The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 5, 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; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to BCC Office Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance, Audit and Budgets; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. James C. Watkins, Clerk, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
Regarding the Minutes of July 11, 1995 (Regular Meeting), the following was requested:
On Page 9, Line 1, change Reilly to O'Reilly.
On Page 10, Line 24, change hok to hoc.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 11, 1995 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 17, 1995 (Special Meeting), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of July 25, 1995 (Regular Meeting), the following was requested:
On Page 5, Line 32, change equatable to equitable.
On Page 9, Lines 24 and 25, change meets to metes.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 25, 1995 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 27, 1995 (Special Meeting), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of August 1, 1995 (Regular Meeting), the following was requested:
On Page 20, Line 29, change 4-0 to 4-1.
On Page 26, Line 17, change Ms. to Dr.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 1, 1995 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 3, 1995 (Special Meeting), as presented.
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 2, Item B. 3., under the Clerk of Court's Consent Agenda, stating that he was under the impression that the appraisal in question was going to cost between $5,000.00 and $8,000.00, with the County paying half of that price.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, interjected that it was his understanding that the cost would be between $8,000.00 and $10,000.00, with the County's share being between $4,000.00 and $5,000.00.
Commr. Swartz requested staff to check into the matter and to make sure that the County meets the requirements of the interlocal agreement with the City of Tavares, regarding same.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Budgets/Budget Transfers/Office of Finance, Audit and Budgets
Resolutions
1. Resolutions and Budget Transfers from the Office of Finance, Audit and Budgets, as follows:
A. RESOLUTIONS
1. Fund: County Fire Fund
Department: Fire & Emergency Services
Revenue: Other Misc. Revenue $4,647
Expense: Tuitions $4,647
Amendment #: 95-310
Justification: The County Fire Fund has received unanticipated revenue from Lake County Vo-Tech Center for instructor fees related to in-service training.
2. Fund: General
Department: Planning
Revenue: Fines & Forfeiture $8,300
Expense: Legal & Attorney Fees $8,300
Amendment #: 95-311
Justification: The Planning Department has received unanticipated revenue from the satisfaction of past Code Enforcement Board liens. This money is being appropriated to pay the legal costs for representation during the Special Code Enforcement Board Hearing on July 26, 1995.
3. Fund: Animal Shelter Trust Fund
Department: Fire & Emergency Services
Revenue: Animal Shelter Donations $ 831
Livestock Auctions $ 197
Expense: Neutering Charges $1,028
Amendment #: 95-312
Justification: The Animal Shelter Trust Fund has received more donations and revenue from livestock auctions than anticipated. These funds are being appropriated to cover the costs of neutering animals.
B. TRANSFERS
1. Fund: General
Department: County Manager/County Atty.
From: Contingency $15,000
To: Personal Services $15,000
Transfer #: 95-313
Justification: Transfer needed to pay salary and benefits of the County Attorney and County Manager employment contracts for the remainder of FY 94/95. Balance in Contingency after transfer is $246,432.
2. Fund: General
Department: In House Support - Sheriff
From: Contingency $13,490
To: Utilities $ 3,000
Rentals & Leases $10,490
Transfer #: 95-314
Justification: More funds are needed to pay rent of leased buildings of the Sheriff, due to renovation of the Sheriff's Administration Building not being complete.
3. Fund: General
Department: County Attorney
From: Contingency $8,000
To: Other Charges/Obligations $8,000
Transfer #: 95-315
Justification: Funds needed to pay 1/2 of cost of appraisal with the City of Tavares for a joint purchase of property in downtown Tavares, per BCC action June 7, 1995.
4. Fund: General
Department: Constitutional Officers -
Sheriff
From: Contingency - Sheriff $20,000
To: Transfer/Law Operating $20,000
Transfer #: 95-316
Justification: Pursuant to F.S. 30.49, the Sheriff is requesting that $20,000 of his Contingency money be transferred into Law Enforcement Operating account. Balance of the Sheriff's Contingency after transfer is $0.
5. Fund: General
Department: Constitutional Officers -
Sheriff
From: Contingency - South Lake $14,500
To: Transfer/Law Capital $14,500
Transfer #: 95-317
Justification: The Sheriff is requesting that the money collected and allocated to the Sheriff's Office from South Lake Development fees be transferred into his Capital Outlay account.
6. Fund: Solid Waste Management
Department: Solid Waste
From: Contingency $90,000
To: Professional Services $90,000
Transfer: 95-318
Justification: Mainline computer assistance was necessary for the Assessment Office to meet the deadline for the first class notices to property owners. Balance of Contingency after transfer is $612,906.
7. Fund: Sales Tax Capital Projects
Department: Facilities and Capital
Improvements
From: Renovation - Contractors $40,000
To: Communication System $40,000
Transfer #: 95-319
Justification: Funds are necessary for providing communication hard wiring by GTE for the Round Administration and Sheriff's Administration buildings.
8. Fund: County Transportation Trust
Department: Public Services
From: Contingency $14,927
To: Repair & Maintenance $ 1,927
Machinery & Equipment $13,000
Transfer #: 95-320
Justification: The Board approved monies to be expended for a short term fix to the existing radio communications equipment on 8/1/95. A total of $14,927 is to be from Public Services to purchase a repeater and contribute a proportionate share to the repair work.
9. Fund: Tourist Development/Resort Tax
Department: Tourism
From: Special Reserve $16,250
To: Professional Services $16,250
Transfer #: 95-321
Justification: TDC approved allocating $16,250 to the Lake Rails to Trails organization, to be taken from the resort tax special reserve.
10. Fund: Law Library
Department: Law Library
From: Special Reserve $3,200
To: Machinery & Equipment $3,200
Transfer #: 95-322
Justification: The Law Library Board of Trustees approved the upgrade of computer services in the Law Library on August 8, 1995. Funds are to be transferred from Law Library Special Reserve.
11. Fund: Greater Groves MSBU
Department: Solid Waste
From: Contingency $46,811
To: Contractual Services $46,811
Transfer #: 95-323
Justification: Funds are required to pay Greater Construction for municipal services within the Greater Groves Facilities. Funds are available in Contingency, as the 1994 purchase order processed in 10/94 was paid out of 1995 funds instead of 1994. Therefore, this adjustment is required to bring the available funds into the Contractual Services line item.
12. Fund: General
Department: Community Services
From: Other Current Charges $29,311
To: Several Accounts $29,311
Transfer #: 95-325
Justification: Need appropriate line items from which to expend cash match dollars of the Americorp Grant. Existing budget account does not provide sufficient detail for State and Federal reporting requirements.
Accounts Allowed/County Property
Request for approval of list of items (5) to be deleted from Fixed Assets, for the month of September, 1995, in the amount of $11,641.74.
Bonds - Contractor
Request for approval of Contractor Bonds - New, Cancellations, and Policy Number Change, as follows:
New
4503-95 Timothy C. Earnest/Apopka Aluminum Products, Inc.
4736-96 Darrell Chandler (Electrical)
4762-95 Dale Rex (Residential)
5396-95 Signs City
5397-95 Swain Construction, Inc. (General)
5398-95 Edward Daniel Parker (Electrical)
5399-97 All Counties Roofing, Inc./Dennis Jacobson
Cancellations
1159-95 Walter A. Zeiner, Jr.
4169-95 Edwin Dwight McKinney d/b/a Major Improvements, Inc.
4972-95 Paul Lawton Construction, Inc.
5344-95 Stephen M. Farmer
Policy Number Change
4565-95 Timothy C. Carstens - New No. 77-LP-524272-0006-E
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges
Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment for Willie C. Williams, in the amount of $250.00, Case No. 95-566-CFA01, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges
Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment for Nathan Ira White, Cynthia Sosh, and James Sosh, in the amount of $50.00, Case Nos. 87-340-CJ and 87-828-CJ; and Albert Dvorak, in the amount of $100.00, Case No. 95-917MMA01-AC, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges/Code Compliance
Request for approval of Satisfaction and Release of Liens (2) for Marshall Gaard, in the amount of $500.00 each, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Accounts Allowed
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Accounts Allowed/Reports
Request to acknowledge receipt of Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending July 31, 1995, in the amount of $143,364.68. Same period, last year: $123,412.36.
Ordinances/Resolutions/Municipalities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance and Resolution, as follows:
Ordinance No. 95-07, from the Town of Lady Lake, passed and ordained by the Town of Lady Lake Commission on July 6, 1995, providing for Amendments to the Land Development Code of the Town of Lady Lake, Florida.
Resolution No. 95-114, from the Town of Lady Lake, passed and resolved by the Town of Lady Lake Commission, on July 6, 1995, pertaining to Land Use Application Fees; establishing a flexible Regulations Review Fee; and providing for repeal of inconsistent provisions.
Committees/Industrial Development Authority
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Redemption from Pohl & Short, P.A., given on behalf of Qualtool, Inc. (the Borrower), in accordance with Section 2.03 (Borrower's optional redemption) of the Indenture of Trust between Lake County Industrial Development Authority and Sun Bank, National Association, dated as of March 20, 1989 (Indenture).
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Hearing Before the Florida Public Service Commission, Application of Southern States Utilities, Inc., for Increased Water and Wastewater Rates, Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested and Service Availability Charges, In Re: Application for a Rate Increase for Orange-Osceola Utilities, Inc., in Osceola County, and in Bradford, Brevard, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Duval, Highlands, Lake, Lee, Marion, Martin, Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Putnam, Seminole,
St. Johns, St. Lucie, Volusia, and Washington Counties, by Southern States Utilities, Inc., Docket No. 950495-WS.
Budgets
Request to acknowledge receipt of Proposed Annual Budget for Southlake Community Development District (Special District No. 981), for Fiscal Year 1995-96.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Hearing Before the Florida Public Service Commission, Amended and Restated Application for Increased Water and Wastewater Rates, Allowance of Funds Prudently Invested, and Service Availability Charges (Amended Application), In Re: Application by Southern States Utilities, Inc., for rate increase and increase in service availability charges for Orange-Osceola Utilities, Inc., in Osceola County, and in Bradford, Brevard, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Duval, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Lake, Lee, Marion, Martin, Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Volusia and Washington Counties, filed with the Florida Public Service Commission, on August 2, 1995, Docket No. 950495-WS.
Audits/Funds
Request to acknowledge receipt of Green Swamp Land Authority's General and Acquisition Fund Balance Sheets, as of July 31, 1995, and the related statement of Revenues and Appropriation Expenditures, General Fund, and the accompanying supplemental information contained in the schedules of Accounts Payable and Cash Receipts and Disbursements, for the months of February through July, 1995, prepared by Greenlee Kurras Rice & Brown, P.A., in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services, issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that, under Tab 3 of the County Manager's Consent Agenda, the amount given for the monthly Medicaid hospital bill should be corrected to read $45,707.16, rather than $5,707.16.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, requested that Tab 19, under the County Manager's Consent Agenda, be pulled and discussed separately.
Commr. Hanson stated that, prior to the Personal Appearances section of the Agenda, she would like to discuss and have a vote taken on awarding a plaque to Mr. Pete Wahl, former County Manager, and Mr. Frank Gaylord, former County Attorney, in recognition of their service to the County.
