The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 14, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Director of Finance, Audit & Budgets; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Reverend Bill Fraker, Tavares United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there were no changes to be made to the agenda.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had two items that might need a vote by the Board. The first item was a Resolution to be presented to Mr. Greg Stubbs for his years of service to the County. She stated that the second item was a Resolution extending thanks to Mr. Bill Horan and the World War II Committee on the commemorative event that took place over the weekend.
Commr. Cadwell noted that he had already requested staff to prepare a Resolution for Mr. Stubbs, and to place the item on the agenda for a vote and presentation in December.
Commr. Hanson requested that the Resolution for Mr. Horan be placed on the agenda at the same time.
MINUTES
Discussion occurred regarding the review that was made of the Minutes of October 3, 1995, Regular Meeting, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-5-2-2.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the minutes had accurately reflected the discussion that occurred during the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 3, 1995, Regular Meeting, as presented.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of October 19, 1995, Special Meeting, with a change being made to the heading on Page 13, Line 13.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 19, 1995, Special Meeting, Board Retreat, as amended.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 25, 1995, Special Meeting - State of the County Address, as presented.
COMMITTEES/PARKS AND RECREATION
Commr. Swartz stated that a request had been made by the Parks and Recreation Committee to appoint a liaison Commissioner, which had been done, but there seemed to be some confusion, because he had understood that the liaison Commissioner would be a non-voting member, and therefore would not be a member of the Committee such that it would change the quorum. He requested that staff review the Resolution, in order to resolve the problem of uncertainty.
CLERK OF COURTS' CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers/Bonds
A. Transfers
1. Fund: Solid Waste Management
Department: Solid Waste
From: Contingency $1,130
To: Other Current Charges $1,130
Transfer #: 96-018
Justification: Transfer needed for permitting fees for the closure of Lady Lake landfill. Balance in Contingency after transfer is $1,193,860.
2. Fund: Solid Waste Management
Department: Solid Waste
From: Contingency $169,762
To: Several $169,762
Transfer #: 96-019
Justification: Transfer needed to budget retainage for two Post, Buckley contracts and other projects that were not carried forward from FY 94/95. Balance in Contingency after transfer is $1,023,824.
3. Fund: General
Department: Community Services
From: Medicaid Hospital $28,000
To: Welfare Hospital $28,000
Transfer #: 95-447 (FY 94/95)
Justification: Additional funds are required in Health Care Responsibility Act line item to cover expenses for inpatient services rendered during FY 94/95.
4. Fund: General
Department: In House Support - Sheriff
From: Contingency $31,000
To: Utilities $6,000
Rents/Leases $25,000
Transfer #: 96-021
Justification: Due to the delay in moving the Sheriff's operations into the renovated old jail, utilities and rent must continue for the buildings currently occupied by the Sheriff for his operations. Balance of FY 95/96 Contingency after transfer is $545,397.
5. Fund: Sales Tax Capital Projects
Department: Facilities & Capital Improvements
From: Construction Materials $200,123
To: Professional Services $200,123
Transfer #: 95-451 (FY 94/95)
Justification: Transfer needed to pay Odell Associates for the revised guaranteed maximum price for FY 94/95.
6. Fund: General
Department: Constitutional Officer - Property Appraiser
From: Contingency $4,424
To: Transfer - Property Appraiser $4,424
Transfer #: 95-452 (FY 94/95)
Justification: To correct an accounting entry made in error in FY 93/94. Entry is to budget only.
7. Fund: General
Department: Constitutional Officer - Supervisor of Elections
From: Contingency $5,439
To: Machinery and Equipment $5,439
Transfer #: 96-022 (FY 95/96)
Justification: Due to billing problems with goods received on P.O. #5488 and 5506 for FY 94/95, funds need to be carried forward into FY 95/96 for payment of these invoices.
2. Contractor Bonds, New and Cancellations, as follows:
Cancellations:
1922-95 Mid State Plumbing, Inc.
4059-95 Dale H. Judy, Circle D. Plumbing
4203-95 Thomas M. Richardson
4233-95 Paul Brooks
4968-95 Edward P. Degal dba Lilley Air Conditioning
5211-95 Ray's Construction & Roofing
3. 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.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested that Tab 10 be pulled for discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests, Tabs 3 - 19, with the exception of Tab 10, and approved Tab II. A. of Addendum No. 1:
Accounts Allowed/Community Services
Approval of payment of monthly Medicaid Hospital bill in the amount of $23,340.17 and the Medicaid Nursing Home bill in the amount of $39,089.56 for the month of September.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Community Services
Approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute an extension of contract with Digital Products Corporation for the lease of electronic monitoring units for two additional months (10/1/95 - 12/1/95).
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Community Services
Approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Agreement between Lake County and Lifestream Behavioral Center, Inc. for annual funding contribution. Fiscal impact of $153,316.
Insurance/Human Resources
Approval for Risk Management to request proposals on the Group Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Acceptance of a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed from Herma & Herman White for two lots in Ag Zoning off of Greenvalley Road - Commission District 1.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Acceptance of a Private Non-Exclusive Easement Deed from Thomas Ashby, Jewell Lang, Robert Ashby for two lots in Ag Zoning off of Thrill Hill Road - Commission District 4.
Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions/Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Acceptance of Final Plat for Biscayne Heights, an Irrevocable Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $20,051.00, and a Resolution accepting Biscayne Drive "Part" #5-6546, Oakbend Drive #5-6546A, Capri Isle Lane #5-6547, Wood Breeze Court #5-6547A, and Nightwind Court #5-6548 into the County Road Maintenance System - Commission District 5, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Road Projects/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Approval to advertise for bids for SA-85, Crossen Street, Ironwood Avenue (portion) and Maple Street, Section 24, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, Bassville Park area, at an estimated cost of $40,800, subject to Right-of-Way requirements. This is a mandatory road assessment - CTT Funds - Commissioner District 3.
Parks and Recreation
Approval to name the park currently known by its location as the Lochmore-Exmoor property to Mt. Plymouth Park.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Parks and Recreation
Approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Lease Agreement between Lake County and Martin Paving Company, Inc. relating to County owned property in Phase II of Lake County Central Park.
Resolutions/Grants/Municipalities/Roads-County & State
Approval and execution of a Resolution which will request the transfer of State of Florida "Murphy" Road Reservations to the County for the paving of roads in the unrecorded plat of Hazzard's Homestead, Eustis area.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Acceptance of the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:
Luther E. Holston
E. Lake Seneca #4-6084
The School Board of Lake County
Bates #4-5771
First Baptist Church of Umatilla (1)
West Skyline #5-7672
First Baptist Church of Umatilla (2)
West Skyline #5-7672
Sommer Groves, Inc.
Redwing Rd. #2-1122
Sommer Groves, Inc.
Redwing Rd. #2-1122
Phillips Rd. #2-1024
C. Park McGeachy, Jr.,
William S. Mitchell, III,
Jesse A. Mitchell, Sr., Trustee
C-33
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Approval of the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Deed No.: 2776
Applicant: Lizabeth A. Moore
Location: Third Addition to Section "A",
Mt. Plymouth
Recommend: Reserve 25 feet from the centerline of Dufferin Ave., also known as Duffering St., and reserve 25 feet from centerline of Ridgeview Ave., (reserve platted R/W).
NOTE: This application was presented to the Board on 10/17/95, however, an additional recommendation is needed because lots have been added to the legal description.
Road Vacation - Permission to Advertise
Approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 806 by Mike and Donna Hall to vacate road (Lake Park Dr.), Cisky Park Plat 2, Sec. 31, Twp. 19, Rge. 25, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 1.
Accounts Allowed/Purchasing
Request approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue Purchase Orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, State Contract, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM Repairs, sole source and proprietor source; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
C) Award Bids, and Proposals, and Issue Purchase Orders and/or Contracts.
DIVISION AMOUNT
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES $2,750.00
Moon Lake Volunteer Fire/Authorization for the Board to award Proposal S#3-5-3, Sale of Surplus Fire Vehicle for one used 1969 Ward Lafrance Custom Fire Truck to the second highest purchase price of $2,570. It is also requested the Chairmen sign the Bill of Sale to Moon Lake Volunteer Fire, pending the County Attorney's approval. On September 19, 1995 the Board approved the original award recommendation to S.N. Sadler Equipment Company, Inc. who had the highest purchase price of $3,200. S.N. Sadler bid on the truck sight unseen and when they came to pick up the truck they did not want the vehicle. They stated that, in their opinion, the condition of the truck described by Fire and Emergency Services over the telephone was not an accurate description. Due to this discrepancy, it was determined that the best solution was to allow S.N. Sadler to withdraw their bid, without forfeiting their 10% deposit.
Assessments/Solid Waste
Approval of waiver of special assessment balance for the following account:
#661331 Herbert W. Smith $93.49
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/County Buildings/Facilities and Capital Improvements
Approval of Change Order to Metric Constructors, Inc. contract to cover extended abatement of lead paint and asbestos in the Historic Courthouse at an additional contract cost of $148,262.00.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
ROAD VACATIONS - Petition No. 803 - Charles Smith
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board to discuss Road Vacation Petition No. 803 by Charles Smith to vacate road (Canal Dr.), Lancaster Beach, Sec. 8, Twp. 23, Rge. 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2. Mr. Stivender explained that this was a postponement from last month. He stated that staff did a survey of the area, and the edge of Mr. Smith's house was in the right-of-way, as it had been for some time. He further stated that, to the north side, there was a canal that encroached on his lot. The centerline of the right-of-way was actually on the Smiths' side of the canal. Mr. Stivender presented a video, which showed the location of the property, in relation to the canal and the right-of-way easement.
COMMISSIONERS
At 9:20 a.m., the Chairman turned the chairmanship over to Commr. Good, Vice Chairman.
ROAD VACATIONS - Petition No. 803 - Charles Smith (Continued)
Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Dale Ladd addressed the Board and stated that he lived adjacent to Mr. Smith. Mr. Ladd explained that there was a right-of-way between his house and the property owned by the O'Shaughnessys, and the canal did not go that far, but there was basically a U-turn in front of his house. He noted that the properties across the street from the property in question were all a part of Lancaster Beach Estates. He further noted that Block A was a common lot to all of Lancaster Beach Estates, and for those who did not live directly on the lake, therefore, the Condrons and the O'Shaughnessys already had access to the lake at Block A.
COMMISSIONERS
At 9:25, Commr. Good returned the Chairmanship to Commr. Gerber.
