The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 6, 1996, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; 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, Chief Deputy, County Finance; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there were no changes to the agenda.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he had two issues to bring before the Board. He requested a closed door meeting, to be held at the last meeting of the month, to discuss some of the pending tort litigation cases with the Board, and he also wanted to have a short discussion on the outside counsel positions, in order to get some direction from the Board on how to proceed.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the two items, as requested by the County Attorney, on the agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of December 19, 1996, Regular Meeting, as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS' CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Tabs 1-11 for the following requests:
Request to acknowledge receipt of the list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Request to approve and signature authorization on the Satisfaction of Judgments, as follows:
a. In the Interest of Rodney K. Pierson, A Child, Case No. 89-761-CJ, costs against Rodney Kirk Pierson, Cynthia A. Bailey, in the amount of $50.00.
b. State of Florida vs. Randall Douglas Frazier, Case Number 93-496-CFA, costs against Randall Douglas Frazier in the amount of $250.00.
c. State of Florida vs. Randall Douglas Frasier, Case Number 93-260-CFG, costs against Randall Douglas Frasier in the amount of $250.00.
Bonds - Contractor
Request to approve the following Contractor Bonds, new and cancellations:
4236-96 Hauge & Sons Plumbing & Heating Co. (Plumbing)
4432-96 Mark C. Strong dba North Lake Electric, Inc.
5429-96 B & R Masonry Inc. (Masonry/Concrete)
5430-96 Michael J. Reynolds (Plumber)
5431-96 Steven Charles Colley/Aire Force Air Conditioning & Heating (A/C & Heating)
5432-96 Mark Douglas Pierson (General)
5433-96 Rakes Electric Inc. (Electrical)
5434-96 Robert J. Ehret (Electrical)
369-95 William B. Bass
2938-95 Kenneth F. Tyree
3060-95 Amos E. Smith
4122-95 Ronald L. Hart, Sr.
5363-95 David C. Palmer
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, Month Ending December 31, 1995 in the amount of $121,089.49. (Same period last year: $140,957.71)
Request to acknowledge receipt, from Patricia A. Sykes-Amos, CPA, Greenlee, Kurras, Rice & Brown, P.A., the North Lake County Hospital District's Annual Financial Report for the year ended September 30, 1995, and a listing of tentative meeting dates for the District.
Request to acknowledge receipt, from Greenlee, Kurras, Rice & Brown, P.A., the Balance Sheets of Green Swamp Land Authority's, General and Acquisition Funds, as of December 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 indicated, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following from the City of Tavares:
a. Annexation Notification, Ordinance 95-21: Annexation of Tava-Dora
b. Annexation Notification, Ordinance 95-45: Annexation of First Assembly of God
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following from the City of Fruitland Park:
a. Annexation Notification, Ordinance 95-010: Annexation of property known as the Wingspread property
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission, In Re: Application for certificates to provide water and wastewater services in Lake County by Shangri-La by the Lake Utilities, Inc.; Docket No. 940653-WS; Order No. PSC-96-0026-FOF-WS. Notice is hereby given that the action discussed regarding establishing rate base, return on equity, rate of return, and rates and charges will become final unless a person whose interests area substantially affected files a petition for a formal proceeding, pursuant to Rule 25-22.029, Florida Administrative Code.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Commission Customer Service Hearings Before the Florida Public Service Commission to Southern States Utilities, Inc., The Office of Public Counsel, Spring Hill Civic Association, Inc., Sugarmill Woods Civic Association, Inc., Marco Island Civic Association, Inc., Amelia Island Community Association, Et Al, and All Other Interested Persons; Docket No. 950495-WS; In Re: Application for a rate increase and increase in service availability charges by Southern States Utilities, Inc. 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. Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held from January 22, 1996 through February 8, 1996 at selected times and places.
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers/Resolutions
Request to approve and signature authorization on the following Budget Transfers and Resolution, as follows:
1. Fund: General
From: Contingency $15,000
To: Transfer/Law Operating $10,000
Transfer/Jail Capital $ 5,000
Transfer #: 96-077
Justification: Pursuant to F.S. 30.49, the Sheriff is requesting $15,000 from his Contingency money be transferred to transfer accounts listed above.
2. Fund: General
Department: County Manager
From: Contingency $20,000
To: Contractual Services $20,000
Transfer #: 96-078
Justification: Funds are needed to pay Orange County for a Joint Economic Development Study that was approved by the Board on August 3, 1993.
3. Fund: Landfill
Department: Solid Waste Management
From: Contingency $ 8,028
Personal Services $12,258
To: Office Supplies $ 1,500
Personal Services $18,786
Transfer #: 96-083
Justification: The reclassification of a Landfill Attendant I position to the Accounting Technician I position requires transferring the existing position to the necessary cost center and the additional funds of $8,028 to be transferred from Contingency pending BCC approval of 2/6/96 DMG corrected job classifications agenda item.
4. Fund: Landfill
Department: Solid Waste Management
From: Contingency $ 3,500
To: Contractual Services $ 3,500
Transfer #: 96-084
Justification: Funds are needed for surveying services for the Astatula Landfill by Farner Barley and Associates.
Recommendation: Approve 1-4
1. Fund: Law Enforcement Trust
Revenue: Confiscated Property $47,650
Expenditure: Transfers/Personal Services $44,150
Transfer/Operating $ 3,500
Transfer #: 96-079
Justification: Resolution to receive unanticipated revenue in the amount of $47,650 from confiscated property collected by the Sheriff. These funds pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act shall be budgeted to the Sheriff.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Hanson questioned staff about the status of the document that would allow the Board to act on the Murphy Act State Road Reservations without having to look at each one.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, was preparing the Ordinance, and it would be brought to the Board, with a request to advertise, next month.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Tabs 3-29, and item I. A. on Addendum No. 1, for the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Hospitals-Ambulances/Community Services
Request for approval of payment of monthly Medicaid Hospital bill in the amount of $29,717.42, and the Medicaid Nursing Home bill in the amount of $35,029.32 for the month of November.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services
Request for approval of the first quarter payment in the amount of $38,329 to LifeStream Behavioral Center for Fiscal Year 1995-96, pursuant to F.S. 394.76.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for approval of Agreement between Lake County and Lake Community Action Agency for annual grant funding in the amount of $7,500 for Fiscal Year 1995-96.
Request for approval and execution of County Public Health Unit Fee Resolution for Fiscal Year 1995-96, which replaces and updates Resolution 1994-178.
Request for approval to acknowledge receipt of the CPHU Activities and Expenditure Report for period ending September 30, 1995.
Contracts, Leases, and Agreements/Community Services
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Extension of Contract with Digital Products Corporation for electronic monitoring equipment from December 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996.
Request for approval and execution of Resolution recognizing the accomplishments of Lake County volunteers and declaring April 21-27 as Volunteer Week, and approval to hold a reception for our volunteers on Friday, April 23 from 5:00-7:30 p.m. in the "Rotunda" of the Round Court House.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request for approval of new and corrected job classifications evaluated by David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request for approval of Certificates for employees with one and three years of service.