Ms. Whittle further noted that she would like to add to the Agenda, under the County Manager's Consent Agenda, a request for approval of the Annual Renewal of Property and Casualty (P&S)
Self-Insured Program and Miscellaneous Specialty Insurance Policies. She noted that it was originally scheduled for the September 19, 1995 Board Meeting, however, she would like to move it to this meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager, Ms. Whittle, that the Annual Renewal of Property and Casualty (P&S) Self-Insured Program and Miscellaneous Specialty Insurance Policies be added to this Agenda, for approval.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add to this Agenda a request for discussion and vote on awarding a plaque to Mr. Pete Wahl, former County Manager, and Mr. Frank Gaylord, former County Attorney, in recognition of their service to the County.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Cadwell requested that Tab 11 be pulled and discussed separately.
Commr. Gerber requested that Tab 8 be pulled and discussed separately.
It was noted that Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, had requested that Tab 19 be pulled and discussed separately.
Commr. Swartz stated that, with regard to Tabs 15 and 16, it was unclear to him as to whether or not the County was going to approve the seven (7) year agreement. He questioned whether that was staff's recommendation.
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, informed the Board that GTECNI made an offer of extending the agreement given before FY 1995-96 to a seven year agreement, instead of the 5% annual increase. He stated that they were offering a fixed rate of an increase of 3% per year, for a seven year period, which would be $114,000.00 and change. He stated that the purpose of putting the item on this Agenda was to ensure that the County continue the maintenance for FY 1995-96. He noted that the item should have been put under the County Manager's Departmental Business, rather than under the Consent Agenda.
It was determined that Tabs 15 and 16 should be pulled and discussed separately.
Commr. Swartz requested that Tab 27 be pulled and discussed separately and noted that he did not have any backup for Tab 37.
A brief discussion occurred regarding Tab 37, at which time Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, informed the Board that the Tourist Development Council was asking for approval of a Grant Program for FY 1995-96, in the form of advertising of various events, and approval to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $45,000.00. He stated that he would be bringing a list of the recipients back to the Board, at a later date, for approval.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager's Consent Agenda and Item I. A, under the County Manager's Consent Agenda, on Addendum No. 1, with the correction, as noted, for Tab 3, under the regular Agenda, and with Tabs 8, 11, 15, 16, 19 and 27, under the regular Agenda being pulled, to be discussed separately, as follows:
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request from Community Services for approval of payment of monthly Medicaid Hospital bill, in the amount of $45,707.16, and Medicaid Nursing Home bill, in the amount of $28,972.92, for the month of June.
Community Services/Grants
Request from Community Services for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Amendment No. 1 to AmeriCorps Grant Program, extending the end date from September 30, 1995 to January 30, 1996.
Appointments-Resignations/Community Services/Committees
Request from Community Services for approval of the appointment of Dr. Kenneth Stark, M.D., to the position of "Lake County Medical Society's President", on the Comprehensive Health Care Committee.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
Facilities and Capital Improvements
Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of Change Orders to Metrics' GMP Contract, for facilities renovation, at a lump sum of $94,540.00.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Grants
Facilities and Capital Improvements
Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Historic Preservation Grant Award Agreement, Special Category Grants, Grant No. SC620.
Human Resources/County Employees
Request from Human Resources for approval of Certificates for employees with one and three years of service to the County.
Human Resources/County Employees
Request from Human Resources for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Lake County Equal Opportunity Plan (available for review in BCC Office).
Accounts Allowed/Information Services/E9-1-1
Request from Information Services for approval to encumber funds, in the amount of $135,661.20, to pay the monthly recurring charges for E9-1-1 special circuits, ANI (Automated Number Identification) and tandem charges for FY 1995-96.
Accounts Allowed/Information Services
Request from Information Services for approval to encumber funds, in the amount of $13,662.36, to pay the monthly recurring charges to GTE Leasing Corporation, for the purchase and installation of digital network hardware and software for FY
1995-96.
Accounts Allowed/Information Services
Request from Information Services for approval to encumber funds, in the amount of $35,880.00, to pay the monthly recurring charges to Sprint/United Telephone of Florida, for our contractual agreement, for the E9-1-1 database delivery.
Planning and Development/County Property
Request from Planning and Development for approval to delete the Hayes SmartcomII (Property No. 13079) from BCC Property Records System and donate to Computer Services.
Planning and Development/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
Building Department
Request from Planning and Development for acceptance and execution of Developer's Agreement between Lake County and AMDEV Corporation, for the issuance of no more than six (6) building permits, prior to the acceptance and recordation of the final plat - development of 83 units, in Section 12, Township 23, Range 25 - Commission District 2.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval of release of a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $1,983.00, for Windy Hill Drive.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval of release of a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $4,620.00, for Mardon Circle.
Accounts Allowed/Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval of release of a Letter of Credit, in the amount of $4,100.00, for maintenance, to Parkinsonia Street (part) and Elm Street (part).
Accounts Allowed/Planning and Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval of release of a Letter of Credit, in the amount of $2,500.00, for maintenance, to Leggett Lane.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
Road Projects/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval of a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Trac Roadbuilders, Inc., to resolve liquidated damages associated with Bloxam Avenue Extension Project No. 3-94, in the amount of $17,920.00.
Public Services/Resolutions/Roads-County and State
Request from Public Services for approval and execution of Resolution accepting an 870 foot extension of Rainbow Lane
(2-1846A) into the County Road Maintenance System.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Committees/Road Projects
Public Services/Purchasing
Request from Public Services for approval of the final ranking and authorization for the Negotiating Committee to proceed with contract negotiation, in accordance with the Lake County Purchasing Manual, Section 4, Board of County Commissioners Acquisition of Consultant Professional Services Policy, for the SR-19 Stormwater Feasibility Study Project No. 12-95, RPS-2-5-09.
Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval to remove from the County Maintenance System that portion of Mitchell Bridges Road
(2-0429), lying South of the South line of Section 4, Township 24 South, Range 25 East, Lake County, Florida.
Public Services/Municipalities
Request from Public Services for acceptance of a Maintenance Map, for a portion of CR 435, in Mt. Plymouth.
Deeds/Public Services/Rights-of-Ways, Roads and Easements
Request from Public Services for acceptance of the following deeds:
Non-Exclusive Easement
Mary Ann Somera, Martin J. Harrington, Thomas M. Harrington, as Tenants in Common
C-44A
Statutory Warranty
R. C. Kennedy and Belle V. Kennedy
William V. Zeller
Lake Seneca (4-5983)
Thomas J. Harrison
Lake Seneca (4-5983)
Umatilla Fruit Company
Skyline Drive (5-7773)
Mary M. Simpson and Lloyd D. Simpson
Lake Seneca (4-5983)
William A. Popp and Hao T. Popp
West Skyline Drive (5-7672)
Gary McCutcheon and Helen P. McCutcheon
Park Avenue and Sunnyside Drive (1-4122)
Donna Jane Crannell and Bobbye Lou Lewis
Abrams Road (4-5371)
Paul W. Bryan, Trustee
Bill Collins Road (4-6880)
Harold V. Coffman, Trustee
E. Lake Seneca Road (4-6084)
Harry Timmerman and Judy Timmerman
SR 33
Robert C. Gosnell and Fannie R. Gosnell
Lake Seneca (4-5983)
Jerry D. Hatfield and Sharon McAlonen Hatfield
Skyline Drive (5-7773)
Walter E. Hyneck and J. Chloe Hyneck
Lake Seneca (4-5983)
Robert Mendheim and Sharon Mendheim
Lake Seneca (4-5983)
John A. Sanders and Ramona C. Sanders
Lake Seneca (4-5983)
Assessments/Deeds/Road Projects/Public Services/Municipalities
Request from Public Services for acceptance of the following Statutory Warranty Deeds, for a proposed Special Assessment Paving Project, involving Crossen Street, Ironwood Avenue, Maple Street, Fern Drive, Juneau Street, and Bay Street, in the Bassville Park area:
Bo-Yu Lao
Maple Street
James R. Kunkle and Elizabeth Diane Kunkle
Maple Street
Danny Ferguson and Pamela J. Ferguson
Maple Street
Charles Russell Brown
Fern Drive
Charles Russell Brown, Sr.
Fern Drive
Winfred Ray Pointer and Shirley M. Pointer
Bay Street
Michael J. Brittian and Rhonda C. Brittian
Crossen Street and Ironwood Avenue
Geraldine Carpenter
Crossen Street
Donald T. Hollis and Virginia A. Hollis
Crossen Street
Harold C. Ault and Gladys J. Ault
Crossen Street
Richard E. Smith
Crossen Street
Dorothy M. Callihan and Terry E. Callihan
Crossen Street
Jesse D. Rogers and Alice E. Rogers
Crossen Street
Gerald L. Banks
Crossen Street
Brenda A. Bumby
Crossen Street
Rosagray Jones
Crossen Street
Earl J. Heisey
Crossen Street
Dennis H. Sullivan and Laura D. Sullivan
Crossen Street
Dennis H. Sullivan
Crossen Street
Ruth M. Smith
Crossen Street and Ironwood Avenue
Robert C. Smith
Ironwood Avenue
Deeds/Public Services
Request from Public Services for approval of the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Deed No.: 1334
Applicant: Harold Mazzan and Jean E. Mazzan
Location: Town of Astatula, portion of Block G
Recommend: Reserve 33 feet from centerline of Adams Street and 33 feet from centerline of Massachusetts Avenue, per letter from Olive Ingram, Town Clerk, Town of Astatula
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 contract, 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
PURCHASING THE ANNUAL COUNTYWIDE USAGE FOR
EACH COMMODITY OR SERVICE LISTED
UNDER THE BID LIMIT ON THE
ATTACHMENT IS ESTIMATED TO
BE OVER $25,000
Authorization for the Office of Purchasing to advertise throughout FY 95/96 for Lake County's annual bids, proposals and negotiated competitive agreement, as specified on the attached list of commodities and services (Attachment A). It is also requested that the Board grant approval for the Office of Purchasing to award the annual bids, quotes, proposals and piggyback off State or Cooperative Bids, if the award recommendation is to the low, most responsive bidder and issue blanket purchase orders within budgeted funds. Annual bids, quotes, proposals, and negotiated competitive agreements establish a firm source, period, and quantity discounted prices for high volume materials and services, significantly reducing the number of repetitive expensive daily purchasing transactions through the utilization of blanket purchase orders.
PUBLIC SERVICES $25,000
Authorization to seek quotes for Professional Services for a Traffic Study in the incorporated limits of the City of Eustis and Tavares. Quotes will be obtained, per the guidelines specified in Lake County Procedure LC-13, Acquisition, Selection, Work Assignment and Contract Negotiation for Continuing Contracts for Consulting Services. Funding for this project is from Account No. 115.5056610.541.8600672.
PUBLIC SERVICES $55,000
Authorization to seek proposals for appraisal services from qualified Lake County appraisers that are on the Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) approved list and waive the advertisement requirement. The appraisal firms, or individuals, will perform real property appraisal services for the South Lake Scenic Trail project. The Board approved the Multi-Party Agreement with DEP for greenways and trails on June 20, 1995.
It is also requested that the Board grant approval for the County Manager to award this proposal, based on the Selection Committee's recommendation, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract, pending the County Attorney's approval. The recommended Selection Committee is: Commissioner Good, District Two; Member of the Rails-To-Trails Task Force; Member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee; Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, and Craig Willis, Alternate Transportation Specialist.
Funding for this project was approved by the Board on June 20, 1995, as follows:
Tourist Development Council
Account No. 125.1260100.575.830031
25%
Capital Infrastructure
Account No. 141.9093800.519.8300340
60%
Transportation Trust Fund
Account No. 112.5056110.549.8300310
15%
D) Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities from Annual Bids, State Contract, G.S.A., or Cooperative Bids.