ROAD VACATION - Petition No. 803 - Charles Smith (Continued)
Mr. Ladd stated that he was concerned that, if the Board did not approve to vacate the strip, it would be used as recreation, and if so, he questioned what liabilities would go with it, from the County's point of view. He stated that Canal Drive was a privately maintained road.
Mr. Charlie Smith, applicant, addressed the Board and explained that he had maintained the property in the same manner as the owners did before him. He stated that the road in front of his house was a County road, but it was not County maintained. Mr. Smith explained that his house was on the property line, and he could not update his home, unless the request to vacate was approved.
It was noted that a letter had been received from the Condrons and the O'Shaughnessys in opposition to the vacation.
Discussion occurred regarding the setbacks that would be required, with it being noted that the survey showed 50 feet and 44 feet. It was noted that there was no dedication on the plat, and staff would have to research the records, in order to verify that there was common access.
Commr. Gerber called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Stivender discussed the amount of property adjacent to the Smiths' property that would need to be vacated to clear the title, so that Mr. Smith could proceed with his addition to his home. Mr. Stivender stated that the 15 feet would cover his existing title, but he was not sure it would cover any additions, so a more accurate survey may need to be done.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board wanted staff to check on the common access for Lancaster Beach Estates. It was noted that there was no obligation on behalf of the applicant to maintain the seawall.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to postpone action on Road Vacation Petition No. 803, by Charles Smith, until a time certain, 10:45 a.m., in order to give staff time to check on the common lot.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson requested that staff check on the wording regarding lake front, or lake access.
Commr. Swartz requested that staff also come back with whatever comments they might have on the common area for Vacation Village, and to determine how much right-of-way would have to be vacated, in order to allow the existing house not to encroach, but to allow the expansion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
It was noted that no one present wished to present questions, comments, or concerns to the Board.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COMMITTEES/EDUCATION/COMMUNITY SERVICES
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, addressed the Board to discuss the Resolution amending the General Fund, in order to receive unanticipated revenue in the amount of $500.00 from Lake-Sumter Community College, fiscal agent for the Friends of the Vietnam Wall Committee. The funds would be used to assist Veterans who met the established criteria for assistance through the Policies of the General Assistance Program.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Resolution, as stated above by Mr. Smith.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SUBDIVISIONS/BONDS/RESOLUTIONS
ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that Tab 10, regarding Woodridge Phase I and II Subdivision, had been pulled from the consent agenda for discussion, because staff wanted to point out that, in the PUD Ordinance there was a mistake, which did not come to the staff's attention, until the plat was examined. He stated that discussion had occurred regarding a one acre fire site, and a per lot charge for fire assessment. After reviewing the tapes from the Board meeting, it was determined by Chief Craig Haun that the Board had approved the assessment and not the one acre lot. The Ordinance had been written with both. He recommended approval of the plat, which would be subject to the per lot charge for fire assessment, which was $129, and would be included in the PUD. Mr. Minkoff stated that an amendment would be brought back to the Board for approval.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that this was a scrivener's error, and she had been instructed to file a PUD amendment. She stated that, since there had been a delay in this matter, in order for the records to be reviewed, and since it had been determined that it was an error, she was requesting that the $1,000 filing fee, for the PUD amendment, be refunded, the error be corrected, and the PUD be recorded.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that there were other development approvals that required both the dedication of land, and the payment of fees. The action being requested was not intended to change those, but in this case, the Ordinance did not reflect the action that was taken by the Board. Today the Board needed to approve and accept the Final Plat of Woodridge Phase I and II Subdivision, and accept the roads. The Board then needed to address the refund issue.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to accept the Final Plat for Woodridge Phase I and II Subdivision, an Escrow Agreement and Cashier's Check for landscaping in the amount of $20,289.50, A Maintenance Bond for Phase I in the amount of $28,231.09, a Maintenance Bond for Phase II in the amount of $58,524.64, and a Resolution accepting Woodsong Way "Part" #2-0162, Woodcrest Way #2-0163, Rushwood Way #2-0163A, Cedarwood Way "Part" #2-0163B, Whitewood Way #2-0164, Blackwood Way #2-0164A, Woodflower Way "Part" #2-0164B, Cypresswood Way #2-0165.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, recommended that the $1,000 be refunded.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to resolve the scrivener's error, and to refund the $1,000 fee to the applicant.
FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities and Capital Improvements, addressed the Board to discuss the findings of the County parking study. Mr. Anderson stated that there were two recognized methods of calculating the parking count, one being based on employees, and the other by gross square footage of the facilities. He noted that the spreadsheet was put together by using the square foot method, with the calculations beginning with the year 1991, and projections made to the year 2000. Mr. Anderson stated that this was an in-house study, which needed immediate attention, because the last stage of the renovation of the Historical Courthouse was getting ready to take place, and the building permit was being held up by the City of Tavares, until the County came forward with a parking study. He noted that the City used gross square footage in its Ordinance, which would calculate a totally different number from what had been determined by the County, and what the County felt would be necessary to cover its parking needs. He noted that the gross square footage was a one time calculation and would not take into consideration that the number of employees may double or triple for that given square footage. He addressed Page 4, which reflected information from the Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Traffic & Parking Study - October 1990, which was used on the Criminal Justice Facility. He further addressed Page 5, which reflected a comparison of the method used by the City to determine the number of parking spaces versus the one used by the County. The City's calculations reflected a figure of 1,708 parking spaces versus the County's figure of 1,018 spaces. Mr. Anderson stated that this issue would be addressed at the meetings with the City representatives, to try and get them to consider giving the County the same consideration as they did with the Judicial Center, which was one space for every 500 gross square feet instead of one per 250 gross square feet. Mr. Anderson stated that he was planning on recommending to the City that it start enforcing the two hour parking on the street, as a short term solution. He reviewed a drawing of the layout of the County buildings and parking lots and noted that, after doing an actual count, it was determined that there were 816 spaces on County property, and 230 off site, on street parking spaces.