Information Services/Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval of Resolution renaming a portion of Lake Griffin Road (5-7611) to French Road (5-7611A).
Information Services/Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval of Resolution renaming a portion of Richardson Road (5-7612) to Lake Griffin Road (5-7611).
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning & Development
Request for approval for acceptance and execution of an Agreement between Lake County and Tom C. and Janice M. Murphy for a Temporary Non-Conforming Use to place a travel trailer on property located on Micro-Racetrack Road while the conventional home is being built - Commission District 1.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities/Public Services
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute a First Amendment to Agreement between Lake County and Astor Lions Club, Inc. relating to property owned by Astor Lions Club in Astor, Florida.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Public Services
Request for approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Mini Property Investments, Ltd.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and J. E. Jones Construction Company for maintenance of improvements and to accept a Maintenance Bond int he amount of $70,755.85 for Woodridge Phase I, and authorization for the Chairman to execute a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Bay Hill Cove, Inc. for maintenance of improvements and to accept a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $71,213.22 for Woodridge Phase II.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for approval to advertise for bids for Countywide Resurfacing Project No. 1-96 at an estimated cost of $370,952 and authorization to proceed with Interlocal Agreements with the Cities of Eustis, Leesburg, Mount Dora, Tavares, and Umatilla, and the Town of Montverde to resurface various roads in the City/Town limits at an estimated cost of $321,255 to be included in the Countywide Resurfacing Program for a total cost of $683,207.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects/Public Services
Request for approval and execution of Change Order No. 1 to John's Lake Parking Lot Improvement Project No. R-9 for additional work, due to the increased water level of John's Lake in the amount of $6,439.00 - Commissioner District 2.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request for approval of the following recommendations on the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Deed No.: 145
Applicant: Herbert Shannon and Madeline Shannon
Location: Carlton Village (Lot 7, Block 6)
Recommend: Reserve 25 feet from centerline of Illicium Lane and reserve 25 feet from centerline of Magnolia Street
Deed No.: 857
Applicant: Julian R. and Carol A. Harper, husband and wife
Location: Sec. 11, Twp. 21 S, R 25 E, South of Howey-in-the-Hills
Recommend: Reserve 33 feet from the centerline of East Dewey Robbins Road #2/3-2729
Deed No.'s: 1434 and 1529
Applicant: Community Development Block Grant: Eustis area, Project 94DB-19-06-45-01-N17
Location: Hazzard Homestead Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 42
The request for this transfer was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 19, 1995 per Resolution No. 1995-251.
Deed No.: 2031
Applicant: Craig L. Hegstrom
Location: Paxton and Somervill's Subdivision of Sorrento: Lots in Block 3
Recommend: Reserve 33 feet from the centerline of Orange Street #4-4385 and reserve 33 feet from the centerline of Summit Street #4-4385A
Deed No.: 2519
Applicant: James A. Duff and Mary P. Duff
Location: Replat of Lake Kathryn Heights (Lots 37-40, Block 2)
Recommend: Reserve 25 feet from centerline of Cypress Street
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request for acceptance of the following deeds:
Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc. by E-Z Serve Convenience Stores, Inc.
Joel Baumann and Tracy A. Baumann
Lake Seneca #4-5983
Request for approval to release a Maintenance Bond for Wedgewood III in the amount of $16,850.
Request for approval to release a Maintenance Bond for Greater Groves Phase III in the amount of $32,759.16.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Subdivisions
Request for approval for acceptance of Final Plat for Westchester Phase 2, approval and execution of Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Titan U.S. 27, Inc. for construction of improvements, and acceptance of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit for performance in the amount of $16,300 - Commission District 2.
Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Solid Waste
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for 12 road assessments, as follows:
Number Name Amount
661049 Loren D. Huffstutler $2,069.98
669010 Dion & Deborah Shreiner $1,584.91
676006 Harold K. Pio $1,639.52
678019 Jeannie Lorraine Kimura $ 287.47
680005 John A. & Sharon L. Mitchell $ 627.17
684001 Martine Truitt & Beverly
684002 Norman R. Rowley $ 564.00
684003 Norman Rowley $1,455.26
684013 Edward K. Hwang $1,410.00
684015 Robert B. & Irene V. Smith $ 747.30
684017 Lynn A. Gibbs $1,768.28
791025 H. B. Echols $4,688.39
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Request for approval and acceptance of Final Plat for Devonshire at King's Ridge and Huntington at Kings Ridge (Kings Ridge Phase II), Section 4, Township 23 South, Range 26 East - Commissioner District 2.
Commr. Cadwell presented the following employees with plaques, as Mr. Joe Grawet, Personnel Manager, presented data about each employee:
Presentation of Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service
Paul R. Larson, Maintenance Specialist I, Facilities & Capital Improvements/Facilities Management Section/Building Maintenance Services
Deborah Miller, Executive Secretary, Planning & Development Services/Environmental Management Division, Pollution Operations
Presentation of Plaque to Employee with Ten Years of Service
James B. Benham II, Fire Lieutenant/EMT, Fire & Emergency Services/Fire Rescue
Presentation of Plaque and Bond to Employee of the Quarter, First Quarter (October, November, December)
Charlotte Geraghty, Secretary III, Planning & Development, Director's Office, Code Compliance Services
Presentation of Plaques to Retiring Employees
Malissa B. Haben, Executive Secretary, Planning & Development Services, Development Regulation Services Division - 11 Years of Service
Charles R. Nunley, Chief Animal Control Officer, Fire & Emergency Services Animal Control - 15 Years of Service
Myra A. Smith, Social Services Coordinator, Community Services, Human Services Division, Administration - 32 Years of Service (not present)
PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION
The Board presented Proclamation 1996-7 proclaiming the period of February 18 - February 25, 1996 as National Engineers Week, to those individuals who had volunteered to participate in the National Engineer's Week Program.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Lake County Public Services
Lora L. Bailey, Lake County Public Services
Don Griffey, Lake County Engineering
Fred Schneider, Lake County Engineering
Ken Stewart, Lake County Environmental Management
Duane Booth, Farner-Barley & Associates
Individuals Not Present
Denver Stutler, Ecobank
Keith Riddle, Newman Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Lori Webb-Paris, Transportation Consulting Group
Larry Morey, Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
ORDINANCES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board would be considering the following proposed Ordinance, to be numbered 1996-13, as read by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; RELATING TO VESTED RIGHTS FROM THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 1.02.01 THROUGH 1.02.06 OF THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATED TO VESTING; REPEALING SECTIONS 1.02.07 THROUGH 1.02.30 OF THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO VESTING; REPEALING SECTIONS 5.06.01 THROUGH 5.06.08 AND 5.07.01 THROUGH 5.07.15 OF THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO VESTING FOR CONCURRENCY; AMENDING SECTIONS 14.16.01 THROUGH 14.16.06 OF THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO PROCEDURES TO OBTAIN VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposed Ordinance was the outgrowth of the Administrative proceedings with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Crawford noted that he had reviewed his concerns with Mr. Minkoff, but he wanted to present them on record. He requested that the pending vested rights determinations, which had been filed one month to eighteen months ago, be reviewed pursuant to common law vesting, as required by the Settlement Agreement that was signed with the DCA, but not necessarily pursuant to the constraints of the new Ordinance. He noted that Mr. Minkoff felt they were basically one and the same. Mr. Crawford stated that, while the proposed Ordinance was a good faith effort to more closely define those loose perimeters of common law vesting, he felt there were fact situations, which might become stricter than the common law vesting. He addressed the proposed Ordinance, Page 2, 1.02.02 Common Law Vesting, 3. and suggested that, in the sentence, which stated "obligations, expenses, and changes", the word "and" be changed to "or". He referred to Page 5, 1.02.06 Termination of Vested Rights Determination, and suggested that "must continue in good faith" be deleted from the language, because it was not in the pronounced common law vesting requirements. Mr. Crawford stated that he would prefer that this phrase not be included in the language where people would be making staff determinations, because they might not fully understand intricacies of common law vesting and apply this in too strict a manner.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Minkoff found that, on Page 3, either the word "or" or "and" would be acceptable. He addressed the comment made about vesting and stated that the Ordinance was written this way in an attempt to put a limit on the vesting determination. He stated that vesting was an abrogation of the Comprehensive Plan and should be looked at fairly strictly. The Ordinance had been written to allow the special master process, in case staff overreacted. Mr. Minkoff stated that, as to the issue of existing opinions, what was in the Ordinance was common law vesting, and so, by choosing to use this procedural framework, the County would be doing what Mr. Crawford had asked, with the difference being whether or not this was purely common law vesting.