DIVISION AMOUNT
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT $10,700
Perconti Data Systems, Inc./Authorization to issue a change order for $10,700 for any unforseen modifications that may be needed during the installation of the Parcel, Permitting, Inspection, Plan Review, Contracting Licensing, and Code Enforcement Tracking Software System. On June 7, 1995, the Board authorized Purchasing to seek proposals. On July 10, 1995, the County Manager approved the award to the low, most
responsive proposal for the Software Management System, RFP
3-5-10, at a proposal price of $47,000, from Perconti Data Systems. Funding for this project was budgeted for FY 94/95 in the amount of $65,000. Funding is available from Account No. 001.1048110.524.8600640.
F) Approve and Execute Contracts, Agreements, Amendments, Chairman's Signature and Encumber Funds.
DIVISION AMOUNT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT $15,000
PSI/Authorization for the Chairman to sign an amendment to PSI'S Countywide Professional Consulting Service Continuing Contract to include Shockley Heights Ground and Surface Water Study, per the terms and conditions of RPS 6-5-12, pending the County Attorney's approval. On July 11, 1995, the Board approved permission to initiate the Shockley Heights Study. The Office of Purchasing quoted Professional Services, per the guidelines of Lake County Procedure LC-13 Acquisition, Selection, Work Assignment and Contract Negotiation for Continuing Contract for Consulting Services. Award recommendation is based on the overall low total price of a 100' well, as submitted on the fee calculation form (Attachment B). Funding for this service is available from Account No. 001.1041320.537.8300340.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Deductive Change Order No. 1 to the Contract between Lake County and Hunter-Nelson, Inc., for Intermediate Storage and Transfer Facility Design/Build Project No. P-5-5-01, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney.
Assessments/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval of waiver of special assessment balances for the following accounts:
794067 William Plant $ 6.53
661125 Walter and Jean Smith $14.26
665021 Leslie and Linda Hanson $ 8.45
654590 Terry Hoffman $ 9.63
Assessments/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for the following six (6) road assessments:
646018 Dan and Teresa Rue
Paid 5/3/95
661104 Derriel and Cynthia Cato
Paid 5/17/95
661656 L. J. Davis
Paid 7/19/95
661657 Leameal and Diana Davis
Paid 7/19/95
671063 John Burlingane and Tracy Dooley
Paid 7/21/95
759101 Zebele and Lovie Jean McGauley Paid 7/12/95
Accounts Allowed/Grants/Office of Tourism
Request from Office of Tourism for approval of Grant Program for FY 1995-96, in the form of advertising of various events, and approval to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $45,000.00.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Economic Development
Request from Economic Development for approval of Contract for Sale and Purchase between Lake County and Robert A. Mantovani, Trustee, for Mantovani Investments, Inc.
MISCELLANEOUS/COUNTY MANAGER
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested to add, under her County Manager's Departmental Business, a Land Development Regulations Amendments Workshop and Hearing Schedule, for discussion.
It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
Commr. Gerber presented Employee Awards, as follows:
Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service to the County
Robert C. Baker, Equipment Operator II, Public Services/Roads Division/Maintenance Area III (Umatilla)
Douglas Conway, Capital Projects Manager, Facilities and Capital Improvements/Capital Improvement Section (Not present for presentation)
James Copenhaver, Building Inspector, Planning and Development Services/Building Services Division (Not present for presentation)
David R. Crowe, Interim Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Director, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Services/Administration Division/Director Office
James R. Liles, Equipment Operator I, Public Services/Roads Division/Maintenance Area III (Umatilla) (Not present for presentation)
William Nicodem, Mechanic II, Public Services/Roads Division/Vehicle Maintenance Services
Ronald L. Olvis, Landfill Attendant I, Solid Waste Management Services/Administration Division/Support Services
LAKE COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AWARDS
Commr. Gerber presented Boards and Committees Awards, as follows:
Presentation of Certificates
Sanford A. Minkoff, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Board of Adjustments, from 1992-1995
Elizabeth Barker, for her service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Natural Resources Advisory Committee, from 1991-1995
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE
Commr. Gerber presented the following Plaque:
Plaque to Rolon W. Reed, in recognition of service as Interim County Attorney, for the period of December, 1994 - August, 1995
COUNTY ATTORNEY/COUNTY MANAGER
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to have plaques presented to Mr. Frank Gaylord, former County Attorney, and Mr. Pete Wahl, former County Manager, in recognition of their service to the County, during their tenures, at a later date.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCES/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/COMMITTEES
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 1995-24, amending Ordinance No. 1994-10, to increase the membership of the Lake County Industrial Development Authority.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
PUBLIC HEARING
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
STATE AGENCIES
It was noted that this public hearing was a continuation of the public hearing held on August 15, 1995.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the last time this issue was scheduled for the advertised hearing to approve the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, on behalf of her client, raised the issue that she was not allowed to participate in the negotiation process that led to the agreement, therefore, the Board continued the action on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and requested the County Attorney's Office to look strictly at that question. He stated that one of the parties involved in this case was a former client of his, therefore, he requested Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, to look into the matter. He noted that they both agreed that the allegation Ms. Bonifay made was a very technical allegation.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there is a lot of information in the file and many of the letters in the file were copied to Ms. Bonifay and Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing Pringle Communities. However, because there is no downside, staff feels that they should comply strictly with the Florida Statutes and have a negotiation process, or meeting, before presenting the Stipulated Settlement Agreement to the Board.
Mr. Minkoff stated that his staff was directed to strictly answer the question and, to his knowledge, they have not talked with the Department of Community Affairs about this issue, at all, since the last meeting. He stated that he felt the matter could be handled by telephone (conference call) and would not necessarily require a trip to Tallahassee to settle it. He stated that he felt staff was aware of the Board's position, regarding the matter, therefore, would handle it and bring it back to the Board, at a later date, if the Board approved to go with staff's recommendation, this date.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Maguire, Voorhis and Wells, appeared before the Board, representing Mr. Charles Bradshaw, with regard to State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Petitioner, vs Lake County, Respondent, and Pringle Communities, Inc., and Charles E. Bradshaw, Intervenors, with regard to Stipulated Settlement Agreement, DOAH Case No. 94-5824GM. He stated that his firm would welcome the opportunity to participate in the negotiation process and would look forward to scheduling a meeting regarding the matter. He stated that, according to the Florida Statutes, it would require more than just a perfunctory meeting, to ratify whatever Stipulated Settlement Agreement has already been made. He stated that it requires participation in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement process, therefore, rather than starting with the agreement and finding out if DCA agrees with it, he would like direction from the Board that the issue will be started with a blank sheet, as the Florida Statutes require, with direction from staff as to what the Board will and will not accept.
Commr. Swartz requested clarification of Mr. Crawford's statement, stating that it seemed to him that any time the Board has gone forward into some area where DCA has challenged something, the Board has usually given staff some direction as to what the parameters were, for trying to settle the matter, otherwise, staff does not know what they are supposed to be deciding. He stated that he did not feel the Board, in the past, has sent staff in with a blank sheet, they have sent them in with some general direction.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board had given direction at the last meeting, as to what they wanted to do, however, noted that the Board and staff would have to make the decision regarding the proceedings.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he felt staff had a very clear understanding of what the Board's direction was, as they went into the negotiations. He stated that he did not agree with the concept that the Board, when they are in an Administrative Hearing process, has to send a blank piece of paper along with staff, to begin negotiations. He stated that he felt that would be counterproductive, if the Board has a position, with regard to settling an Administrative Hearing process with DCA.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that he felt the Board gave clear direction to staff at the last meeting.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing Pringle Communities, which he noted is an intervenor in the lawsuit in question, appeared before the Board stating that he found it interesting that the Board gave clear direction, prior to having a hearing, to present all the evidence and discussions that the County and the attorneys were proposing to do. He stated that he did not do it two weeks ago, as stated, because he had been advised not to be present and did not have his client present, nor was he in a position to proceed. He stated that he would be happy to present his client's position on the matter, but was never allowed to do so.
Mr. Richey stated that, since the last meeting, he advised staff (Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development) to monitor the intervenors, as they had discussions with DCA, in Tallahassee, which are now under consideration by DCA. He noted that Mr. Terrell Arline's (DCA Attorney) position was that what was said made good sense, however, he would have to meet with the Secretary of DCA and come back with their position and he could not physically do that, from the time of their meeting to this date. He stated that it seemed to him that, having had all those discussions and having had a proffer of a proposal from his clients, staff should look at that, however, noted that they have not looked at it yet, nor has the Board, in detail. He requested the Board to have everyone involved look at all those discussions and not tie staff's hands, before coming back before the Board, to discuss the matter, in great length.
Mr. Richey stated that there were three (3) things before the Board, this date, being (1) to undo what was done by the prior Board, which means to convert the entire Comprehensive Plan map back to what it was; (2) adopt the Comprehensive Plan map; and (3) enter into an agreement and reinstate the Comprehensive Plan back to where it was previously, but to allow his client to transfer his development rights to the 270 acres. He stated that this would be the simplistic approach to the various options he presented to the Board, however, noted that there was a fourth option, being that the County scale back the size of the Comprehensive Plan to include just that acreage that is subject to people wanting to use it and not do the pictures that planners do, which comes up with the 2,000 acre Comprehensive Plan amendment, but limits it to 270 acres, that is the subject to his client's interest in the Comprehensive Plan amendment in question and whatever acreage Mr. Bradshaw has that he has an active development plan on, which may pare the acreage down to 700 acres. He stated that he felt all these things needed to be looked at, in a reasonable way, and, to say that the Board gave staff direction two weeks ago, without having heard any of the details of the four options he proposed to them, would do the County and his clients a detriment, therefore, requested the Board to not do that.
Mr. Richey noted that he had had some substantial and productive discussions with the State, twice, and felt that they have moved a long way and that staff should participate in those discussions. He requested the Board to not prejudge it, until a comprehensive discussion has been held regarding it, and would then like for the Board to allow them to have a comprehensive presentation, when whatever comes out of the negotiations is presented to them. He stated that his client has proceeded to develop his acreage and that what the Board does affects his client substantially and materially and affects what is going in the ground at the present time.
Commr. Gerber interjected that the Comprehensive Plan amendment before the Board this date in no way resembles the first one that they received.
Commr. Good stated that, for that reason, he felt staff should hold another negotiation meeting and come back to the Board with a recommendation, based on that meeting. He stated that he felt that was the only logistical process that the Board could do, unless they wanted to negotiate unilaterally, which would not really be a negotiation. He stated that he felt the Board needed to instruct staff to have the negotiation meeting and bring the results of that meeting back to the Board.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt it was reasonable to expect that DCA might be willing to accept several alternatives, to settle this case. He stated that the Board had looked, tentatively, at one alternative that they supported. He stated that, unless staff is directed otherwise, they are going to DCA with a proposed settlement that the County has suggested. He stated that there may be additional proposals that will come back to the Board that they can consider, that would be optional to the one that they are recommending and sending staff forward with.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the only problem he saw with that was that the Board came up with said consideration, without hearing the other parties, at that time. He stated that they were not involved in the meetings, originally, and had not presented anything to the Board, so, apparently, the Board based their decision on past knowledge of the case.
Commr. Good interjected that staff had stated that there appeared to be a violation of the provisions of the Florida Statutes and, for that reason, were recommending another negotiation meeting, which would allow them to sit down with various positions, but, it clearly is a negotiation.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it was legally imperative that the Board make sure the intervenors are included in the negotiation process and allowed due process. She stated that the argument this date is that they have not been allowed due process and felt that it was important that the Board not tie their hands, at this point in time.