Discussion occurred regarding the County using a combination of suggestions that had been made, such as self management of parking spaces through the County Manager's Office along with the City's ticketing powers.
Mr. Anderson stated that the City would like to see a mutually acceptable plan from the County. He had suggested that possibly an interlocal agreement could be developed, which would be commitment from the County to develop and implement some type of County facility parking plan that would be agreeable by both parties. Mr. Anderson stated that he had requested that the City let him go ahead with the building permit for the Historical Courthouse, because he had grant monies at risk. He stated that, by the time the Certificate of Occupancy was ready to be issued, the parking plan should be worked out and implemented and in place as part of the renovation program. Mr. Anderson stated that the Board may need to consider structured parking again. He explained the locations on the drawing where such an area could be located, as follows: the area south and east of the Round Building (1 or 2 decks); part of the existing parking lot by the Judicial Center (2 or 3 decks); and the property immediately south of the campus area where the packing plant was located. Mr. Anderson stated that staff was asked to look at some other sites, which included the parking lot immediately north of Prelude, which staff had determined would not be big enough to be cost effective, and would also involve a security issue. Another site was immediately across Main Street where the old service station was located on the corner, but unfortunately it was not big enough. He noted that structured parking would cost approximately $5,000 per space as opposed to hard surface, which would cost about half of $5,000.
Discussion occurred regarding the City allowing the County to have a variance for the parking at the Judicial Center, which had been allowed under the City Ordinance.
Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to have the Board's concurrence to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) to further look into the parking study and master plan, in order to determine the County's needs.
Discussion occurred regarding the City's Ordinance, which allowed only for surface parking, and the fact that property used for surface parking would be taken off of the tax roll.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the MAGIC Team, or the "pick up squad" try and handle some of the parking problems; that staff notify the employees and solicit their suggestions regarding available parking; perhaps develop a decal system; and get the City to start policing more. Commr. Swartz stated that, if Mr. Anderson could get through this immediate time frame with the City, and work with the City and staff's parking study numbers, which the City had already taken into consideration on the Criminal Justice Facility, with some modification being needed on the Jail, and to include the renovated buildings under the same scheme rather than a gross square footage, then staff could get the MAGIC Team, or some other group to look at this very quickly and come back with some suggestions, and include such things as brought forth by this Board.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved for Mr. Anderson to continue to work with the City, and the parking study numbers that had been developed by staff, with some modification being made on the Jail numbers, and including the renovated buildings under the same scheme rather than a gross square footage, and to direct the MAGIC Team, or some other group, to look at this very quickly and come back with some suggestions, which would include such things as brought forth by the Board members.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:45 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
ROAD VACATIONS - Petition No. 803 - Charles Smith (Continued)
The Chairman announced that the public hearing would continue on Road Vacation Petition No. 803, Charles Smith.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and answered questions regarding how far the resident encroached into the right-of-way and stated that, if 15 feet was vacated, the awning and house and all improvements would be within his property and not part of the right-of-way. He stated that Lots 3 and 4 were owned by the Vacation Village Condos; Lot 2 was owned by several people in Monte Vista Park Farms. From the research performed by staff, it was found that no property owners in Lancaster Beach owned a portion of Lot 2. Mr. Stivender noted that Lancaster Beach was a part of the replat of Monte Vista Park Farms, and that there were some other vacated plats, which included Lake Louisa Estates. The research did not clearly indicate that the property owners in Lancaster Beach, Block C, who do not have lake frontage, had lake access, and the legal descriptions did not mention lake frontage, or lake access.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services Division, explained that the setback for a standard building was five feet, but when you were adjacent to an open water body, it would be 50 feet, or as far landward as possible, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the applicant would not be encroaching in any way and would still be meeting the intent of the Ordinance.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to approve Road Vacation Petition No. 803, by Charles Smith, to vacate road (Canal Dr.), Lancaster Beach, Sec. 8, Twp. 23, Rge. 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, to include the 15 feet adjacent to the Smith property, and that the remainder of the area petitioned to be vacated stay in County. It was noted that this would be the southern most 15 feet adjacent to the Smith side of the right-of-way.
Under discussion, Mr. Smith questioned whether the action by the Board could be contingent to those neighbors who might want to help maintain the seawall. It was determined that this would not be action that could be taken by the Board, and that the motion on the floor would clear the title and allow Mr. Smith to move forward with his plans.
Mr. Smith requested that the Board allow 25 feet instead of 15 feet, so that he could avoid having the same problem in a few years.
Commr. Swartz stated that the motion was to vacate the south 15 feet, and with the review made by Environmental Management, particularly in light of the fact that there was a seawall there, it would not be going down into a wetland area, but was upland going toward a seawall, and that all Mr. Smith had to do was meet the necessary side yard setbacks.