Commr. Hanson addressed Page 3, 1.02.03 Vested Development within the Wekiva River Protection Area, and stated that, in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), a lot of record determination would be vested. She felt that most of the proposed Ordinance was written for large developments, and the lot of record determination would give some protection to the "little guy", so that he would not have to go through the process of a common law test, or take it to court, and she wanted to see this added to the vesting language.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the key word was reliance, and he explained when a determination would no longer be valid. He stated that there had to be the reliance, and if someone did buy property, based upon the lot of record certificate, and some of it was sold, or it was improved, and money was spent, then an individual would be entitled to make the County follow the certificate.
Commr. Hanson stated that there might be someone who had done nothing to the property, but intended to give some of the lots to the children. This was a small issue in the LDRs, and she felt it should be addressed in the vesting language. She further stated that, in the past, in the Wekiva Basin, as indicated in the LDRs, an individual had to aggregate up to five acres, if he was on an unpaved road; however, this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan have vested 12,500 square feet. She stated that there was a discrepancy, and the Comprehensive Plan would take precedent over the LDRs, but staff needed some direction on this issue.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, directed the Board's attention to Page 4, 5. Non-Exempt Parcels and stated that there was a Wekiva Comprehensive Plan Amendment that went into effect in 1989, and the overall Comprehensive Plan went into effect in 1993. He stated that there may be cases whereby someone was granted, under single ownership, a parcel up to 12,500 square feet, and subsequently had additional property and would be required to aggregate under the aggregation rule. The Planning Department had not established a position on how to react to the situation, should it arise at this point in time.
Commr. Hanson stated that the situation had already arisen and the interpretation had been aggregation to the five acres. She felt that those individuals would be coming back and asking for another determination, based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Vesting Ordinance. She referred to a subdivision in Mount Plymouth and stated that it was completely unreasonable to require aggregation of those lots to five acres, in an urbanized area, whether they were on a dirt road, or a paved road.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposed Ordinance repeated almost verbatim the Comprehensive Plan policies in the area addressed by Commr Hanson. After meeting with Commr. Hanson, and discussing the issue with Mr. Knight, it may very well be, upon review, that the paving requirement, or the aggregation to five acres, might not apply in the Wekiva, but staff had not made a decision yet on the review of the policy. Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposed Ordinance did not change the Comprehensive Plan policies on vesting in the Wekiva, but repeated them. Mr. Minkoff noted that the proposed Ordinance did not address notification, and if the applicant appealed under the special master, all of the adjoining property owners would be notified and would have the right to participate.
Mr. Crawford referred to Page 3, 2. regarding Common Law Vesting and stated that the language excluded land purchase costs and payment of taxes. He requested that the language be removed, because in most cases, land purchase costs and payment of taxes did not apply to common law vesting, and should be determined on a case by case basis.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the proposed Ordinance had been reviewed by the DCA, and it was acceptable to them as a way to end the litigation that the County had with them.
Commr. Swartz stated that the County Attorney's Office and staff had done a good job trying to put together a Vested Rights Ordinance, and they had indicated that the proposed Ordinance was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in terms of providing for vesting rights in Lake County. He was satisfied to adopt the Ordinance without changing the "and" to "or", because the County Attorney felt it was an inconsequential change. He did not feel that the other issues addressed needed to be changed, because the Ordinance was a good one and would provide both the staff and property owners the rights that they were allowed under common law and statutory vesting, for actions that they would take in reliance of the County.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to adopt Ordinance 1996-13, as read by title only.
Under discussion, the Board members addressed the proposed changes, with Commr. Swartz clarifying that the motion did not include any changes. He noted that each time staff looked at common law vesting, the case would be determined by the guidelines presented. Commr. Swartz stated that the Ordinance would effectuate the Settlement Agreement with the DCA, to adopt a Vested Rights Ordinance that would be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Minkoff extended his appreciation to all of the attorneys involved in the process of preparing the Ordinance and stated that they gave back comments, which had proven helpful in the draft.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Chester Matuszak, Grand Island, addressed the Board to discuss the advertising signs along County Road 44. He stated that he had contacted the County Sign Department on several occasions in 1995, as well as January, 1996, and there had been no result of his complaints. He requested that the Board review this issue and determine whether the signs could be removed.
Mr. Matuszak stated that he had appeared before the Board in January to discuss some electrical code problems that he felt were not being adhered to by the County, pursuant to the National Electrical Code. He presented the Board with new information pertaining to the issue of electrical switches and splicing devices and stated that he would be appearing before the Board of Examiners, once again, in March, to discuss these problems, as well as the cracking that had continued to appear in the stucco of the home he was having built.
Planning and Development/Zoning
Mr. Claxton E. Parker, Paisley, addressed the Board and presented a petition with 439 signatures in opposition to the pub and bar in the Paisley area.
Ms. Grace Parker addressed the Board and stated that the people in the community were very much opposed to the opening of the bar type business, which was being proposed. She stated that there was no need for such a business, because it would be developed between the two stores that already sold beer. She further stated that the location of the proposed business would be between the Methodist Church and the Baptist Church and would be facing the school. Ms. Parker was concerned about the effect the business would have on the school children, as well as the community becoming endangered. Ms. Parker signed the petition, because she felt those elected into office were in a position where they should be made aware of a situation. Ms. Parker addressed the highway hazard stemming from County Road 42 and stated that anyone who looked over the proposed site certainly could not have failed to see that it was a dangerous location.