Mr. Richey stated that the bottom line is that the County has a settlement proposal that he and Ms. Bonifay, as intervenors, do not know where it came from, because they were not at the table to know that, and this was a major concern of his.
Mr. Crawford stated that he felt everyone was saying the same thing, but in a different way. He stated that the only thing Ms. Bonifay is concerned about is that the piece of paper alluded to earlier comes forward as the County's position. He stated that there is a range of four or five DCA positions that are possible and would think that, in good faith, everyone involved should look at them, in the settlement conference, and not be locked into a particular agreement, which he noted would be a violation of the Statutes.
Commr. Swartz interjected that the County would not be locked into it, until they get a settlement agreement back and vote on it, but noted that they could have a position in the negotiations.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, at this point in time, he felt the Board should reject the Stipulated Settlement Agreement that had been advertised and direct staff to go back and hold at least one negotiation session and bring a recommendation back to the Board.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Hanson that the Board reject the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Lake County and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, regarding the Florida Division of Administrative Hearing, Case No. DOAH 94-5824GM, as submitted, and that, in the interest of fairness and legality, based on the fact that there appears to be a violation of the provisions of the Florida Statutes in the vote taken in the past, that staff hold another negotiation meeting and bring to the Board the positions which are presented by all parties, for the Board's discussion and decision.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the Board should lock staff into just one meeting, noting that it may take more than that.
Commr. Cadwell stated that it was his understanding that staff would go forward with the direction that was given the last time the Board discussed this issue and he disagreed with that direction, therefore, would vote against the motion.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, hopefully, one meeting would be enough, however, he would prefer that the motion state a meeting, or meetings, as staff determines.
Commr. Good amended his motion that staff enter into negotiations, as necessary, to bring to the Board the various opinions of all parties involved.
Commr. Hanson stated that she seconded the motion with the idea in mind that the negotiations would be open and that the Board not set direction.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if that were the case, he would vote in favor of the motion.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he felt staff would bring back a range of alternatives, for the Board to choose from, and that they may recommend one or more of the alternatives, as a settlement. He stated that staff is aware of the one that has already appeared to be approved, so the Board can be certain that that one will be one of the alternatives that they will have in front of them.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was going to vote for the motion, because he felt it was important that the Board remove any possible appearance of not following the Statutes in the negotiations and have trust in the staff that they understand what the Board's position is and what the Board can expect them to come back with. He then seconded Commr. Good's amendment to his original motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
The Chairman then called for a vote on the original motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES/RESOLUTIONS
Mr. David Crowe, Interim Solid Waste Director, appeared before the Board stating that this request was a joint effort of Alcoa Aluminum, the American Humane Society, and Friskies Animal Food. He stated that it was to promote awareness of spayed/neutered programs, as well as aluminum recycling. He explained how the recycling would work, noting that part of the program is an award of $3,000.00 towards the spayed/neutered program for the individual shelters that collect the most aluminum.
Mr. Craig Haun, Director, Fire and Emergency Services, appeared before the Board stating that staff would be going through the schools during the next two months, with fire safety and emergency management programs, so they will incorporate it all together, so that it will all be one program.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 1995-178, proclaiming the period of September 1, 1995 through October 31, 1995 as Paws to Recycle Days in Lake County.
INFORMATION SERVICES/ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that there had been a request to change the name of Sally Rolle Street, in south Umatilla, to Reverend Gaines Avenue. He stated that the Sally family and the Rolle family are old families in the Umatilla area, therefore, he would not be in favor of changing the name of the street. He noted that he had received several calls from residents in the area about the matter.
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, appeared before the Board stating that there are four properties contiguous to the street in question and that there were no objections from the property owners, regarding the name change, thus, the reason the agenda item came forward.
Commr. Swartz suggested postponing the request for 30 days, to see if Commr. Cadwell could work something out with the people involved.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone action regarding a request from Information Services for approval to rename Sally Rolle Street to Reverend Gaines Avenue for 30 days, to allow Commr. Cadwell the opportunity to try to work something out, regarding the matter, with the people involved.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/INFORMATION SERVICES/E-911
COUNTY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not get the impression that the intention of this request was necessarily to go to seven years. Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, appeared before the Board stating that the actual agenda item was to accept the GTECNI maintenance agreement, for FY 1995-96, because GTECNI stated they would be willing to give the County an extension to seven years, if the Board chose to do so. He noted that the offer would still be there, if this matter were brought back at a later date.
It was noted that the same would apply for Tab 16.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Information Services for approval to encumber funds, in the amount of $38,870.88, to pay the monthly recurring charges to GTECNI, for the support maintenance on two NEC 2400/IMG switches, located in the Administration and Criminal Justice Buildings, for FY 1995-96; and approval to encumber funds, in the amount of $47,522.58, to pay monthly recurring charges to GTECNI, for the
E9-1-1 maintenance agreement, for FY 1995-96, and requested staff to come back with a consideration for a seven (7) year option, at a later date.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BONDS/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the bond attached to Tab 19, a request for acceptance of the Final Plat for Greater Hills, Phase 6, and acceptance of a Performance Bond, in the amount of $261,543.00, was not in proper form, therefore, recommended that the Board approve the plat, subject to the County receiving the appropriate bond and agreement guaranteeing the improvements.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Swartz to approve a request from Planning and Development for acceptance of Final Plat for Greater Hills, Phase 6, and acceptance of a Performance Bond, in the amount of $261,543.00, subject to the County receiving an appropriate bond and agreement guaranteeing the improvements - 50 lots - Commission District 2.
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber questioned whether the bond in question was a customary performance bond.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the bond was a bond that is given by the contractor to the developer, which states that, if he fails to perform, they will pay a certain amount of money; however, it does not obligate the insurance company, at all, if the developer goes into default. He stated that the bond the County needs is a bond that states the developer has agreed to put the roads in and, if he fails to, the County will be given the money to do so. He noted that the bond in question is not in conformance with the County's ordinance.
Commr. Good noted, for clarification, that his approval of the request was subject to the change in form, as recommended by the County Attorney.
Commr. Swartz noted that his second to the motion was contingent on that.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC SERVICES/ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE
Commr. Swartz noted, for the record, that he was opposed to this request, previously, and continued to be, therefore, requested that it be pulled from the Consent Agenda, so that he could vote on it separately.
Commr. Hanson questioned why Commr. Swartz was opposed to the request.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County was taking a portion of a roadway that surrounds at least half of Jack's Lake and vacating approximately 75-80% of it, to provide for a new road and lots that will front on Jack's Lake. He stated that he was opposed to it, because he did not think that it was in the best interest of the public to do so.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval to remove a portion of Jack's Lake Road
(2-1447) from the County Maintenance System.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Charles Gray, Gray, Harris & Robinson, representing Lifefleet, appeared before the Board stating that he was present to address Item No. 44, under the County Manager's Departmental Business, a request for approval of the renewal of the North Lake Ambulance Contract for another two years and would like to have the opportunity to address the Board, at the specified time, regarding same.
Mr. Gray was assured that he would be given the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Robert Gracie, a resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board stating that he had appeared before them at a previous Board Meeting, on behalf of his disabled father, regarding the issue of the Here and There Palm Shores RV Condominium, and questioned what had transpired since that meeting, regarding same.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, informed him that Here and There Palm Shores RV Condominium had hired an attorney to handle a possible rezoning amendment to the CUP for the park, however, felt that it would be at least 90 days before said public hearing would be held. He stated that he did not feel the matter should be discussed, at this time, because it would be dealt with later, in a public hearing.
Mr. Gracie stated that he had been informed of some different information by the insurance company that evidently guarantees the title policies and wanted to apprise staff of same. He stated that he wanted to reiterate his concern for the situation and felt that a resolution of the problem would benefit the immediate community greatly.
Ms. Hope Lamb, a resident of Clermont, appeared before the Board and requested them to once again hold Townhall Meetings, to allow people to be involved in government, who are unable to attend the meetings that are held during the day. She stated that she was aware of the fact that the Board had tried holding the meetings in the evening and that it did not work, however, noted that, in surveying the community, she found no one, including herself, who knew that the meetings were held in the evening. She stated that, if the Board did not want to step in that direction, to at least go back to holding Townhall Meetings, so that people can have access to government.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed with Ms. Lamb, noting that she felt Townhall Meetings were one way of getting around holding the meetings during the day and still having access to the public in the evenings. She noted that she was currently working on scheduling some Townhall Meetings in her district and felt that it would probably work better if every Commissioner did his/her own district, because they could get around to more areas; however, felt that they should wait until the Fall, when more of the citizens are in the County.
It was noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings were held in the evening, for over a year, however, the County received a large number of complaints about it, because the majority of the residents in the County are elderly and cannot drive late at night and working people have children and have to get a baby sitter, or bring the children with them, so the meetings were moved back to being held during the day.
Commr. Gerber noted, for the record, that the County is working on a situation where the Board Meetings will be televised, in the near future, on the Lake-Sumter cable channel.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COUNTY MANAGER/RESOLUTIONS
Commr. Gerber noted that the Board would be adopting the Resolution establishing fee schedules for FY 1995-96, for County departments, this date.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt there needs to be lesser fees for those applicants that have a minimal impact, such as an individual who has two five acre lots that are not buildable, because they have not gone through the process, they are going to have to pay the $1,500.00 lot split fee, which she noted is going to go up, as well as the TRC cost. She stated that there is no allowance for those that will have minimal impact, which she elaborated on.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, informed the Board as to what their perspective departments do, with regard to concurrency review, and what fees each department charges for same.
Commr. Gerber noted a concern that she had in that she felt an individual should only have to pay one check for concurrency review, rather than having to pay each department.
Commr. Hanson concurred.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the individual does only have to pay one check, noting that staff adds all the fees for the various departments up and has the individual write one check for said amount.
Commr. Hanson discussed how the fee process is currently handled and stated that she feels the County needs to develop some waiver to those fees.
Commr. Swartz stated that information (Exhibits A-G) regarding same was provided to the Board in their backup material and suggested that they review them, one by one, and make any changes they feel need to be made.
At this time, the Board reviewed Exhibits A-G, as follows:
Exhibit A - Division of Environmental Management Fee Schedule
No changes.
Exhibit B - Building Department Fee Schedule
No changes.
Exhibit C - Animal Control Fee Schedule
No changes.
Exhibit D - Fairground/Expo Center Fee Schedule
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the 1/2 spc., listed on the schedule, under Expo Hall and LaRoe Pavilion, was supposed to mean 1/2 day.
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, appeared before the Board stating that the County does not have a means for charging for 1/2 day, they charge for a full day, therefore, the 1/2 spc. was a means of charging individuals for 1/2 day for setup and breakdown. He stated that he would question Ms. Betty Dittman, Director, Fairgrounds/Expo Center, about the matter and get back with the Board later this date.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, interjected that direction from a discussion that was held between the Board and Ms. Dittman was that the County would allow 1/2 day and that she felt indicating on the schedule 1/2 spc./day would probably take care of the matter.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that Mr. Anderson would try to contact Ms. Dittman, by phone, and come back to the Board with an answer regarding the 1/2 spc./day issue.
Exhibit E - Probation and Court Services Fee Schedule
No changes.
Exhibit F - Public Services Fee Schedule
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and addressed some concerns the Board had about the fee charged for Vacations of Roads, Easements, Lots, Plat, etc.
He stated that his staff did a detailed hourly analysis (contained in the Board's backup material) for vacations, noting that the fee for a basic vacation would be $400.00 and the fee for a complex vacation would be $1,200.00.
