearings on the development order and the hearing on whether or not the County was going to get into binding arbitration, on May 2, 1995, where Mr. John McGuire represented the owners of Sugarloaf. She stated that she felt there was a full and complete analysis of this issue on record. She stated that the development order that the Board signed and issued states that the County finds the project to be vested, therefore, no Comprehensive Plan Amendment was necessary. She stated that it was vested from the March 3, 1993 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bonifay noted that she would be submitting her brief and the arbitration would take place on June 30, 1995. She stated that Ms. Linda Shelley, DCA, stated that, if Lake County wanted to be a party to that arbitration it would be fine, but they were not going to hold up the arbitration between the other two parties. She noted that she had not signed the agreement, because she was waiting to see what action the County would take, because she was concerned about any waiver provisions in the arbitration agreement. She stated that she did not trust the County to do what it said it was going to do, based on recent actions.
Commr. Gerber stated that there had not been any conscious decision to delay anything and that the Board was trying to give Commr. Good a chance to hear the case and decide with the Board, as a whole, on whether or not to go to binding arbitration.
Ms. Bonifay stated that there were two questions, being (1) was the County going to be a party to the binding arbitration and (2) whether or not the County was going to defend the vested rights of this project. She stated that Mr. Reed's memorandum was full of misrepresentation and faulty legal analysis, therefore, if it was the basis for the Board's reasoning this date, for changing the County's position, as to vested rights, then she needed to read it into the record.
Commr. Hanson stated that the issue this date was whether or not to enter into binding arbitration, not whether the project was vested or not, and that the Board needed to move forward.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved to authorize the Interim County Attorney to enter into binding arbitration, with regard to the issue of vested rights, as it relates to the Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact.
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
Ms. Bonifay questioned whether the Interim County Attorney was going to defend the County's position in this matter.
Mr. Reed, Interim County Attorney, stated that he would defend the County's position, whether or not they went into binding arbitration, however, needed to know what the County's position was.
Commr. Good stated that he could not make a decision about the matter, until such time as he had heard the case.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it would be based on the vote that was taken last year, noting that the Board approved the zoning, based on the vesting. She stated that there was no doubt about the vesting, noting that the whole meeting's discussion was on the issue of vesting.
Mr. Reed clarified that he was asked whether or not he would recommend binding arbitration and responded that, if the County's position on vested rights was contrary to DCA's, then he would recommend binding arbitration, and, if the County's position was identical to DCA's, that the project in question was not vested, then he would not recommend arbitration.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the Board now tried to change its position, then it would be in violation of her client's right to any kind of a public hearing on the matter. She further noted that the Board had an issued development order that was before DCA and that it had been legally rendered. She questioned how the Board felt that, by the wave of a magic wand, they were going to undo a whole series of governmental acts.
Mr. Reed stated that the County was in a legal proceeding and was one of three parties. He stated that he had asked the Board, as their County Attorney, what position they wanted him to assert in that proceeding and that the County did not have to have a public hearing, or go through any fancy legal procedure, to make that decision. He stated that the County did not have to be a party to the arbitration proceeding, if they chose not to do so.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to reconsider Commr. Good's original motion to authorize the Interim County Attorney to go to binding arbitration.
Discussion continued, at which time Mr. Hoban clarified the choices Commr. Good had regarding this case.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, stated that, if her client were to win, the County would have to withdraw its appeal, and, if her client lost, they would not be able to raise the issue of vested rights again and would go to an Administrative Hearing on all the remaining matters.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to authorize the Interim County Attorney to not enter into binding arbitration, with regard to the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI.
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER
MISCELLANEOUS/PRISONS
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, updated the Board regarding the possibility of the County acquiring work crews from the State prison. She stated that she and Commr. Good had met with the Superintendent of the prison and that he had indicated they would be willing to contract with the County next summer for two full-time work crews, at no cost to the County.
No action was needed or taken at this time.
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board about the formation of a self directed team that has been established in the County, known as the M-A-G-I-C (Most Aggressive Gang in County) Team, whose mission is to recommend innovative ideas which will effectively and economically accomplish the short-term objectives of the Board of County Commissioners, discussed at the Board Retreat. She stated that, over the next few months, they would bringing the Board some innovative ideas to improve productivity, morale, and operational efficiency in the County. She stated that they had shown a great deal of enthusiasm and dedication to it, noting that they were taking it very seriously and hoped that the Board would support them.
Commr. Hanson thanked Ms. Whittle for moving forward on this project.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Commr. Hanson updated the Board regarding a Letter of Support, with regard to Representative John Mica's Land Acquisition Proposal. She noted that it was a joint effort between the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Federal Government.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to send a Letter of Support, for Representative John Mica's Land Acquisition Proposal.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
COMMISSIONERS/MISCELLANEOUS
Discussion occurred regarding the Commissioner's parking spaces.
It was the consensus of the Board to relinquish parking spaces previously held by the Board of County Commissioners to the general public, with the Commissioners' parking now being located in the
rear of the Administration Building.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
_______________________________
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/6-7-95/7-26-95/boardmin