Mr. George Winters addressed the Board to discuss the issue and stated that the children in Paisley did not have any recreation, and the community did not want to give them any more enticements by calling something an attractive nuisance. He stated that the entrance to the site, from County Road 42 off of Spring Hill Road, was a hazard. Mr. Winters stated that most of the patronage to the proposed business would be transients, and the Sheriff's Department was already under staffed and had trouble policing the unincorporated area. Mr. Winters stated that he moved to Paisley to get away from the hustle and bustle and urged the Board to consider the proposal very carefully.
Mr. Roy Hunter, Paisley, questioned whether a bar was needed in the community. He stated that the community needed the Board's help in protecting its most important equity, which was the children. Mr. Hunter explained how the children have been involved in the community and stated that the County needed to show the children that the people cared about them. He stated that he did not believe a rule, or a law was legitimate when it protected only a few, and ignored and possibly harmed the majority. Mr. Hunter discussed the issue of a possible cross street from Fisherman's Road, across County Road 42, to Spring Creek Road and stated that he did not feel this would be to the benefit of the children. He was concerned that the business being proposed would not succeed, and the beer and wine license would be sold to someone else.
Mr. Frank Ellis, Ellis Acres Realty, Paisley, addressed the Board and stated that he considered the applicants as long time friends. He explained that he had spoken to Commr. Cadwell briefly on the telephone about this issue, and he felt that Commr. Cadwell had a concern about the property rights of citizens. Mr. Ellis addressed the overall moral environment of the nation and stated that people have to stand up for what was morally right and decide what would be more important than their own business. Mr. Ellis stated that the Board should not worry about setting a precedent, because things of this nature, in many cases, were more importantly judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of a particular request, than on a general rule.
Mr. Bob Horne, Pastor of the Methodist Church, addressed the Board and stated that he was new in the community and was very impressed by Lake County. He stated that all of the points of the issue had been pointed out by those who spoke, but he wanted the Board to know of the traffic concerns at the CR 42 intersection. Mr. Horne noted that his home was the closest one to the site in question.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, under the current rules of the County, the only thing that the applicants had do was pull a building permit.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the activity was located in an allowed use in the zoning classification.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Interim Director, Development Regulations, addressed the Board and stated that the property was zoned C-2, and the applicants went through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to give staff a chance to look at the change of use. She stated that the applicants have paid the difference in the concurrency impact fees, for the change from a video store to a tavern, and have met all zoning and building requirements.
Commr. Hanson stated that, when the same type of situation happened in Mount Plymouth, she had asked for a requirement for a CUP in commercial zoning, and she did not specify C-1, or C-2, or CP. She stated that she did not have a stand on this issue one way or the other, because it had not come before a public hearing, or gone through the zoning process, but she was concerned about the lack of a public hearing. She further stated that there should be a public hearing whenever a bar, or tavern was allowed on a commercially zoned piece of property. Commr. Hanson stated that the rules did not require a public hearing, and that was why a change was needed in the LDRs. She stated that the change had been proposed and would be coming to the Board at a future date, but the applicant had followed the rules, as they were set forth today.
Mr. Steven M. Rogers, son of Mary and Jim Pruitt, owners of the property, and business partner, stated that he respected the people in the community of Paisley, but he wanted them to know that he was not going to make a "bad spot" in the community. Mr. Rogers stated that they were trying to make a living on the property that they owned. He stated that they were donating property to improve the dangerous intersection and had paid the necessary impact fees. Mr. Rogers addressed the concerns about the children, and explained that there had been interest expressed to him for the placement of a bar in the area. He explained that he had foreclosed on the property, and there had been no income from the property for over a year.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether there was anything that the Board could do today, if it did not want the bar to be located on the property in question.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the County could buy the property, and if the Board passed a law that banned it, under the Property Rights Act, the County would have to pay the cost of purchasing it.
Ms. Mary Pruitt, owner of the property, addressed the Board and stated that she had owned the property for ten years. It was zoned C-2 when she purchased the property. Ms. Pruitt stated that she respected the people of Paisley, and she wanted the Board to know that she and her family were very respectable people who have always had a good standing in the community, but she needed a business on the property.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that Mr. Horne meet with a small group of people and discuss alternatives, or some limits to what the Pruitts were going to do, in regards to the bar, that might minimize some of the problems. He stated that the District Commissioner would also be glad to meet with the people.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:25 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities and Capital Improvements, addressed the Board to explain the request for execution of a Change Order to Metric's GMP contract for facilities renovation of the Historic Courthouse for exterior masonry restoration at a lump sum of $239,750.
Commr. Swartz stated that this issue had been under discussion for some time. He stated that he toured the facility with Mr. Anderson, the architect and the contractor, and the problems were very apparent. Commr. Swartz stated that this would be a long term investment and noted that the representative from the State Historical Preservation Grant Program had been here to review options for the site.
Mr. Anderson explained the results of his meeting with the representative from the State Historical Preservation Grant Program, who had been very impressed with the County's overall restoration program.
Commr. Swartz stated that there were several other grants available to the County, which staff would be pursuing, to cover some of the costs of the building.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for execution of the Change Order to Metric's GMP contract for facilities renovation of the Historic Courthouse for exterior masonry restoration, at a lump sum of $239,750, as requested by Facilities and Capital Improvements.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/RESOLUTIONS
Mr. John Cento, Planner II, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of a Resolution Amending the Housing Assistance Plan that governs the Affordable Housing Program. He informed the Board that the following members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee were present to discuss recommendations of the Committee: Mr. Steve Kolozsvary, Ms. Ann Hall, and Ms. Rosemary Bennett.
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, stated that the Board had a Resolution from the Advisory Committee amending the Housing Assistance Plan, which staff would be reviewing with the Board. He noted that the revisions would change the award allocation method from a periodic ranking system to a continuous first-come-first-served system for eligible applicants. It would also decrease the hours of education, shift the emphasis of the education, decrease the time period to purchase existing homes, and use awards without forfeiting them.
Ms. Ann Hall, Consumer Credit Counseling Service, addressed the Board and stated that it was the intention of the Committee to keep the two hours of credit counseling in the Resolution. She noted Page 4, (e) Education Requirement, which indicated One (1) hour of credit counseling.
Mr. Cento stated that staff would support adding a mandatory one-on-one session, in addition to the two hours of general home buyer education.
Ms. Rosemary Bennett, Vice-Chairman, Affordable Housing Committee, addressed the Board and explained that it was never the intent of the Committee to substitute the housing program for the credit counseling. She was concerned about the amount of money that the Committee was receiving this year, with the quick turnaround it experienced, because the Committee believed in "first come, first serve". Ms. Bennett expressed a desire to have the funding available to them throughout the year rather than having to wait for the funding to be available at designated periods of time during the year.
Mr. Cento referred to Page 3 and stated that the following change should be made: Two (2) hours of home purchasing, and One (1) hour credit/consumer counseling, for a total of eight hours. Mr. Cento explained that applications were only being processed four times a year, but he felt the problem was mostly timing and not the method of distribution. He would prefer to have the number of times tripled when the awards were made, so that the longest amount of time for anyone to wait would be one month, with the average being two weeks.