Commr. Cadwell questioned how the County decided what would be a basic vacation and what would be a complex one.
Mr. Stivender stated that, if a property owner has a home where there is an encroachment and he/she has a clear title and it only effects that property owner, it would be considered a basic vacation - everything else would be considered a complex vacation.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested that staff try to keep an hourly log of the time spent on vacations and have a basic road vacation fee and charge by the hour for those vacations that go beyond that basic fee. He stated that he felt there were probably some that would fall between basic and complex that would take staff more time than the 22 hours for a basic vacation, but may only take an extra two, five, or ten, as opposed to 46, 59, or 64 hours.
Mr. Stivender stated that, if the Board wanted staff to charge an hourly fee, they would, noting that they would track anything beyond a basic vacation on an hourly basis, with a maximum of $1,200.00, so that the individual could go into it knowing that it would be $400.00, plus the amount of extra time needed, not to exceed the $1,200.00 fee.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that she and staff looked at the possibility of doing billable hourly rates on a number of different applications, some of the development review processes, as well as vacations, etc., and that the County does not have the technology to allow staff to track them on a countywide basis.
Mr. Stivender stated that the County could make it effective in October, for the ones that are processed after October 1, 1995, which he noted would be the ones that would come before the Board in December, 1995. He stated that, at the approval to advertise, in November, 1995, there would be a base fee and an additional charge that they would know about, by the time that it comes to approval to advertise, because the County would have had to collect all the fees, before it comes before the Board, otherwise, they would not come before the Board - that would be the collection option.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that staff needs to make sure that when people apply for a vacation that they understand the process, so that they do not think that it is going to cost them $400.00 and then they get a bill for $1,200.00, before it comes to a hearing.
Mr. Stivender stated that, if the Board adopted the fee schedule for his department before them this date, they would include an explanation of that process, as part of the modified package that people pick up, when applying for a vacation.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in this area, staff could probably track it and get a feel for how it will work and whether or not it ever needs to go beyond $1,200.00 might mean that the County needs to become more efficient in what it is doing, or it might mean that the Board will need to come back and revisit the issue.
Exhibit G - Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Fee Schedule
Mr. David Crowe, Interim Director, Solid Waste, appeared before the Board stating that the only change to his department's fee schedule was a change in the cost that the County is billing Ogden Martin for ash, from outside County waste, delivered to the Landfill by Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, Inc. He stated that some time ago the Board directed the Finance Department to determine the true cost for same and that the County would be willing to abide by the new rate, based on the Finance Department's determination.
Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance, Audit and Budgets, interjected that the Finance Department calculated what the actual costs were, for disposal in 1994, to use as a charge. She stated that that cost is approximately $33.00 per ton and noted that she had sent the Board a letter, in May of this year, indicating same.
Commr. Gerber noted that the Board is waiting for the total audit to be finished, before that presentation is brought forward.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, stated that the County is ready to start billing at $33.00 per ton.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the County was moving in the right direction, however, questioned whether the calculation included the cost of land acquisition, engineering, design, and construction of the landfill facility, operation of the landfill facility, and closure of the landfill facility, at post closure costs.
It was noted that that was the calculation.
Ms. Lehman stated that there is no rate specified in the contract.
It was further noted that Ogden Martin had not yet seen the contract in question.
Commr. Good referred to Page 3, Paragraph 9, of Exhibit G (replacement to exhibit contained in the Board's backup material), stating that he had read the contractual language and wanted to make sure that the Board's action this date reflected exactly the contractual language that the County entered into with Ogden Martin, regarding the ash charge-back for out-of-county waste. He questioned whether said paragraph reflected the contractual language.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board should put a period after Paragraph 2, in the fee schedule, noting that he felt it would be consistent with the contract. He stated that the contract states that the County shall charge costs and it is for the Board to determine what the costs are and assure Ogden Martin that they are fair and reasonable, within the context of costs.
Commr. Good stated that he wanted to make sure the language before the Board reflected the contractual language that the County entered into and was not a change in said language. He stated that the language contained in the handout was a change in the contractual language.
Commr. Swartz disagreed, stating that he did not feel it was. He stated that, if costs is discussed by the County and Ogden Martin and they come up with a figure that is agreed upon by both parties, it would be consistent with the agreement that states that the County shall charge costs.
Commr. Good stated that his problem with the matter was that the County had already entered into a specific agreement, based on a specific wording, which should be the wording contained in the handout; however, it does not say that and, if it came down to a question, he would rather have the contractual language to work with than what is contained in the handout. He noted that he would like to substitute the contractual language only, in this area.
It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
Commr. Hanson referred to her earlier concern, stating that Mr. Paul Bergmann, Director, Planning and Development, and Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, indicated to her that there are exemptions from the provisions, for TRC review, which she elaborated on, noting that it currently adds up to approximately $1,500.00. She stated that she wanted to make sure there was an ability for exemptions, noting that, if there was not, she would not be in favor of going with the higher fees.
Mr. Stubbs stated that, if no wetlands are involved, the County does not charge a fee; if it is considered to be de minimis on concurrency, the County does not charge a fee; or, if there are no trees to be removed, the County does not charge a fee.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, questioned where it states in the Code how the County will decide whether or not to charge a wetlands fee, noting that there has to be some authority to waive the fee. He stated that, at a minimum, the County could place in the Resolution a paragraph that states, if a particular review is not necessary, or is de minimis, that the County Manager could waive the fee. He stated that there should be authority to do it in the Code, or in the Resolution.
Commr. Hanson interjected that, not only does the County need it in the Resolution, but the County needs to be bringing it forth to staff. She stated that the County is not communicating with the public and she felt that there should be some authority for the County Manager to make a decision for those that have a de minimis impact.
Commr. Good questioned whether the County was going to leave that authority as a judgment call of the administration.
Commr. Swartz stated that there are some places where the County has to have a judgment call; however, he felt the language that Mr. Minkoff proposed was good language. He stated that there needs to be something that staff can rely on, but there needs to be somebody that is held responsible.
Commr. Hanson suggested adding the language if applicable to the form, with regard to a TRC Review, noting that the public could see it and determine if it was applicable, along with staff. She stated that it would put them on notice that it is not a required policy.
Commr. Good stated that he felt it would be advantageous to have a definition in each of the categories.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the $1,500.00 fee was exorbitant and that there should be some allowance for waivers.
Commr. Swartz suggested including the language that Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, recommended and that the County Manager be requested to work with the Planning Department, to identify more precisely de minimis and when a review is, or is not, required.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, interjected that she felt the County needed more than anything else a clear and understandable public handbook of the entire process, that would give definitions, discuss when fees are applicable, what fees are in place for what process, etc.
Mr. Stubbs noted that this was something his department was currently working on.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the County's CRSP (Consolidated Residential Site Permit) Program, at which time Mr. Stubbs noted that said program would not be approved until the budget was adopted.
Commr. Swartz requested staff to respond to the vested rights determination and the appeal to the vested rights determination review that the Board had requested earlier.
Mr. Stubbs stated that his staff had contacted Marion, Polk, Osceola, Seminole, and Sarasota counties about the process that they had, as well as the types of vested rights determinations that they issue. He informed the Board of what staff had learned from said contacts, regarding same. He stated that staff was leaving the decision of what fees to charge to the Board.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was leaning toward repealing the LDRs and letting it go to Circuit Court.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt that was the only way for it to go, noting that she had a problem with the fact that the appeal would be back before the same body that originally gave it, whether it be the County Manager, or the County Attorney, because they are still an arm of the Board, so it would be appealed back to the Board. She reiterated that she was not in favor of the $1,500.00 fee for an appeal to vested rights.
It was noted that the Wekiva vested rights fee was $50.00, because they are so easy to do. It was further noted that it was a statutory item that has been placed in the County's LDRs since 1989.
Mr. Stubbs stated that a lot of time and effort goes into a vested rights determination, on staff's part, and requested the Board to grant his department the ability to charge a fee, for the time it takes staff to put together the necessary documents.
Commr. Hanson stated that the fee could be determined statutorily, rather than common law, which would make it simpler.
Mr. Stubbs stated that that could be taken into consideration.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned that the County is looking at taking away rights that the Government has given to an individual and how much burden falls on that individual to maintain the rights that they have.
Mr. Stubbs stated that he needed a legal interpretation, regarding the matter.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if the County made the fee $50.00, then the owner of the $20,000.00 house, for $50.00, could tie up a million dollar development for five or six months, so the argument cuts both ways and he was not sure how to resolve it, from a policy standpoint. He stated that he felt the application fee, in a true vested rights appeal, would be a very small part of the costs that would be involved, once the County and everybody else involved in the case hires lawyers.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if an individual asks for a determination and the determination is based on the belief that they have statutory vesting, that would be one fee, and, if they are not applying for that one, then they would be applying for common law vesting. He suggested that staff and the County Attorney's Office review those two vesting options and come back to the Board with a recommendation of how those fees might be different. He briefly alluded to the issue of an hourly charge, noting that it might be the only way to handle the matter. He suggested that the Board either approve the vested rights determination, as submitted, or ask staff to look at it, in terms of a figure that might deal with common law versus statutory vesting. He suggested that they determine if some different rate would be appropriate and still consider that these would be the base rates and, on complex cases, where either the Planning staff and/or the County Attorney's Office go far beyond that, that maybe some appropriate hourly fee would be charged. He stated, however, that he did not feel it could be taken care of this date. He stated that he felt the best figure the Board had was the one before them. He noted that he was talking about just the vested rights determination, at this point in time.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would feel more comfortable approving the fees without that, until it is finalized, to be brought back to the Board, rather than approving it and then coming back and defending it.
Commr. Swartz stated that the problem with that is that staff is saying the $250.00 fee is not sufficient.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the $1,500.00 fee could be left in, if the Board changed the County's policy to where that is not applicable.
Commr. Swartz requested the County Attorney and the County Manager to come back to the Board with a recommendation, as to whether or not the Board should hear the appeals to vested rights determinations, or send them to the Circuit Court, and let the Board make their decision, based on said recommendation, as opposed to being involved with a particular case, or issue.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he was present as an attorney practicing in land use in the County. He responded to Commr. Hanson's discussion, with regard to fees being charged and how it affects the average citizen, noting that the problem is that staff takes money from people ahead of time, or they do not accept their application. He stated that something needs to be put in the process that says, when the average citizen comes in, they need to be informed that there is an option, other than writing out a check, and, secondly, the whole process needs to be in a book. He stated that the County needs to have the discretion of not collecting the fees, until the property is evaluated.
Mr. Richey stated that the second issue of concern deals with vested rights, the fees for same, and appeals of vested rights. He stated that the burden is put on the applicant to provide documentation to justify them, which he elaborated on. He stated that, once the application goes through and Mr. Stubbs drafts a letter that goes to the County Attorney's Office, that requires a substantial amount of burden on the applicant, again, to come in and justify every bit of that file to the County Attorney's Office. He stated that the applicant would not deal with Development Regulation Services after that; however, he hoped that would change. He requested the Board, when they look at the vested rights determinations, etc., to not look at them as what was done over the last eighteen months, but what the County is going to do, as they readdress the issue of vesting.
Mr. Richey stated that he found $1,500.00 to be oppressive, in an appeal process, because all the information is supposed to already be in place. He stated that the only time the information would not be in place would be, if a third party intervenor became involved that none of the parties involved had dealt with before, which would require additional time and effort. He further elaborated on the matter.
Commr. Hanson stated that, for that reason, she was not in favor of moving forward with increasing the costs for vested rights determinations. She stated that she felt the County needed to look at the process.