Mr. Stubbs stated that he saw no negatives with 15 feet, or 25 feet, from the review that had been made by staff.
Commr. Good stated that the 15 feet met the need that had been expressed, and it would be difficult to speculate the future.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 3-2 vote, the Board approved to amend the motion from 15 feet to 25 feet.
Commrs. Good and Swartz voted "no".
The Chairman called for a vote on the amended motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote,
TIMES CERTAIN/PUBLIC HEARINGS
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Commr. Gerber informed the Board that a request had come to her from the appointed members of the Private Industry Council (PIC) for the Board to support continued alliance of PIC in the Volusia-Lake-Flagler Council, and to invite Sumter County to become a member of the Volusia-Lake-Flagler PIC.
Ms. Linda Every, who serves on the PIC Board, addressed the Board and stated that Don Miller, Lynn McPherson, and Glen Wallace, who were members of the PIC Board, were present in the audience, as well as Larry Tomasetti, Executive Director of PIC, Jane Perry, and Jimmy Jones. Ms. Every was present to discuss the notice that had been given that Enterprise Florida Jobs and Education Partnership was working to redesign Florida's work force development system. She read a statement from the delegates on the PIC Board, which stated that they were unanimously in favor of Lake County retaining its affiliation with Volusia and Flagler Counties. They also advocated the issuing of an invitation for Sumter County to join with Lake County in organizing a work force development authority.
Mr. Larry Tomasetti, Executive Director, PIC, addressed the Board and stated that it was his intent to inform the Commissioners of their options, to inform the Board of State plans, and to suggest a course of action. He stated that the options were to move to the south with Orlando, or north with Marion County, or to the east with Volusia County, or to stand alone. In reality, he felt that the stand alone option would be the least probable, and the State would not approve such a proposal. If the Board did nothing, the probability would be that Lake County would go south to Orlando. He stated that all options would probably have to include Sumter County, due to the Community College District. He noted that the Lake and Sumter Community College Districts were together, and he recommended that they remain together.
Commr. Swartz felt that, during this time of transition, it would seem to be safer, at least for a period of time, to stay in an association and relationship that the County knew had worked, or at least with counties that it had worked with very well, and to bring in Sumter County, since it was a part of the college system, for approximately two years.
Discussion occurred regarding the date of November 27, 1995, which had been established for the decision to be made for the territory, as reflected in the letter from Mr. Frederick H. Schultz, Chairman, Enterprise Florida. The Board also discussed the Labor Market Map, which had been prepared by Enterprise Florida.
Mr. Tomasetti explained that, after deliberations, it was decided that a waiver would be sought from the criteria, and the request would be submitted to Mr. Lanny D. Larson, President, Enterprise Florida Jobs & Education Partnership by November 27, 1995.
Mr. Don Miller, member of the PIC Board, urged the members to support the decision made by the PIC Board, because he believed that the School Board, who contracts with PIC, was a provider of service. Mr. Miller explained what PIC had done for the Lake County schools over the years.
Ms. Lynn McPherson, Manager of the Jobs and Benefit Center for Lake and Sumter Counties, addressed the Board and noted that she was not a service provider under the PIC, but she was on the PIC Board. She stated that she was not empowered to speak for Sumter County, however, Sumter County was a part of her administrative area. She stated that it was her understanding that Sumter County had passed a Resolution, at the last Sumter County Commissioners' Meeting, requesting that they not go with the Metropolitan Orlando area. Their first priority and choice would be to go with Lake County. Ms. McPherson discussed the "tech-prep" program and stated that Lake Sumter has an exceptionally good "tech-prep" program, and Sumter County wanted to stay aligned with Lake County. She explained that the Service Delivery Area (SDA), which Sumter County had been a part of, had pursued a pilot grant, and in turn had requested the consent of the Sumter County Commissioners, who refused to give it to them, because they did not feel they had been getting their equitable share of the monies for Sumter County. It was her understanding that, if Lake County opted to go with Orange County, they did not want any part of it. She felt that Lake and Sumter Counties were tied together, because of Lake Sumter Community College boundaries. Ms. McPherson stated that she felt her organization would work effectively with Sumter County, as part of the Volusia-Lake-Flagler PIC.
Commr. Swartz stated that there were four important things to consider in the decision to be made by the Board. He stated that all of the PIC members were ones that had been appointed by the Board and have served for years, and they have made the recommendation to try to maintain the relationship, as it currently existed, and to include Sumter County. The second thing included the fact that Lake County has a 13 year track record at working with Volusia and Flagler Counties, and Lake County has had a long record, through its job training and Lake Sumter relationship, with Sumter County. It would make sense, over the next transitional time, to maintain that relationship and keep the Community College District undivided. The last point would be that Lake County has not in any way suffered by not being associated over the last 13 years with Seminole, Orange and Osceola Counties, and there was no reason to believe that it would in the future. Commr. Swartz stated that the Board ought to go ahead and make the decision today, and he would support the PIC representative's recommendation, and adopt a motion with Volusia and Flagler, and with the request, or Resolution, to invite Sumter County to be a part of it.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the Board was going to stipulate that Lake County was not interested in dividing the Community College District, besides making the invitation to Sumter County.