Discussion occurred regarding the ranking system, as well as the cycle of funding, with it being noted that there were four application cycles in a year.
Ms. Bennett addressed the Board to discuss some of the comments made by Mr. Cento and stated that the ranking was not necessarily a problem, because there was only a certain amount of money to be allocated, and it had been set up with limits, and with percentages that would automatically rank.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board normally received Committee recommendations, and then the Board would make any necessary changes. The Board did not usually get recommendations from a Committee, with staff and the Committee members recommending two different things. He was concerned that this may need to go back to the Affordable Housing Committee, in order to get a consensus.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to move forward with the education changes, and she did not have a problem going forward with the once a month distribution, to see whether it would expedite the process, but if there was a problem, it would be brought back to the Board.
Ms. Bennett stated that the ranking was inherent, and she did not have a problem moving forward with the education, or with Mr. Cento's suggestion, at this point in time. She stated that there would be a meeting tomorrow with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, so the issues could be discussed further depending on the action of the Board today.
Mr. Steve Kolozsvary addressed the Board and explained that the cycle was the Committee's biggest concern, with education being a good point.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to approve the Resolution allowing for the changes on Page 3 regarding the education, as recommended by staff, for a total of eight (8) hours, one (1) hour of credit/consumer counseling, and two (2) hours of home purchasing, and to move forward with staff's recommendation leaving the ranking in, and changing the cycle to a monthly basis.
Under discussion, it was noted that a Resolution would have to be brought back by staff to change the cycle to a monthly basis.
Commr. Good discussed the staff's recommendation for a first-come first-serve system, which would reduce administrative flexibility and require full use of the ten percent administrative allowance previously approved by the Board.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that she had been reviewing some of the figures in the program, and she was not comfortable with the discussion that had occurred today, therefore, she would be bringing back an analysis to the Board.
Commr. Good stated that the Committee had indicated that, if the administrative costs were going to increase, it would be brought forward to the Committee for action, because there was a concern that the Committee needed to maximize the number of dollars. There was also a need for a fair distribution system to be established.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, understood that the motion made changes to Page 3, which had been outlined, with Section 4. Advertisement and Encumbrance Schedule being deleted, and a Resolution would be brought back to the Board, in the future, to address a quarterly schedule, or more frequent distribution.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SOLID WASTE
Mr. Don Post, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the Board and introduced Ms. Cindy Strickland, Recycling and Special Waste Coordinator.
Mr. Gary Debo, Construction Contracts Manager, addressed the Board to discuss the request to increase the scope of equipment requirements to upgrade the original plastics compactor to an automatic baler for the intermediate materials processing center. Mr. Debo stated that, pursuant to Board direction, the department had investigated the effectiveness of the specified plastics compactor, which had previously been approved by the Board for an operational concept. As a result of the study, revisions to the original operational concept to the subject facility were warranted for the greater efficiency and benefit of the citizens of Lake County. It had become apparent that the use of an automatic baler would prove more beneficial in allowing the County a means to process various commodities without the need to invest in a number of specialized containers and transportation equipment. Mr. Debo reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the baler and produced photographs for the Board to review.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request to increase the scope of equipment requirements to upgrade the original plastics compactor to an automatic baler, under Purchase Order No. 5156 with Florida Industrial Equipment, Inc., and approved to encumber and expend a total of $140,302 from Contingency.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SOLID WASTE/LANDFILLS
Mr. Gary Debo, Construction Contracts Manager, addressed the Board to discuss the request for staff to design, build and improve the accessibility of a residential Solid Waste Drop-off Center at the Astatula Landfill at an estimated cost of $89,000. Mr. Debo presented a three minute video, which exemplified the problems that had been experienced by staff.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request, as stated above by Mr. Debo.
Mr. Don Post, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of the expanded operations for the Intermediate Materials Processing Center. Mr. Post reviewed Tab A of the backup material, and the revised equipment list, which reflected $160,000 less than the original list. He stated that, in 1995, for the hauls of the recycling containers at Astatula, Astor, Lady Lake, and Loghouse, the County paid approximately $6,000, with an additional $2,000 to rent the containers. He referred to Tab D, which indicated the Lake County Recycling Drop-off Sites. Mr. Post stated that the equipment list included containers for white goods and noted that white goods were currently not being collected in the transfer station areas. He noted that there had been a total of 883 tons of white goods collected. He stated that Ogden Martin had processed, through its facility, approximately 2,531 tons of white goods. Most of those tons were transported within the rural areas, or from the haulers. Staff was proposing that the white goods be collected before hand and sold prior to them being burned, instead of paying Ogden Martin to burn the white goods. Right now the proceeds from the burning of the white goods and their resale stay with Ogden Martin and not the County. Mr. Post discussed, in detail, the Expanded Operational Plan with the Board. He noted that there was approximately $50,000 in tire grant funds that was not allocated this year, because the money had not been used, so the tire containers for the transfer stations would be purchased out of this fund. It would also be used for hauling the tires back from the transfer stations.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the expanded operations for the Intermediate Materials Processing Center, and the budget transfer, bid, award, and purchase of the equipment list, for the expanded operation of the new facility, or alternate piggy back purchase.
ADDENDUM NO 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL/STATE AGENCIES/COMMUNITY SERVICES
Discussion occurred regarding a formal response to Governor Lawton Chiles' strategy concerning Workforce Florida.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, addressed the Board and stated that a letter had been received from the Governor on Friday, which indicated that he would be designating Service Delivery Areas/Substate Area on or before March 1, 1996. Before he made his final decision, he asked for a formal response from each County Commission by February 16, 1996. Ms. Whittle stated that, in the Governor's Plan, Lake County had been designated as Area 12, which included Lake, Sumter, Seminole, Orange and Osceola Counties. The Board had previously passed a Resolution and took a stand not to be included in this grouping, and it had been reaffirmed twice and sent to the Governor. It was noted that this would be the designation that would become official on March 1, 1996, but the Board needed to send a formal response to the Governor.
Commr. Good stated that there had been some changes from previous discussions held by the Board, in the fact that Lake and Sumter Counties had been grouped together, even though Lake County had indicated that it would like to be grouped with Volusia County.
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that he had received a FAX from the Florida Association of Counties, and from the National Association of Counties, asking the Board to support legislation in Washington for the local governance language and local funding formula.
Ms. Whittle informed the Board that a FAX had been received from the County Manager of Seminole County, which had included a draft model for governance and Board composition, for the Board to review. The draft model had been developed in Seminole County from a consortium of interested user groups.
Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development, addressed the Board and explained that Seminole County had been working with the Central Florida Region, and that Ms. Pat Warner, Economic Development Commission (EDC), was present, and she had been facilitating the process. Mr. Jackson explained that the counties had received a copy of the proposed agreement from Seminole County, and he wanted the Board to know that this was not the Workforce Development Interlocal, but was the interim of Private Industry Council (PIC) groups in the Central Florida area. Mr. Jackson stated that Ms. Warner was proposing representations from each county to make up this consortium. At some later date, once the Workforce Development Consortium was established, the transition would take place.