At this time, Ms. Whittle, County Manager, requested the Board to move forward and adopt the fees and place them into effect October 1, 1995.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson to approve the fees, with the exception of the vested rights determinations increase and the appeal to vested rights determinations, and to allow for the concerns on the road vacations, for those individuals who have less of an impact, and to allow for the waivers to those fees that are not applicable.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, reappeared before the Board, in response to a question by Commr. Swartz regarding the issue of the 1/2 spc./day for the Fairgrounds/Expo Center Fee Schedule (Exhibit D), stating that he had spoken with Ms. Betty Dittman, Director, Fairgrounds/Expo Center, about the matter, as requested, and that she wanted the ability to charge for a 1/2 day fee.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to provide for a 1/2 day rental fee, with regard to the Fairgrounds/Expo Center Fee Schedule (Exhibit D), in conjunction with the setting up and tearing down of exhibits for a more than one day affair, to be based on the appropriate 1/2 day fee, for whatever rental space or location it was.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to substitute the contractual language, for the charges under the Solid Waste Fee Schedule (Exhibit G, Page 3, Paragraph 9), as opposed to the paraphrased language, which is presently in the document.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved for the Resolution establishing fee schedules for FY 1995-96, for County departments, to include the language provided by the County Attorney's Office, authorizing the County Manager, or her designee, to waive the fees, if the review is not done by the County Manager, or her designee.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved for staff to move forward and define de minimis impacts for standard reviews, which are not going to be charged, and that the de minimis definition be included in each section of the Resolution, as applicable.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved that there be a basic fee charge, for Road Vacation Petitions, of 22 hours and that staff bring forward an hourly charge, beyond the 22 hours, up to the 64 hour $1,197.00 charge and that same be reviewed in six months, to see if it is working.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board directed the County Manager's and the County Attorney's Office to review the issue of vested rights determinations, both for common law and statutory vesting, and a consideration of a per hour charge, and that they also review the appeal to a vested rights determination and come back with a recommendation, or alternatives, for the Board to consider, for appeals to vested rights determinations.
Regarding the issue of the fees, Commr. Good questioned whether there was a recourse period, or transition, by ordinance or statute, that the Board would need to consider.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that there were times in the past that, if the Board did it quickly enough, they might be able to reverse the policy, retroactively, but, typically, the auditors are not going to like the County giving back money that they have collected, in a legal way. He stated that the amendatory Resolution could be retroactive, but it will not be favored by the auditing people. He stated that it is not appropriate to retroactively refund monies.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, stated that the recommended fee in the Resolution is based upon the time that staff actually spends, in doing the things that need to be done. She stated that the County would be reviewing the whole process and, if, in fact, they can reduce the time that is required, by re-engineering the process, then they would expect to reduce the fees associated with it, but, at present, staff is spending the time noted on the reviews.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt, in this case, the County definitely had the intent of coming back and reducing the hours, therefore, they know that they can reduce the time. She stated that maybe they cannot keep it at the $250.00 fee, but they know that they can do it, so, for the County to go forward knowing that they are going to have to come back and refund, she feels is a mistake.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt staff was going to come back to the Board very soon with recommendations on this particular issue, so he felt what the Board did this date would not make a lot of difference, one way or another. He stated that, if they left the fee at $250.00, that would be fine, but he did not feel there would be that many cases that would fall under it, in the limited time that it is going to take staff to look at it and decide whether or not the County even needs an appeal to vested rights determinations in the Resolution.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there would be anything that would keep the County from refunding fees, if they modified and lowered them.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board could pass a Resolution retroactively issuing the money to go back to the individual and the clerk would issue the check, but it is not a favored way to do things, therefore, he would prefer for the Board to wait. He stated that they were not talking about a long period of time, or a significant number of appeals to vested rights determinations.
A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Good to approve the fees in Exhibits A-G, as amended.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel that the County was going to have to refund any fees, therefore, felt that it would be best to leave the fee at $250.00, for the limited amount of time that it was going to take staff to come back to the Board with a recommendation regarding same.
Commr. Swartz stated that the only problem with that is that the County does not have a fee for an appeal of a vested rights determination.
Commr. Hanson interjected that she did not feel the County needed one, until the Board received a determination from the County Attorney.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not mind changing the $525.00 fee to $250.00, because he agreed with Commr. Cadwell on that one, however, noted that the County has nothing on the other one, which puts the County in a position of having to spend a lot of time on it, regardless of where the appeal goes, whether it be to a Hearing Officer, or to the Board, and there is no fee for it.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if the County goes to court, it will receive no fee and will spend more time and money in court. He noted that he felt he and the County Manager could come back to the Board with a recommendation regarding same, within a month - at least by October.
Commr. Swartz amended his motion, to strike the $1,500.00 fee, under the appeal of a vested rights determination and change it to $525.00, which is the same fee as a vested rights determination.
Commr. Good seconded the amendment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Hanson voted "No".
The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, as amended, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Hanson voted "No".
TIMES CERTAIN
WORKSHOP - AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM
Mr. Joe Shipes, Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the Agricultural Museum, appeared before the Board stating that he was present to address several issues, being to approve proposed sites for housing the Agricultural Museum, the incentive package, the agenda, and to bring the Board up-to-date on sponsorships. He stated that he also had some procedural questions, as to the purchase order and the money that is being donated, and buying the services that are needed for the presentation that is to be given to the State Agricultural Museum Board, on September 27, 1995.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the County received four (4) appraisals from Mr. Larry King, Appraiser, and that the Board had been presented with copies of same. He stated that, pursuant to said appraisals, the County Attorney's Office drew up four proposed contracts and mailed them to the property owners, being the Crittendens; Matson Grove Properties; Mr. and Mrs. Toole; and Industrial Innovation Management, Inc., however, the County has not heard anything back from them, to date. He stated that the contract price that was sent out was the exact appraisal price listed in Mr. King's appraisals.
Commr. Swartz suggested, given the nature of being able to acquire the property adjacent to the existing County property, that the Board, consistent with the Board's action, indicate that the County is going to continue to pursue said parcels and list that as their first priority, but, secondly, list the other site, with the latest proposal as their second priority, so that the County will, hopefully, have two sites to be able to submit to the museum association.
Commr. Cadwell suggested approving the two sites, without stating that one is a top priority, as opposed to the other one.
A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Good that the County continue to pursue the four (4) sites adjacent to the County industrial park (Lake County Central Park - Site A), but to also include, as a second parcel, to be considered by the Board and the Agricultural Museum Site Selection Committee, the second site (Bradshaw property - Site B), or that portion thereof, whichever is appropriate.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson questioned where the funds would be coming from for the two properties alluded to by Commr. Swartz.
Mr. Duncan informed the Board that the County Attorney's Office has requested the Attorney General's opinion, as to whether or not the County can spend Tourist Development tax monies and/or infrastructure sales tax monies and that it would most likely be a combination of the two, should the County actually purchase the land. He stated that the only catch is that the County will be purchasing the land and then turning it back over to the State, however, the County would not have to deed the land back to the State, it can give them a long-term lease, or make the deed contingent upon the use of the property as a museum and then, at such time as they cease to use it as a museum, it will revert back to the County. He stated that the County should be hearing from the Attorney General's Office within 30 days.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the County wanted to use those funds and, if so, how much of the funding would come from Tourist Development Council (TDC) dollars and how much from the infrastructure sales tax. She stated that she felt it was an important question that the Board needed to answer.
Mr. Duncan stated that it would be up to the Board and the TDC to decide.
Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. Shipes had told him that it would enhance the County's chances, if they had two sites to offer, therefore, he felt the County should do it.
Commr. Swartz concurred and noted that what funds the County may use would have to be determined, based on which site they may choose, or the County may find that they want to pursue.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
At this time, Mr. Shipes introduced those members of the Advisory Committee who were present in the audience to the Board.
He then discussed some of the possibilities that the County could offer, as an incentive for attracting the museum to the County.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board stating that the County has a project on the books, being a widening and resurfacing project for Villa City Road, from Underpass Road to U.S. 27, which he noted has been on the Impact Fee Program for the last couple of years. He stated that the County could enhance the northern section and not do the middle section, until other funds are available.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the County should take action to put together a proposal that would include an enhancement of the Villa City Road, from U.S. 27 to the point where Villa City Road turns to the west. He stated that he felt the County should make a major enhancement of that section, rather than what is on the road plan, and use it as an additional incentive, which would work for either parcel.
A motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Hanson that Public Services be instructed to prepare a proposal, that the Board would support, which would be an enhanced improvement program for the Villa City Road sector, from Hwy. 27 south to where Villa City Road turns west, rather than what is currently in the road program, which is Villa City Road all the way to the underpass, to be used as an incentive.
Commr. Good requested that the motion be amended, in that the proposal identify the fact that the enhancements are contingent upon the fact that the properties are to be used for the Agricultural Museum.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would add that to the motion and noted that the first motion would be contingent upon it, as well.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Shipes then requested action regarding the possibility of the Public Services Department providing in-kind incentives, such as land clearing, clay, grading, etc.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Swartz that the Public Services staff put together the same type of proposal, on different things that they might be able to provide.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz requested the Public Services staff to look at some of the different alternatives, because he felt that some of the things the Agricultural Museum might want may be some not paved road improvements - some more natural road, or double surface treating. He requested staff to put together a package that would include the things that Public Services could provide, as in-kind contributions, and list those types of things that Commr. Hanson alluded to.
Mr. Shipes stated that some of the other counties had put a dollar amount on the in-kind contributions and suggested putting a dollar amount on the Villa City Road improvements.
Commr. Good stated that his motion would be contingent upon the fact that the properties are to be used for the Agricultural Museum.
It was noted that all the motions would be contingent upon that fact.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested that staff come back with a proposal for taking some of the double surface treatment that is projected into the next two budget years and allocate a portion of that to it. He suggested that, since most of the double surface treatment is probably in Commr. Good's and Commr. Hanson's district, staff get a feel from them, as to how much they can reasonably give up.
Mr. Stivender stated that his staff could provide clay material to the site, which would be relatively inexpensive to the County, yet, they could put a good price tag on it.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, appeared before the Board stating that Mr. Shipes had asked him to look at the possibility of utility incentives in the area in question. He stated that Southern States Utilities is serving Lake County Central Park and the City of Leesburg is serving Royal Highlands. He stated that he had asked Mr. Charlie Sweat, of Southern States Utilities, whether his people would be willing to look at connection fees and overall operation rates and that Mr. Sweat had indicated that he would check with his people and get back to him with an answer.
Mr. Barker stated that he had checked with the City of Leesburg and they stated that they are proposing to put in a water treatment plant on the back side of Royal Highlands and that they, in the past, have waived connection fees and worked with reduction rates, assuming that they have to get the line from one area to another. He noted that the representative from the City of Leesburg would have to discuss the matter with the City Manager, Mr. Rex Taylor, who, in turn, would have to take it before the City Council, for approval, before they would be able to do anything.
He stated that the type of utility that is to be had will depend on what piece of property the County goes with, noting that, if it is the Bradshaw property, the City of Leesburg may be the most appropriate one and, if it is the purchased properties, then Southern States Utilities would probably be the most appropriate one.
Mr. Shipes stated that he felt the issue of the utilities would be worked out and noted that another incentive might be to waive the permitting fees.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board would be meeting again, before this matter goes forward, therefore, requested staff, as best they can, with Mr. Shipes' input, to note the type of development review fees that may be involved and have that brought back to the Board, to be considered, and find out if there is any approach the County can take with that. He stated that something the County can offer is its "lightning bolt" review process.