Commr. Swartz stated that Lake County should not divide the Community College District, if it could be avoided, but he felt it was most important that Lake County be associated, at least in the transition period, where Lake County could get and maintain the best relationship.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the representative's recommendation, and adopt a motion with Volusia and Flagler Counties, or a Resolution, to invite Sumter County to be a part of the it.
Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that, when statistics were drawn for a Metropolitan Service Area (MSA), you would prejudice the boundaries that would be drawn, and the Board was moving in a direction of coming up with a very different conclusion, with a very good basis for doing so. He stated that, whoever presented the Resolution, in meetings in the future, he should point out that the statistical and area boundaries may have led to this conclusion, and if reviewed from a different perspective, it might be found differently.
Commr. Gerber pointed out in the letter from the Office of the Governor where Enterprise Florida was committed to the local control, and they were going to demand measurable outcomes, so that there would be a flexible blueprint for success. She felt that, within a two year period, the Board was going to have a very good opportunity to look and see if the County was doing the right thing.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like his motion to include that, if the Board had to request any type of waiver, the Chairman be authorized to send forward whatever would be necessary.
Commr. Cadwell had no problem with the additional language in the motion.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that, when he met with the PIC Board members individually, he did not share some of the concerns expressed by them. He stated that he was basing his decision today based on those people who have served on that Board and under the process. He stated that he did not have the concern that they did with the relationship with the Metro-Orlando area, and he did not think this was a problem, but he was basing the decision on what he had been told by them and where they felt the program could best benefit.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Tomasetti addressed the Board and stated that he had several recommendations, no matter where Lake County went. He recommended that, 1) the Board appoint all of the Lake County business representatives; 2) the Lake County representatives would make all of the decisions for Lake County; and 3) all of the appointments would always comprise of at least 50% of the Lake County contingent of the work force board.
COMMISSIONERS
At 11:35 a.m., Commr. Hanson left the meeting due to prior commitments.
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL (Continued)
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve to include, as part of the Board's position, as it moved forward in the realignment, the three positions recommended by Mr. Tomasetti, as stated above.
Under discussion, it was noted by Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, that a liaison Commissioner would be appointed to the PIC.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, was present to discuss the content and format of a draft letter to be sent to all property owners who hold a current conditional use permit (CUP). Mr. Bergmann noted that all of the suggested changes made by the Board members had been incorporated, with the Board being provided with a corrected draft letter for review.
It was the consensus of the Board that the format of the draft letter was appropriate, and no action was needed by the Board.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Ms. Louise Arthur, a member of the Citizens' Commission for Children, addressed the Board to personally invite the members to meet with her tomorrow morning for the regular meeting of the Citizens' Commission for Children, which would be held at 9 a.m. at the Ken Bragg Center.
Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager, noted that the advertising of the meeting had been done through the weekly meeting schedule.
OTHER BUSINESS
RESOLUTIONS/ASSESSMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Resolution supporting partial year ad valorem tax assessments.
Commr. Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
REPORTS - County Attorney
ORDINANCES/COURTS-JUDGES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained the request to advertise an Ordinance that would repeal sections of the lake County Code pertaining to the Official Court Reporter.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the request to advertise an Ordinance that would repeal Lake County Code, Chapter 9, Article III, Official Court Reporter, Sections 9-51 through 9-56.
Commr. Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS - County Attorney
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he had received a request from Orlando 311, Ltd., to discuss the contract which the Board entered into earlier this year. He reviewed the contract and met with Mr. Paul Caldwell, Attorney, and Mr. Jim Peak, and he felt that the contract was not unambiguous and was very clear. Mr. Minkoff stated that they believed that the contract did not reflect what had actually been negotiated. He stated that they wanted an amendment made regarding the school, which was probably not controversial. He stated that the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) provided that they would give the County a school site, and the School Board had indicated that they did not want the school site. The Developer wanted to leave the requirement and pay regular school impact fees. Under the Agreement, they would have gotten credit for the value of the school site against impact fees, so this was not really a substantial change to the Agreement. The other issued involved a timing question. Mr. Minkoff stated that the Agreement had the Developer pay Lake County a sum of approximately $1,500,000 over a multi-year period. There was an initial payment, with another payment being due in February, and the Developer was under the impression that, after making the initial payment, they would get credit during that first year, but not have to pay additional impact fees for structures during that year. Mr. Minkoff stated that the Agreement was clear that there was no credit, and that they were to pay the initial payment, and then pay the impact fees as they went along. Mr. Minkoff explained that he had discussed the Agreement with Mr. Rolon Reed, former County Attorney, and Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, who do not agree with the Developer as to the intent of the Agreement.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing Orlando 311, Ltd., and Mr. Jim Peak, addressed the Board and explained that this was the Bramalea Development of Regional Impact (DRI), which had a old Development Order which required, at that time, the developer to dedicate sites and/or construct things rather than pay impact fee, because the County did not have impact fees at that time. Ms. Bonifay stated that she had negotiated with the County, and the School Board had said put a deed in escrow, and then it would decide whether or not it wanted the site, and if not, the developer could pay the fees in lieu of the site. The other provision in the Development Order was for fire and police, and Chief Craig Haun had negotiated for the County and determined that the value of the improvements would be approximately $1,500,000, which the developer felt was fairly high, but he was agreeable, because the development could not go any further without it. She stated that, it had always the understanding that, for the $1,500,000 that would be paid over time, in four installments, the first payment would be $290,000. She explained how this amount had been determined and stated that the credit clause had been an omission in their haste to get this done to close before they lost the deal being negotiated with Publix, which was going to happen at 5 p.m. on the day of the hearing. Ms. Bonifay stated that the omission of the clause was not noticed by them, and as a result, a letter from Mr. Reed had been placed in the backup material, which had been written to them, which clarified that, and clearly said that, the Developer's Agreement intended that they would get a credit for the $290,000 for 80 residential building permits, and for the commercial.