Ms. Pat Warner, EDC, Orlando, addressed the Board and stated that this would be an Interlocal Agreement for the service delivery area (SDA) for the Private Industry Councils, should the service area be changed per the Governor's request. She stated that it was being put together with the hope that the Working Committee would eventually become the Workforce Development Consortium, which would be approved by the County Commissioners. She stated that this was the second of two meetings with the County Commissioners in the five county region, to update the Board on the Workforce Development issue.
Commr. Gerber explained that she was uncomfortable with the information in the draft Agreement, Line 237a., which indicated that the distribution of seats on the Board at initial appointment shall be based on Lake, Sumter, Seminole, and Osceola Counties having a 1996 private non profit total of 26, and Orange County having a total of 29 by itself, as determined by population.
Ms. Warner stated that the Working Committee was currently working on the matrix, and the customer flow, for workforce education and workforce training through the five county area for all of the agencies involved in the system. She stated that other issues to be addressed would include how the Board would be set up, who would administer the program, and other issues, but the Committee was also waiting for direction from the State. Ms. Warner stated that she was not asking for action on the Seminole County document.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board wanted to change its original decision for its SDA, which was to remain as Flagler, Sumter, Volusia and Lake Counties, or if additional information could be provided today that would show that it would be better for Lake County to be a part of the five counties, as listed.
Ms. Warner stated that the reason an overview of the Workforce Development Consortium was being presented was to show that this was not just a Private Industry Council issue, but it affected many areas of the community, and many agencies in the County.
Ms. Mary Jo Rager, Director of Business and Technology, Lake Sumter Community College, addressed the Board and stated that she served as a representative of the Working Committee addressing workforce development in the region. Ms. Rager stated that the material, which she presented to the Board, was to provide the Board with an update, as far as the Workforce Development activities were concerned, in the five county area. The material consisted of the following information:
Why Block Grants & Consolidation
State of Florida Preparation
Governor Chiles' Executive Order 95-468
Schedule of Activities
Programs Begin Consolidated
Period of Authorization
Role of Governor
State Governing Body Collaborative Process
Local Collaborative Board
Appointment to Local Workforce Development Board
Number of Funding Streams
Lake County Impact
Ms. Warner informed the Board that Ms. Brenda Christman, Project Independence, Ms. Kim Shaver, HRS Representative, Dr. Robert Westrick, President, Lake Sumter Community College, Mr. Ken Bragg, Lake County Schools, and Mr. John Weed, Private Industry Council, were present in the audience, and they had been working on the process being discussed.
Ms. Kim Shaver addressed the Board and stated that District 13, which she represented, spread across five counties. It was noted that no matter what organization occurred, there would be some separation of her units of county government within District 13.
Dr. Bob Westrick addressed the Board and stated that this had to be the most confusing legislation, or enactment of rules, because there were so many rules that were flexible, and so many guidelines that had not been established. He stated that his approach had been to work with the process as best he could, and to get the team together as soon as possible, in order to take advantage of the opportunities of the so called savings that might occur in the future. He stated that the educational community of Lake Sumter Community College, the Lake County School Districts, and Sumter County School Districts were together on this issue, and they were going to try to work with the Board to make the effort worth while for the two county area. Dr. Westrick explained that he had taken the approach that it would be going with the five county area, because, at this time, he felt it would be the best approach, and he would be working with the school districts, as well as the other community colleges. He stated that, after seeing how the Board had set the tone, by working with the Orlando area and economic development, it already had an investment, and therefore, he, as well as the other superintendents, felt that they needed to be tying in with that direction.
Discussion occurred regarding communication that had been relayed to the Board, on a number of occasions, that the Sumter County Commission was not supportive of going into the five county group.
Ms. Warner informed the Board that the EDC, Orlando, was on the Sumter County Commission agenda to do the same presentation as the one today, and that there had been representation from Sumter County at the Working Committee meetings. She noted that a copy of all of the information, as well as a summary of the meetings, had been sent to the Board.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was of the understanding that Sumter County had adopted a Resolution very similar to Lake County, in support of a different grouping of counties.
Mr. Ken Bragg explained that Sumter County had sent representatives to the Convener meeting that was held in Lake County, and stated that Sumter County had taken action to accept the five county region, as proposed by the Job Education Partnership, and the decision was passed on to the Governor. Mr. Bragg stated that the school system was trying to work within the guidelines that the State had proposed, and the school system, and the School Board, felt that this was the better approach for the education programs, and for the manpower training responsibilities that were currently in place.
Mr. John Weed, PIC, addressed the Board and stated that he had been meeting with the Sumter County Commission, and the Commission had strongly indicated that it did not want to go with Orange County. The Sumter County Commission was hoping that the Board would be passing a SDA region for JTPA funds, which the Board had the right to do. The Sumter County Commission would then do the same, and Lake and Sumter Counties would become a SDA for all JTPA funds. He was suggesting that PIC formerly ask the Governor to be a Consortium with Lake and Sumter Counties, as an individual SDA. He stated that Volusia and Flagler Counties would not be involved in this at all, and PIC could contract out the administration, if it chose to do so.
Mr. Larry Tomasetti, Volusia, Lake, Flagler PIC, addressed the Board and stated that PIC would not be involved with a Lake, Sumter Consortium other than helping with the transition.
Mr. Weed noted that the waiver that was sent to Tallahassee by Lake County had been recognized, and the Governor had no choice on the SDA for the JTPA funds, because this issue had been strictly designated to go to the County Commissioners. He suggested that the Board continue with the contract it had with Volusia, Lake, Flagler PIC, to designate Lake and Sumter Counties as the SDA, and to notify all pertinent parties.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Lake County School Board had taken any official action on the issue being discussed, with Mr. Bragg noting that the Chairman of the School Board had stated that she would prefer to be with the State's suggested organizational lineup, which was a five county region.
Commr. Swartz addressed the question of the Chairman as to whether the Board wanted to change its position from its original Resolution and stated that the Board may want to further limit the scope of its direction it had previously taken and designate Lake and Sumter Counties as the SDA. His feeling had been all along that Lake County was clearly in a transition period of time, and the best place to be in the transition would be in some association with those which the County has had a good working relationship for many years, and that was through the Volusia, Lake and Flagler PIC. The accountability issue was also important to him, and based on the recommendations and input from Lake County's PIC people, who have been appointees from this Board for many years, and as a result of the letter from the Governor asking for a formal response from each County Commission, with regard to the official designation of the SDAs, he was prepared to make a motion.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to modify the Board's original recommendation, to be one of a SDA of Lake and Sumter Counties, and, if there were any waivers necessary, to accompany that decision with those waivers and requests.
Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that, during the time of transition, even though Lake County had economic development contacts with EDC and the Orange County area, it also was very strongly pursuing an independent economic stance, and the development of an independent economic community. He felt that this motion put the Board in the best possible posture to determine curriculum for Workforce Development, with the County still benefiting from its association with the larger counties.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not have any concerns regarding Lake County's relationship with other counties. The County could try this on its own, but needed to realize that there were still a lot of unanswered questions, and things could change in time.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt this was a compromise, and eventually Lake County would be going into the other five counties. She felt that Sumter County would have some of the same concerns as Lake County of going into Orange County. She stated that the motion would not preclude Lake County from making a change at some time in the future. Commr. Hanson stated that she would have been more comfortable, if the School Board had actually voted on the issue.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, clarified that the School Board may not have been asked to take a stand on the issue.