Mr. Shipes stated that, as far as any other incentives are concerned, the Tourist Development Council has agreed to include the Agricultural Museum in their advertising campaign and that his committee was trying to put a value on that. He stated that they were also trying to put a value on the Welcome Center and how it would enhance the Museum's efforts.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County might want to look at acquiring funding from the Tourist Development Council to pay for the development review fees.
Commr. Hanson interjected that that would be a possibility, however, she would rather see the County look at waiving the fees and let the other Tourist Development Council dollars go toward promotion of the Museum. She stated that she felt the County should move forward in the way that it is moving and keep it very clean cut and, if staff feels the fees cannot be waived, then look at having the funding come from the Tourist Development Council.
Mr. Shipes displayed on the monitor a memorandum from him to Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, regarding the Agricultural Museum Site Presentation Team and Agenda, for the September 27, 1995 presentation to the State Museum Board, which he reviewed with the Board.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the fact that the presentation would fall on the first day of the Value Adjustment Board Meetings and the need to schedule the cases to be heard so that the full Board can attend the presentation.
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the Value Adjustment Board meetings so that the full Board can attend the gala planned at the Mission Inn, for the State Agricultural Museum Board, on September 27, 1995.
Mr. Clive Hightower, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of High Acres, Inc., representing Mr. Bradshaw, appeared before the Board stating that Mr. Bradshaw was willing to donate a parcel of property, on the west side of Villa City Road, to the County, in support of the Agricultural Museum project, however, noted that there were some issues surrounding the property that, prior to it being given consideration, would have to be resolved.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, as well as a discussion regarding the other sites that are being considered.
Mr. Shipes informed the Board that the monies donated would need to come into the County system and he would need to have purchase orders, or have the County billed for services. He stated that he was concerned about the liability aspect of the September 27, 1995 event, noting that the liability had shifted onto the people who were donating the money for the event.
Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance, Audit and Budgets, interjected that she felt the Board should approve a Resolution for the revenue and appropriate the expenses.
Mr. Shipes noted that he would like to start receiving funding, to cover the expenses for the presentation, as soon as possible. He then noted a concern he had about the fact that the event would have to be advertised as a public event and how the people attending the various functions should be handled.
It was noted that staff and Mr. Shipes would need to get together and work it out.
The Board thanked Mr. Shipes and the members of the Agricultural Museum Study Committee for a job well done.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN (CONT'D.)
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AWARDS
Commr. Gerber presented Boards and Committees Awards, as follows:
Presentation of Certificates
Raymond Gilley, for his service to Lake County as a member of the Lake County Fire and Emergency Services Advisory Board, from 1993-1995; the Green Swamp Land Authority, from 1994-1995; and the Lake County Industrial Development Authority, from 1994-1995.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2:00 p.m.
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr. Craig Haun, Chief, Fire and Emergency Services, appeared before the Board stating that his office had received a request from Florida Regional Emergency Services, Inc. to renew their current contract. He stated that the renewal this year would be a three (3) year renewal, which will extend it, giving it a term of five (5) years. He stated that there were a few changes in the contract, which he reviewed, as follows:
(a) An increase in the base rate from $242.00 to $260.00.
(b) A three (3) year renewal, making the term of the contract for five (5) years.
(c) Language added to the contract, on Page 4, to provide for funding for quick response first responder service that Fire Rescue performs, which provides medical coverage and medical response into the predominantly unincorporated and rural areas of the County and North Lake Ambulance District.
Mr. Haun stated that the County had two options included in the contract, on Page 4, being Option 1, the County would pay Florida Regional a lump sum and, from that lump sum, they would, in turn, pay it back into the Fire/Rescue account, in four equal installments of $31,250.00, on a quarterly basis, for a total of $125,000.00, commencing October 1, 1995, for the duration of this contract, to come out of the special reserves that are in the North Lake Ambulance budget this date; and Option 2, a payment of a flat rate of $30.00 per response, from Florida Regional to Lake County Fire/Rescue, to provide that service.
Mr. Haun stated that, with Option 2, the special reserve money would stay within the North Lake Ambulance budget and would be available, if the Board chose to use it for another service, or have it available to increase the ambulance contract any time in the future.
Mr. Haun was questioned as to whether he had a preference and informed the Board that he would recommend going with Option 2, noting that it would leave the $125,000.00 within the North Lake Ambulance budget and keep the special reserve funded.
The Board questioned whether the County Manager, Ms. Whittle, concurred with what Mr. Haun had stated. She informed the Board that she did.
Mr. Haun stated that the other change to this year's ambulance contract was a recommendation for an in-County mileage fee. He referred to Page 19 of the contract, stating that it was noted on Line 4 - Mileage within county (not to exceed 10 miles), under the sub-heading Mileage.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that there was an error in the contract before the Board, on Page 6, under Section 7.
Mr. Haun referred to Paragraph A, under Section 7 - Ambulance Fees, on Page 6 of last year's contract, contained in the Blue Book before the Board, stating that the language Mr. Minkoff was referring to was contained in said paragraph. He stated that the language "Florida Regional agrees that it will make no changes in the present base rate of $242.00..." was deleted from the current contract, because it no longer applies. He stated that the base rate was being changed this year, as requested by Florida Regional.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the language contained in the Blue Book, on Page 6, under Section 7, did not make sense, as it was stated.
Mr. Haun stated that the first sentence of Paragraph A, under Section 7 - Ambulance Fees, on Page 6 of the current recommended contract, should state, "Florida Regional is authorized to charge and collect reasonable fees for ambulance services, in accordance with the schedule established by Florida Regional, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", and that the second sentence should state, "Florida Regional shall forward the new proposed fee schedules..."
Mr. Bill Compton, Principal/Chief Executive Officer, Florida Regional Emergency Services, representing Florida Hospital/Waterman, appeared before the Board stating that staff had put together some translations of the document he provided to the County. He reviewed the document that he had submitted, for clarification of what his firm was asking. He stated that the document contained questions and answers that could be proposed to the Board, as well as ten years of history of his company providing an exclusive contract for North Lake Ambulance, as well as the last eight years for South Lake Ambulance. He stated that anything regarding calls, response times, gross revenues, patient bills, etc, was contained in the document, enabling the Board to answer any questions there might be regarding same.
Mr. Compton stated that the "meat" of the subject was contained in the back of the book, under Section J - Staff Considerations. He stated that said section contained a page of what his firm was asking, being to (a) extend the current ambulance contract through September 30, 2000; (b) to hold the current subsidy of $500,000.00 for the next five years; and (c) to implement a base charge increase of seven percent, which would increase the base charge from $242.00 to $260.00. He stated that the next two pages, under Section J, notes the level of service that the County contracts for, that it is providing to the citizens of Lake County, through his company, as far back as 1985, to subsequent years therein, when levels of service were changed. He stated that the subsidy has not changed for the last seven years and the rates have changed ever so slightly. He stated that they stated, in 1985, they would try not to exceed 5% annually, up to the present time.
Mr. Compton stated that what his firm was asking for this date was a 7% increase, for 1996-97, which he noted would be a 3.5% increase for the last two years, which would get the County up to a base fee of $260.00. He stated that the County asked for seven ambulances, but was given nine. He stated that there are two additional ambulances in service 24 hours, seven days a week, that the County does not pay for and are not contracted for, which enhances the level of service, to keep the response time down to a minimum. He stated that the volume over the last ten years has doubled, however, the fees have not doubled, nor has the cost for subsidy, they have only slightly increased.
Mr. Compton stated that his firm wanted to put an additional ambulance in Astor, at no additional cost to the taxpayers, or the County, as far as subsidy is concerned. He stated that Florida Hospital has, over the last two years, invested over $1 million in ambulance operations, to subsidize what the County and the users are already paying and that is the main reason the hospital is looking for an extended contract, to try to get it into a five year window, so that they can spread out and justify some of the costs that are being incurred, to keep the system in the top condition that it is. He further elaborated on the matter, at which time he reviewed the remaining pages contained in the Blue Book, under Section J.
Mr. Compton stated that, basically, what his firm was asking for was (1) a contract extension, in the current form; (2) a rate increase, subject to the Board's approval, subsequently approved every year; and (3) to subsidize the County $30.00 per call. He then answered questions from the Board regarding same.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the South Lake Ambulance District.
Commr. Swartz stated that there were two different contracts and that the one before the Board this date was the one for the North Lake Ambulance District. He stated that the ambulance service contracts directly with South Lake Memorial Hospital and that it is agreed upon and contracted for separately from this Board, because it is a separate taxing district.
Mr. Compton noted that his firm would be addressing the South Lake Ambulance District contract as a separate issue.
Commr. Swartz noted that one thing that is different in this contract, more than a change in the rate, is the mileage charge within the County. He stated that that was a concept the County has avoided for ten years. He stated that it is not to exceed ten miles, but noted that there is no trip distance information in the contract; therefore, he would assume that, in the north and south ends of the County, there would be a high percentage that would be within that ten miles. However, as they go into Astor, or the Wekiva Basin, they would start reaching a point where they would start racking up the ten miles. He questioned whether Mr. Compton had an idea of what effect that will have.
Mr. Compton stated that his firm has not had an in-County mileage charge since 1985. He stated that the RFP did not request it, it was in their proposal specifically because the regions, particularly Astor, get penalized, because they are a long way from the hospital. He stated that his firm was probably one of the only services around that do not have mileage charges, particularly in the private sector. He stated that there would not be any excessive mileage charges over ten miles.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt uncomfortable with changing the approach that was used in the past.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time the Board noted concerns they had about it.
Mr. Compton stated that he did not know what the future plans were for Fire Services, but he was not advocating that the County get into ALS transport, or liability type issues, he was saying that it is the same thing that the County has, at the present time.
Mr. Charles Gray, Gray, Harris & Robinson, representing Life Fleet Atlantic, appeared before the Board stating that his client was interested in coming into Lake County, for non-emergency services and, in making inquiries for that purpose, found that the Ordinance regarding same seems to indicate that it does not require the same thing as an emergency certificate. He stated that, in trying to find a way to convince the Board that they could come in, on a non-emergency basis, they happened to find out that the contract for same was coming before the Board for renewal. He stated that he was present to ask the Board to consider putting the matter out for a bid (RFP), noting that there were many reasons for doing so, which he elaborated on. He stated that he was present to offer the Board the opportunity to do what is good business practice, which is to see what is out there. He stated that the Board could do so, by extending the current contract for six months and put together an RFP, with what the County needs and wants and see how it comes back. He stated that his client wanted the opportunity to show the Board what is available and, if nothing else, felt the County would get a much better deal.
Mr. Sam Wood, Regional Manager, Life Fleet, appeared before the Board to discuss his firm's base rate and answer questions from the Board regarding same.
The Board noted that they did not feel they should compare rates and what one firm had to offer over another, this date, and further noted that they were pleased with Florida Regional and had not received any complaints over the years about the current ambulance service.
Commr. Swartz stated that he supported the amendments to the contract before the Board this date, however, suggested holding off on the mileage charge and get a feel for whether or not it is going to have to be a revenue source that the County will look to. He stated that he saw it as a substantial change in the philosophy that has gone into it and that he would rather see the Board work with it, with the increase in the minimum, and try to get a feel for it, before it comes back to the Board.
Mr. Compton stated that he would be willing to do that.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, agreed with Chief Haun about the issue of non-emergency services.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the County does not give certificates of need for non-emergency services. He stated that the County does not have anything written, to where it could give them approval of same.
Commr. Cadwell suggested Mr. Minkoff research the matter and respond to Mr. Gray regarding same. He stated that he felt the County had received good service from Florida Regional and that he felt the price was reasonable and stable and he appreciated the job they were doing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Fire and Emergency Services for approval of the renewal of the North Lake Ambulance Contract for another three (3) years, as amended, leaving in Paragraph I (Option 2), on Page 4 of the contract; that Mr. Bill Compton, Florida Regional Emergency Services, Inc., meet with the County Manager and Chief Craig Haun, Fire and Emergency Services, and come back to the Board with a recommendation regarding the mileage; and that language contained on Page 6, Section 7, Paragraph A, Lines 6-10, with regard to changes in the base rate, be struck from the contract, as recommended by the County Attorney.
COMMUNITY SERVICES/RESOLUTIONS/PUBLIC HEALTH
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, appeared before the Board stating that the fees listed in the Resolution before the Board this date were the same fees that were charged by the Health Department last year, due to the fact that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services had not requested an increase in same.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval and execution of the 1995-96 County Public Health Unit Fee Resolution, which replaces and updates Resolution 1994-178.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS
FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, appeared before the Board stating that this request was for approval of a deductive change order to Simpson & Associates, for tipping fees at the landfill. He noted that the County typically pays for them out of the maintenance costs and that the County was just reducing their contract by $1,624.83.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of Deductive Change Order No. 4, to Contract No. P-641, between Lake County and Simpson & Associates, in the amount of $1,624.83.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
COUNTY PROPERTY/FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, appeared before the Board stating that this request was for approval of a service agreement from SECO, to pay for the power distribution, for the overhead line, for the main primary feed throughout Lake County Central Park. He noted, for the record, that the County had committed itself to a $963.93 per month charge for street lights (cost for maintenance and energy), which he noted would be paid for out of the sales of the properties.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Swartz to approve a request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of the installation of Phase One street lighting, for Lake County Central Park.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned whether the County would need to provide a method for payment of the continuing utilities.
Mr. Anderson stated that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator for Lake County, and felt that it would probably be a source of discussion with the Industrial Development Authority. He stated that they would probably form some kind of user's group, owner's group, or association, to handle maintenance agreements, on a long-term basis.
Commr. Swartz suggested looking into a Municipal Services Benefit Unit, to cover the operating costs.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
COMMITTEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Planning and Development for approval of a Resolution amending Resolution No. 1991-73, which will reinstate the Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive Lands Committee, as a subcommittee of the Natural Resources Advisory Committee.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
TIMES CERTAIN
ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE/STATE AGENCIES/PUBLIC SERVICES
Mr. Richard Prine, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Planning Office, appeared before the Board and gave an update on the Florida Department of Transportation US-27 Corridor Action Plan. He stated that he had been selected by FDOT to be the Project Manager for said plan. He stated that the consultants hired to do said project had finished the contract and that the plan was now a complete project, however, was up for amendment, as changes occurred along the corridor. He distributed a handout which answers questions pertaining to the Florida Intrastate Highway System, for the Board's perusal. He reviewed a map of the State of Florida showing the intrastate highway system, as well as various charts pertaining to the matter, at which time he answered questions from the Board regarding same.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of Hwy. 441 and the fact that the intrastate highway system did not address the County's needs, regarding said highway.
Mr. Prine stated that FDOT was coordinating its efforts with the County, regarding same.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and noted, for the record, that a presentation would be given to the Board, in the Spring, regarding the Hwy. 441 corridor study.
Discussion continued regarding the matter.
No action was needed or taken.
The Board thanked Mr. Prine for his presentation.
PUBLIC SERVICES/ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE/ROAD PROJECTS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board stating that only two cities would be participating in the Florida Department of Transportation Five Year Work Program, for FY 1996-97 through 2000-01, being the cities of Eustis and Lady Lake. He reviewed a chart, contained in the Board's backup material, indicating the candidate projects and their recommended priority and answered questions from the Board regarding same. He recommended approval of the program, to forward to the State.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval of County and Municipal Transportation Recommendations and Enhancement Projects, for 1996-97 through 2000-01, Florida Department of Transportation Five Year Work Program.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval of the Lake County 1995 ISTEA Enhancement Projects Priority List.
PUBLIC SERVICES/MISCELLANEOUS
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval to establish accounts for direct payment of recurring telephone, electric, and other miscellaneous utility charges billed to Public Services, for FY 1995-96.
INFORMATION SERVICES/ORDINANCES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that this case involved a conflict of interest, on his part, noting that one of his clients was Cellular One, prior to being hired by the County. He stated that he would need to get Cellular One's permission, before he could actively participate in any discussions regarding this case.
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, appeared before the Board stating that the intent of Ordinance 1994-16 was to ensure neither the present nor future degradation of the County's E-911 services, through lack of revenue, nor was it to lose any form of active enhancement of the system. He stated that, inherent in the ordinance was the imposition of the Board resolved $.50 fee, for the continuance of the County's enhanced E-911 system. He stated that the County had attempted to use said ordinance, since the cellular companies, by their own admission, do not fall under Florida Statute 364.01. He stated that the County thought it had the right to impose the fee structure on a local basis, however, they have stonewalled and refused to remit the fee. He stated that staff came across the Baker County summary judgment (Baker County in litigation with Florida Power and Light, on use of county facilities, especially rights-of-way) and it seemed to them that it made reasonable sense that, since the cellular industry is utilizing county facilities, i.e. network, hardware, software, personnel, manpower and time, that they could use the basis of the ordinance to ensure that, if they had the privilege of using the County's facilities, they had the privilege of paying the fee that could uphold the County's ordinance. He stated that staff would like to be able to take this matter forward to the Circuit Court and ask for a summary judgment.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was very excited about the idea of a "privilege fee", noting that she felt it was something that needed to be looked into, just as Baker County had done.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that, during the County's negotiations with the many attorneys from Bell South and Cellular One, their main argument was that the County was charging a tax, without the authority to do so. He stated that the "privilege fee" is similar to a user fee and that staff tried to impart to them the fact that, if they would just get their customers to pay the $.50 fee, the County may be willing to look at the 5% franchise fee. He stated that staff made it clear to them that that would be a negotiating point.
Commr. Swartz requested Mr. Duncan to describe what the process will be, how much time and expense will be involved, and what is likely to happen at the various stages of the County's going forward with this matter.
Mr. Duncan stated that staff would like to obtain direction from the Board, this date, to research the issue and decide whether or not the County wants to pursue a declaratory judgment. He stated that, if the County decides, upon doing the research, that it is going to pursue it, then staff would file a motion for declaratory judgment before the Circuit Court of Lake County. He stated that the other side would have an opportunity to answer the County's motion and file motions of their own, if they so choose. He stated that he felt, within three months, the County should be able to get a final hearing on the declaratory judgment and a ruling from the Judge. He stated that Bell South and Cellular One would probably appeal a favorable ruling, should the County get one, to the Department of Community Affairs. He stated that they would probably appeal it until they get a favorable ruling, or run out of jurisdiction.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that Cellular One is now AT&T and Bell South is a former branch of them, both of which are multiple billion dollar companies, so, if they elect to stand and fight, it may not be a three month fight, but a three year fight.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board authorized the County Attorney's Office to review the law and make a determination, as to whether the Board should go forward with a declaratory judgment, or other action, with regard to the E9-1-1 and cellular phone system, and come back to the Board with a recommendation regarding same, as requested by Information Services, with regard to Ordinance No. 1994-16, relevant to documentation received by the Board regarding the Baker County "privilege fee".
OTHER BUSINESS
MUNICIPALITIES/MISCELLANEOUS
Commr. Cadwell requested a 30 day postponement of this request, noting that the area in question has a lot of history involved with it.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone a discussion as to whether or not the Board wishes to make a recommendation on naming a lake in the Umatilla area for 30 days.
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER
FUNDS/MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that this request grew out of the Baker County case alluded to earlier, regarding Bell South and Cellular One. She stated that it is a matter that has been talked about at the Association for a number of years, so the concept of establishing a legal defense fund that all the counties, based upon their population, would participate in and allow some of the issues that are of great concern to all of the counties to be brought forward and defended. She stated that they were asking for a per capita of one cent, which she noted would make the County's participation $1,712.00. She noted that it would be a one-time amount, not an annual amount.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for the Board's participation in the Florida Association of Counties Legal Defense Fund, in the amount of a one-time donation of $1,712.00.
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/STATE AGENCIES
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, distributed to the Board a memorandum from Mr. Paul Bergmann, Director, Planning and Development, to her, dated September 1, 1995, indicating the Land Development Regulations Amendments Workshop and Hearing Schedule for the Fall, for their perusal.
It was noted that said schedule changed the schedule that the Board had committed to, noting that it involves more workshops and more citizen participation.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the schedule.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, as they view the LDRs, they will need to keep property rights and the Florida Statutes in mind, because, as the LDRs effect vested rights, they may create a cause of action by property owners, as the County impacts the value of their land.
Commr. Swartz suggested, before staff sets up an LDR Workshop and Hearing Schedule, that the Board have the proposed changes before them that they are going to be considering. He noted some concerns he had about the matter.
Ms. Whittle interjected that the original schedule called for a public hearing to be held on September 20, 1995, with the Planning and Zoning Commission, to then come before the Board, for a public hearing, very shortly after that, with no review time up front and no time in between for public comment and any kind of rewrite. She stated that this schedule stretches it out, however, noted that, if the Board felt that it did not stretch it out enough, that would be fine.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not know if it stretched it out enough, or not, he would just like to make sure that a document existed that the Board could review, before starting down the road to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings.
Ms. Whittle stated that she agreed that the document should exist, however, questioned whether Commr. Swartz was stating that he felt the document should come to the Board, prior to it going to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commr. Swartz stated that it would depend on what the nature of it was, which he elaborated on.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Ms. Whittle noted that she did not like the process that occurred in the Spring of this year, noting that she did not feel it gave enough time for public input and for reflection on what was being done, thus the reason for this schedule.
Ms. Whittle stated that staff could add a request for general discussion of this issue to the agenda for the September 19, 1995 Board Meeting.
Commr. Gerber requested staff to get the document to the Board, as soon as possible, and that, at the next regular meeting, after they have received the document, everybody will be responsible for looking over it and seeing how they feel about setting up workshop dates.
It was noted that the Board would discuss a schedule at that time.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, suggested that the Board cancel the Planning and Zoning review, at this point in time.
It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he was now on board full-time and that he would like to meet with each of the Commissioners, for approximately 30-45 minutes, to discuss philosophy, as well as other issues of concern, and that his secretary would be working with the Board secretaries in setting up appointments with the Commissioners to do so.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board postponed action regarding a request for appointment of Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator for Lake County, to serve as a member of the Lake County Citizen Review Committee, replacing Mr. Raymond Gilley, until the Board Meeting of September 19, 1995, to be placed under Commr. Swartz' Commissioners' Business.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request for approval of the Industrial Development Authority's recommendation for Mr. Judson Stringfellow to serve as a member of the Industrial Development Authority, replacing Mr. Raymond Gilley.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Ms. Donna Jean Hayes to the vacant position on the Sesquicentennial Coordinating Committee.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Nick Faryna to the vacant position on the Lake County Natural Resources Advisory Committee.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
MISCELLANEOUS
Commr. Gerber informed the Board, for informational purposes, that an Industry Appreciation Luncheon was scheduled to be held at Silver Lake Country Club, on September 26, 1995, at 11:30 a.m.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
_______________________________
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/9-5-95/10-19-95/boardmin