Mr. Paul Caldwell, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that the need to amend the Agreement was in two particulars. The first relating to the school site was at the request of the School Board, and there had been a letter to him indicating that the School Board did not want the school site. He stated that the Agreement needed to reflect the fact that the Developer was going to pay school impact fees in lieu of the school site, and that the Developer had already paid the fees on all of the permits that had been pulled to date.
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that Mr. Reed had an appraisal made of the site, and it was true that the School Board did not want the site, and under the Agreement, the County was able to take the ten acres and resell it. He stated that there was no requirement that this be deleted from the DRI, and that there was never a valid Deed placed in escrow. He stated that, if they kept the property, as proposed, they would pay school impact fees for everything, and there would be no net change in dollars to the County.
Mr. Caldwell noted a letter dated August 16, 1995, from Dr. Tom Sanders, Superintendent, Lake County School Board, indicating that the ten acres did not meet the minimum acreage requirement for an elementary school and was unacceptable.
Mr. Caldwell explained the series of events that took place during the negotiations of the Developer's Agreement. He noted the draft of the Agreement and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Page 4, which was located in the backup material, and stated that there had been approximately seven drafts, with every one of them having a provision for a credit for the down payment number. He explained that Paragraph 3 was inadvertently left off of the Agreement. Mr. Caldwell made reference to the letter dated February 28, 1995, from Mr. Reed, and the letter dated March 2 1995, from Mr. Tim Hoban. Mr. Caldwell stated that the representatives for Publix needed to know that they were going to be able to pull their building permits, and that they did not have to do anything else. He stated that a request was made to the County for an amendment, or a letter, that would state these terms. Mr. Caldwell stated that he had no idea that there was a problem, until the Developer came to pull his first permit and was notified that he had to pay $2,500. Mr. Caldwell explained that the Developer's Agreement provided for a total amount of $1,500,000, with $290,000 paid up front, and the balance to be paid over four years. Each year, by the anniversary date of the Agreement, the Developer had to pay another $303,000. The Developer was now asking that the Board extend to him the benefit of the bargain, at the same time the Agreement was amended, to say that he could pull the next 80 residential permits without the payment of the $2,500 per permit, keeping in mind that he has to have a total of $303,000 paid to the County by the end of February, 1996.
Ms. Bonifay noted that the $1,500,000 was only for fire and police. She stated that the County would still be getting transportation impact fees, and school impact fees, in lieu of the site. This would be extending to them the allowance to pull the next 80 permits, and permits for its commercial, for the Publix site without any further payment, but still being bound by the next February, 1996 date to have the balance of $303,238.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board wanted to ask staff, including the County Attorney and the Planning Department, to revisit something that had been presented and approved by the Board, and to consider a modification to the Agreement, and staff felt that the modifications being requested were satisfactory to cover the concerns that led the Board into the Agreement in the first place, he felt it would be fine, but he was not prepared today to vote to change an agreement that had been before the Board and approved by the Board without having gone back through a staff review.
Mr. Minkoff explained that he had discussed the issue with Mr. Hoban and Mr. Reed, and they have indicated that they do not support the Developer's version of events, and there was no way for him not being here to know which one would be correct. He pointed out that the document was signed by the Developer and was witnessed by two attorneys, who were now present before the Board, and who represented the Developer, and if it had been incorrect, it should have been pointed out at that point.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was not telling staff to go back and renegotiate the agreement, but only saying that, if the County Attorney's Office, or from the County Manager's perspective, if there was some feeling that this needed to be reconsidered, he would be open to that. He stated that the document before the Board was the document that was before the Board for consideration, and without some further review that would indicate that it was not at that time, he would certainly not vote to change it today.
Mr. Caldwell stated that the County had represented to Publix that their fire and impact fees had been paid, and the representatives for Publix said that the Agreement needed to be amended, or it needed a letter, which the County Attorney, at that time, chose to write.
Commr. Swartz clarified that he was not going to vote to change something until he had reason to believe it needed to be changed, and secondly, that there be absolute language before him, so that he would know what he was seeing, and he would know what the impact was going to be. He stated that he was going to stand behind what had been presented and approved by the Board.
Ms. Bonifay explained the steps she had taken with staff regarding this issue and requested direction from the Board, in order that the issue be resolved.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there were no real reasons to change the Agreement other than to make them less favorable to the County, unless the Board agreed that the Developer was mislead by the Agreement, and it should have been something else.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, explained that this issue had been analyzed, with her meeting with Ms. Bonifay, and Mr. Caldwell meeting with Mr. Reed. She stated that she was not here when the Board entered into the Agreement, so she could not speak as to the intent of the Board, but certainly the contract and the language were clear. Mr. Reed had indicated to her that it was the intent of the contract signed by the Board, which the Board had before them today.
Discussion occurred regarding the series of correspondence that took place between all parties involved in the negotiations of the Agreement.
Commr. Swartz stated that there were two issues that needed to be addressed. He stated that the School Board was wishing to have its issue readdressed, so clarification should be made regarding this issue, and if there was language that needed to be changed, it could be included, and the Agreement could be place on the agenda for modification. Secondly, if staff felt that the Agreement needed to be modified, in the ways that the Developer had suggested, and it was reviewed and the Board was assured that the County had the protection it needed, staff could come forward with that recommendation, and if it did not, then it may be only the School Board issue that needed to be considered.
Mr. Caldwell requested that staff consider, at the same time in making its recommendation, that it had clearly been represented that this would also eliminate potential problems with Publix.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to instruct the County Manager's Office and the County Attorney's Office, to review what appeared to be a request from the School Superintendent, with regard to the school site that was proposed, and to come back with language, if necessary, to modify either the Agreement, or the Ordinance, whichever would be appropriate with regard to that school site, and secondly, to look at the issues that have raised by the Developer's representatives, and to come back with a recommendation, either in support of, or in opposition to, the changes that the Developer was suggesting in the contract that was approved by the Board.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2 p.m.
TIMES CERTAIN
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Major Gary Borders, Lake County Sheriff's Office, addressed the Board and stated that there were two 228 bed pods that were split into 64 beds in each cell area. He stated that the Sheriff's Office wanted to split those into four 32 man cell blocks, take away the direct supervision concept, and build a control room to where it would be indirect supervision. He noted that this would be done in three different buildings, and that there were already two areas that have the indirect supervision. Mr. Borders explained the current use of the facilities, in terms of minimum versus maximum security, and in terms of housing female prisoners and juveniles.
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities and Capital Improvements, addressed the Board and discussed the sketch of the existing Housing Pod "D", and the sketch, which he proposed to the Sheriff's Department, which basically was the concept of the Sheriff's Department, but actually saved on costs.
Major Borders discussed the housing of Federal prisoners and stated that he would want to have four officers per shift, because he considered a need for maximum security. He stated that he could foresee the number of juveniles increasing in Lake County, and he was in agreement with the design being offered by Mr. Anderson, which would be the most cost effective.
Mr. Anderson stated that he had estimated a cost for the six walls, which would be in the excess of $300,000, at approximately $50,000 per wall. He explained the design for construction, which included electrical and sprinkler relocation. Mr. Anderson stated that there was already one housing area similar to the one being proposed, and that the design being proposed would have to be presented to the architect for approval and signed off by the Department of Corrections (DOC).
Major Borders stated that the savings would be mostly in staff. He stated that, by the classification of prisoners determined by the Sheriff's Department, he would want four officers per shift per pod, as it currently existed, with the possibility of a fifth officer as a rover, because it was a direct supervision concept. With the new proposal, he was suggesting that the Sheriff's Department could run it with the maximum of three officers per shift.
Discussion occurred regarding the DOC's involvement with the County, and any change of intended design being subject to DOC's approval.
Major Borders stated that there was a total of 24 openings for Corrections Officers and Correction Auxiliary Officers, and 19 of them were being considered for the positions.
Discussion occurred regarding the modifications to the pods, and the effect they would have on the number of federal prisoners that could be housed in Lake County.
Major Borders requested that an additional modification be made to the central storage door, so that it would be bigger, in order to accommodate deliveries made to the facility, and Mr. Anderson indicated that this request could be included in the proposed work.
Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. explained that he did not foresee any additional costs, in relation to the proposed indirect supervision. He stated that he would get Federal inmates in the facility as soon as it was safe, and the necessary staff was on hand, because it would offset the costs to run the jail, and offset the cost to the taxpayers. Sheriff Knupp discussed what might take place once the legislation met, in relation to the sentencing of prisoners, and stated that there was the possibility that prisoners might be spending more time in the County facility. It was noted that the Sheriff's Association had taken the position against increasing the sentence of prisoners by one year.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board get some information from the Sheriff's Association regarding the expansion of the time served in local facilities and place this on the Board's discussion agenda when it goes before the Legislative Delegation.
Sheriff Knupp stated that the Sheriff's Department did have plans for a work camp, and he would be making a proposal to the Board some time in January. Hopefully it would not be at the expense of the taxpayers, because of funding that would be available from the weekend program that the Sheriff's Department runs, which involve misdemeanors. He noted that approximately $12,000 was turned over to the Board last year. Sheriff Knupp further noted that, if the Prelude was opened, he anticipated that it would be utilized the way it was currently designed.
Commr. Cadwell extended his appreciation to the Sheriff's Department for participating in the Leadership of Lake County class last week.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board direct Mr. Anderson to work with the DOC first, and to bring a proposal back to the Board for consideration.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the County may not be able to stay with the same architect depending on the scope of the project, and the fee may require that the County go through competitive negotiations.
REPORTS
ZONING - Grantham Appeal
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that all of the Commissioners had received their packets for the Grantham appeal hearing scheduled for Thursday, November 16, 1995, and he would be glad to discuss any questions from the Board members. He stated that there may be time after Thursday to still decide whether the Board wanted to send the issue to a special master.
COMMISSIONERS
Commr. Cadwell extended his appreciation to the Commissioners for attending the Leadership of Lake County Day.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR\BDSUPP\BOARDMIN\11-14-95\12-5-95