Commr. Swartz clarified that the Governor had indicated that a letter from the chief elected official be forwarded to him. In addition, he felt it was important to communicate to the Sumter County Commission the Board's action today, and to forward them a copy of the letter, so that they were aware of the action.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Tomasetti stated that, in order to make the transition for the 130 people in Lake County relatively easy, he suggested that the PIC maintain its status as the grant recipient administrator and planner for the JTPA portion of the program, until the transition was made, but certainly no later than December 31, 1996.
It was determined by the Board that no action would be taken on the issue being suggested by Mr. Tomasetti, at this time.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 1 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2 p.m.
WORKSHOP: Impact Fee Presentation by Lake County Conservation Council
Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting and stated that the Board had previously decided that time would be set aside for the discussion of the impact fee study jointly with the cities, the County, and the Leesburg Chamber of Commerce, and it had agreed to allow time for the Conservation Council to present its findings, in relation to the issue of impact fees, which the Council would do today. He stated that the floor would not be open for general discussion, there would be a workshop for all interested parties, and the date would be announced at the completion of the presentation.
Ms. Nadine Foley, President, Lake County Conservation Council, addressed the Board and stated that it was the desire of the Council to see a continuation of spacious living with ample green space for the residents, and this spurred the Council to look for ways to responsibly manage growth, and to pay for the quality of life. The members of the Council had studied the issue of increasing impact fees, with the results to be presented to the Board today. It was clear to the Council that increasing impact fees would be fairer to all Lake County residents now, and in the future. The Committee, as chaired by Mr. Mark Schneider, prepared the reports and had presented them to the Lake County Conservation Board, and they were approved. The reports were presented at the meetings, and in the newsletters to the general membership. The consensus of the membership was in support of an increase in impact fees, to better pay for the cost of the infrastructure needed by future development.
Mr. Mark Schneider addressed the Board to review the revision of the Impact Fee structure in Lake County, which was based on a study titled "Comprehensive Impact Fee Study" compiled by Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. (RS&H) dated December 1994. Mr. Schneider directed the Board's attention to the first page of the handout material and the Methodology, which was the formula that was used to calculate the difference between the current impact fee schedule and 100% of impact, as calculated in the RS&H study. This formula was based on linear growth and yielded a conservative estimate. Mr. Schneider continued to discuss, in detail, the information provided in the backup material relating to Current and Proposed Impact, Current Inventory of Facilities, Growth Rate, and Conclusions. He stated that the end result of the tabulation of listed information showed that a loss of potential impact fee revenue of over $216 million in a period of 16 years would force the County to either reduce the level of service, or to find a different source of revenue for these impacts. Mr. Schneider noted that there was a study conducted by Dr. Leon Hammer, which showed that growth almost invariably led to higher taxes. This led to the stated position of the members of the Lake County Conservation Council, that new growth did not pay for itself, and the vast majority of the residents of Lake County could see no benefit from increased growth. He stated that the Council believed that the present subsidy on new development should be minimized; that increased impact fees would help move the County to an economic basis that would more truly represent a free market economy and away from corporate welfare. The Council was also aware that even a fully implemented impact fee schedule would not totally pay for new development, but was a step in the right direction.
Commr. Swartz addressed the following language in the Conclusions presented in the backup material, which stated the following: "The only other option available would be a decrease in the level of service. A decrease in the level of service could have the unintended affect of slowing or stopping growth by making Lake County an undesirable or unfeasible place to live or do business."
Mr. Schneider explained that it was not the Council's position that impact fees would slow or stop growth, but that most of the people and members of the Council wanted a better quality of life for Lake County, and this would be the proper approach. He stated that personally he did not have a real problem with targeting proper industries, but impact fees would give a tax incentive to all industries. Mr. Schneider stated that, in reviewing the study prepared by the Leesburg Chamber of Commerce, it appeared that it had used growth figures that were higher than the ones he used. He discussed his findings in reviewing the Property Appraiser's data, as compared to the previous study by the Leesburg Chamber of Commerce, and in terms of additional impacts and revenues. He also addressed his conclusions and stated that the cost of rights-of-way purchases should be included in impact fees.
Mr. Barry Brown, Planner II, addressed the Board and stated that, in regards to the accuracy of numbers using the methodology presented by Mr. Schneider, he felt they were appropriate. He stated that the $216 million needed to be reduced by 20% given the consultant's study, which would make the figures closer to $172 million.
Mr. Schneider stated that he felt the real estate research consultant used a higher growth rate than he used, so it would not be discounted the total 20%, but a portion of it.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the next public workshop would be held February 20, 1995, at 2 p.m., and the public hearing would be held March 19, 1996.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 2:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
PRESENTATION - Quarterly Stormwater Update
It was noted that Ms. Lora Bailey, Engineer III, Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Ms. Kathy McDonald, Program Coordinator, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, were present for the update on stormwater.
Ms. Bailey discussed the following information and highlighted key items that she felt were of interest to the Board:
Accomplishments During 1QFY95/96
Community Rating System (CRS) modification
Stormwater Funding Plan Development
Stormwater Utility workshop
Study of the Hicks Ditch Watershed
Aerial Topographic Mapping
Dora Basin Stormwater Master Plan
S.R. 19 drainage study
Short Term Goals - 2QFY96
Hicks Ditch Study
S.R. 19 Study
Aerial Topographic Mapping
Long Term Goals
Coordination with Lake County Cities
Basin capital improvements
Stormwater Section Costs
This information included a chart reflecting the expense or encumbrance, FY93/94 Total, FY94/95 Total/ and 1QFY95/96 amount.
Stormwater Management Program
Board Request Follow-Up
During the discussion, Commr. Swartz suggested that Ms. Bailey schedule a presentation to the Board, so that it could see what information staff was presenting to the public.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, discussed looking at developing a very basic educational booklet like the one staff had just completed for the budget, particularly in light of the action taken by the Board at its Retreat, when it moved the stormwater and water quality issues into the overall lake issue. She felt that a handbook could be prepared that would describe a basin, and other issues relating to stormwater.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the County Manager set aside time for the presentation.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to move the April 16 Board Meeting to April 9, due to Lake County Day in Tallahassee.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to set Student Government Days for March 19 and April 9, 1996.
Discussion occurred regarding the appointment of 15 individuals to serve on the Lake County Charter Development Committee.
Commr. Hanson stated that the County Manager had suggested readvertising, because there had not been enough applications received, but she recommended that each Commissioner look within his own district rather than readvertising.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that one additional application had been received, which she handed out to the Board.
No action was taken on the appointments, at this time.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that the Code Enforcement Board specified categories of appointments, in terms of expertise. She stated that none of the applicants appeared to have an engineering, or realtor background, therefore, she recommended readvertising for the vacancies. She further stated that Mr. George Wood had indicated that he would be interested in reappointment.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the reappointment of Mr. George Wood, in the architect position, to the Code Enforcement Board.
Commr. Gerber explained that there were applicants that could fill the vacant positions and noted that the language stated the following: "shall be appointed on the basis of experience or interest in the fields of zoning, building and the environment."
She stated that the applicants were well qualified to serve.
Commr. Gerber made a motion to appoint Mr. Daniel Tarry and Ms. Bonnie Roof to serve in the vacant positions.
Commr. Swartz seconded the motion for discussion and questioned what latitude the Board had with the appointments being proposed.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that it would be up to the Board to determine whether it had made a good faith effort to try and fill the vacancies within the categories.
Mr. Tommy Leathers, Chief Code Compliance Officer, informed the Board of the current members serving on the Code Enforcement Board, and the capacities in which they were serving. He noted that two meetings had to be postponed for the lack of a quorum.
Commr. Good called for the question, and the motion was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Ms. Julian Harper, and the reappointment of Ms. June Noblitt, to the Planning and Zoning Commission, for two year terms ending February 28, 1998 (District 2).
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Robert Herndon, and the reappointment of Mr. Donald Miller to the Planning and Zoning Commission, for two year terms ending February 28, 1998 (District 4).
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Bill Mobley to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/UTILITIES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board had been provided with a letter that had been received from Lake Groves Utilities. The request they made to the IRS for an advanced ruling approving the arrangement set out in the Public Private Partnership Agreement between Lake County and Lake Groves Utilities, Inc. had been declined, and under the terms of the agreement, the contract would terminate. He was requesting that the Board allow the Chairman and County Manager to meet with them, as well as other utilities in the area, to conclude their agreement, and to try and develop a plan for utilities in that area.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to authorize the Chairman, County Manager, and County Attorney to meet with Lake Groves Utilities, Inc. and others to discuss the provision of public utility services in south Lake County within the area previously the subject of the Public Private Partnership Agreement.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he had tentatively scheduled, and would like to formally request, a closed meeting with the Board. The meeting has been scheduled for February 27, 1996, at 1:30 p.m., and he anticipated that it would take approximately one hour.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to schedule an executive session for Tuesday, February 27, 1996, at 1:30 p.m., as requested by the County Attorney.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that 157 letters had been sent out to obtain outside counsel for the Code Enforcement Board, the Environmental Control Board, and the Board of Examiners. Mr. Minkoff stated that he was ready to make a recommendation to the Board, and to retain them.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, recommended that the County Attorney make the selection, with agreements being brought back to the Board as an agenda item.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved for the County Attorney to retain the outside counsel, as recommended.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board had authorized staff to institute a suit against Phoenix Construction. The time came for an answer to be due, and instead of receiving an answer, the County received a check for the full amount plus $1,000 for interest, court costs, and attorney's fees. He stated that, once the check cleared, the suit would be dismissed.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES
It was noted that Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, Mr. Allen Hewitt, Water Resource Specialist, and Mr. Walter Wood, Water Resources Branch Supervisor, were present to discuss the proposed Ordinance that would amend the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations Chapter VI, Resource Protection Standards Section 6.06.01.F.2.
Mr. Bergmann stated that the County had some trouble with mining exemptions, and the proposed change to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) would allow excess overburden generated, as a result of the bona fide construction, to be removed offsite without a mining site plan and mining operation permit under two procedures, as follows: a. removal of overburden without approval of County Manager or designee; b. removal of overburden with written approval of County Manager or designee. He explained, in detail, the criteria for each procedure.
Discussion occurred regarding the urgency of the request to advertise the proposed Ordinance.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that staff tries to get changes out to the development community for review and comment, prior to the time an Ordinance is advertised, and this had not been done. She stated that staff could bring the request back in two weeks, and in the meantime, the changes would be sent out for comment and review.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there would be some type of bonding, in cases where someone stopped the mining, or some type of reclamation.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that Subsection a. was written as a real de minimis type of removal, so those different types of protection would not be necessary, but Subsection b., which would be much more of a substantial removal would have those protections available in it. He stated that it was written with Subsection a. to be a matter of right, and there would be no bond or security provided for it.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like this issue reviewed, because someone could go astray and create a problem and not have any recourse.
Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Wood answered questions of the Board regarding physiognomy and topography of land, and the amount of overburden that could be removed, as defined in the conditions being presented to the Board.
Ms. Whittle stated that the Ordinance would be brought back to Board for permission to advertise at the next meeting.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that the Board had requested a meeting with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) on the north/south bypass, and it had been scheduled for Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 10 a.m. The meeting would be held in the Board Meeting Room.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that, at the Retreat Meeting, the Board had discussed the Pride Initiative that would be started with County employees. The kick off breakfast would be on February 23, 1996, and the Board members would be notified of the specific work site at a later time.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER GERBER
Commr. Gerber requested an update on the Lufnet process for the property located in the area of US 27/SR 19 and the toll road.
Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager, explained that the card that would be noticing the introductory meeting would be printed in house and distributed to certain County committees, and a letter would be sent to all of the property owners. She noted that the meeting would be held March 3, 1996, at 4 pm., at the Public Safety Complex.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON
Commr. Hanson made a motion to eliminate the permitted category for bars and taverns in commercial zoning classifications, and to replace it with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). She stated that the Land Development Regulation, that would be coming forward to the Board, eliminated bars and taverns all together in C-1 zoning.
The motion died for the lack of a second.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel that the Board could take action on such a motion when the issue had not been published.
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director of Planning and Development, stated that staff would be making several minor changes to the draft of the LDR before it was advertised. He noted that staff could accommodate the change to a CUP in C-1, but the idea of C-2 had not been listed.
Commr. Hanson clarified that it was her intent to have CUPs in all commercial.
Commr. Swartz felt that, as a more reasonable approach to the issue, the Board probably needed a different C-1, or a C-1 that was really designed for the more rural, low density community whereby uses in it would be much more restrictive. Then there could be a classification more like the existing C-1, and then a C-2, which would be a heavier commercial use. He felt it was important that the Board not make motions and decisions today without going through the public process.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, when the
Board started looking at its options and opportunities, it needed to keep in mind Section 1 of the Property Rights Act, which stated that, if the County took away vested or existing rights, the County could end up paying for them.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, as the issues were considered by staff, it should look at seeing what might be reasonable and possible within the context of more rural, even the rural villages concept, and what would be allowed in those, as opposed to all C-1 or C-2.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #5
Commr. Cadwell reminded the Board of the Town Hall meeting scheduled in Sorrento on February 8, 1996, at 7 p.m.
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board of the March of Dimes functions that had been planned, which included Wednesday, March 6, 1996, the Jail and Bail event, and Saturday, March 16, 1996, the celebrity waiter function at the Olive Garden, from 6:30 - 9 p.m.
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that faxes were being received from the Florida Association of Counties regarding legislative issues. If the Board has taken a particular stance, he was responding on behalf of the Board; if there was an issue that the Board had not taken a stance, it would be brought back to the Board before he responded.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK