The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 23, 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; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ava Kronz, Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, County Finance; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, under his business, he would like to discuss the case of Carswell vs. Lake County and noted that he would be asking the Board to make an offer of judgment in the case.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda, for action.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Community Services/Contracts, Leases and Agreements
State Agencies/Public Health
Request from Community Services for acceptance and approval of the Third Amendment to the Contract between the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services County Public Health Unit and Lake County.
Committees/Community Services/Public Health/Resolutions
Request from Community Services for approval and execution of the Resolution amending Resolution 1995-211, creating the Lake County Comprehensive Health Care Committee.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request from Community Services for approval of the third quarter payment of $38,329.00 to LifeStream Behavioral Center, for FY 1995-96. Total expenditure, pursuant to Florida Statute 394.76.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request from Community Services for approval of the payment of the monthly Medicaid Hospital bill, in the amount of $49,205.79, and Medicaid Nursing Home bill, in the amount of $39,359.73, for the month of May, 1996.
Community Services/Municipalities
Request from Community Services to acknowledge receipt of For Your Information Item: The City of Clermont has voted to extend the CUP for continued use of the Modular Building at the Clermont Health Department on DeSoto Street, in Clermont. Resolution No. 909 was approved, with a number of conditions: The County will report every three months on the progress of the construction of a new facility; place a "skirt" around the bottom of the modular, to hide the tie-down; if construction of a new facility has not begun within one year from the extension date of June 15, 1997, the CUP shall become null and void; if construction has begun on the new facility within one year from the extension date of June 25, 1996, the CUP will be valid for a period of two years, or until said facility is completed, whichever comes first.
Committees/Public Health/State Agencies
Request from Public Services for approval to add a representative from the Florida Department of Transportation to the Selection Committee for the Lake County Model Validation/Model Update and Year 2020 Plan.
Committees/Public Health/State Agencies
Request from Public Services for approval to add a representative from the Florida Department of Transportation to the Selection Committee for the Lake County Transit Development Plan.
Public Services/Subdivisions
Request from Public Services for acceptance of the Final Plat for Highland Lakes, Phase VI, which is a replat of Highland Lakes, Phase III.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Grants/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute the Litter Control and Prevention Grant Application for 1996-97; approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute and submit reimbursement requests, as needed; and approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute the 1996-97 Interlocal Agreement with Keep Lake County Beautiful, Inc. (KLCB), which is related to the grant funds.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT'D.)
Accounts Allowed/Fire and Emergency Services
Request from Fire and Emergency Services for approval of payment, in the amount of $45,720.00, to Greater Construction Corporation, for reimbursement of fire fees erroneously collected.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Building Department
Department of Growth Management/Subdivisions
Request from the Department of Growth Management for acceptance and execution of the Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Emerald Greens of Lake County, Inc., and for the issuance of two building permits, for models, in the Emerald Greens Subdivision, Phase 2, prior to acceptance and recordation of the Final Plat. Emerald Greens, Phase 2 consists of 16 lots in Section 14, Township 19S, Range 25E - Commissioner District 3.
Accounts Allowed/Public Services/Subdivisions
Request from Public Services for acceptance of the Final Plat for Palisades, Phase 2-A; approval and execution of a Developer's Agreement, for construction of improvements; and acceptance of a Letter of Credit, for performance, in the amount of $400,542.81.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
CLERK'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Clerk/Finance
Request from the Clerk of Circuit Court for approval to distribute a Request for Proposal (RFP) for financial adviser services to various qualified firms and to advertise in trade publications and newspapers, as considered necessary.
Budgets/Budget Transfers
Request from the Clerk of Circuit Court for approval of the following Budget Transfers:
Transfers:
1. Fund: General
Department: Human Resources
From: Contingency $19,346
To: Labor Relations Retirement $19,346
Transfer #: 96-249
Justification: Pursuant to F.S. 121.111, employers will make retirement contributions for employees who have been called to active duty. Contributions are based on the rate of pay at the time the employee reported for active duty.
2. Fund: General
Department: Fire & Emergency Services
From: Contingency $26,581
To: Several $26,581
Transfer #: 96-250
Justification: Due to unbudgeted costs, such as the retirement of an employee; utility costs of the new Shelter; and increasing sterilization costs, a transfer from Contingency is needed to sustain Animal Control activities for the remainder of the year.
3. Fund: County Fire Control
Department: Fire & Emergency Services
From: Special Reserve $45,720
To: Other Current Charges $45,720
Transfer #: 96-251
Justification: Transfer needed for the reimbursement of Fire fees collected from Greater Construction Corporation.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 817 - W. T. COX, JR. - MONTVERDE AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by W. T. Cox, Jr. to vacate road rights-of-way and tracts of land in Lake Highlands Company, Section 15, Township 22, Range 26, in the Montverde area - Commissioner District 2. He stated that the property in question is bordered by the turnpike on the south side and is located just southwest of Montverde. He stated that there is a replacement subdivision that is better suited for the land, rather than the 10 acre grid, as shown on a map on display; therefore, he was recommending approval to vacate the east/west and north/south easements and the tracts in question. Mr. Stivender stated that Florida Power has asked to retain a road that is located between Tracts 4 and 29 and Tracts 12A and 21, because they have an existing line there, and that the Petitioner has no problem with Florida Power doing so.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 817, by W. T. Cox, Jr., to vacate road rights-of-way and tracts, Lake Highlands Company, Section 15, Township 22, Range 26, Montverde area - Commissioner District 2, with the exception of the road that Florida Power requested remain open, as alluded to earlier.
PETITION NO. 820 - JIM STIVENDER, JR. - HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from him, as Senior Director of Public Services, to vacate rights-of-way in Section 2, Township 21, Range 25, with the nearest town being Howey-in-the-Hills - Commissioner District 3. He stated that it was to correct an error in a right-of-way deed that was acquired by the County some years ago, that placed the rights-of-way on the north side of an individual's property, rather than the south side, and that this request was to remove it from the record and clear the title.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Ms. Marian Blair, whose property borders the property in question, appeared before the Board in support of the vacation.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 820, by Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, to vacate rights-of-way, in Section 2, Township 21, Range 25, Nearest town: Howey-in-the-Hills - Commissioner District 3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
PETITION NO. 26-96-3 - C-1 TO R-7 - LEE EDISON GAVIN, SR.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), for the construction of a single family residence. He stated that the parcel of property in question is approximately 1.10 +/- acres in size and is located in the Yalaha area, off Guava Street, in the East Addition of Bloomfield Subdivision. He stated that there are presently two single-family residences on the property, as well as a pair of abandoned structures. He stated that the property is located in the Urban Expansion land use category and is surrounded by primarily residential vacant land uses. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the rezoning, with a Developer's Agreement, limiting the overall development density. He stated that the property is presently zoned C-1, but, due to the Comprehensive Plan policies directing commercial development, it is unusable for commercial. He submitted an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a map (County Exhibit B) of the property, for the record.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Lee Gavin, Sr., Petitioner, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the case.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson questioned why staff was limiting the number of residences to one.
Mr. Richardson stated that it was due to the size of the property and the fact that there is an underlying plat with the property. He stated that there are two structures on the property that are to be removed, with one being replaced by the single-family residence in question, and that it would depend on the actual placement of that residence, as well as a lot of record determination.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would feel uncomfortable with limiting Mr. Gavin to only one residence on his property, when he may be able to obtain two lots of record. She stated that she realized it would depend on the placement of the residence in question, however, she did not feel that the Board should limit him to only one residence. She stated that she did not want him to have to go through a family lot split, should he have a child that may want to build a home on the property, in the future. She stated that she would feel better limiting the property to two residences, assuming it meets the other criteria.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz referred to Section 3 - Density Limitation, on Page 2 of the Developer's Agreement, noting that it gives the date of March 12, 1990, and that he did not understand the basis for said date. He stated that it was the first time he could remember seeing that date come through, in a Developer's Agreement.
Mr. Richardson stated that it was a standard date that has been contained in all the R-7 and R-8 Developer's Agreements, however, he could alter the language to reflect whatever the Board wished it to reflect.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Section 2 of the Developer's Agreement was probably not necessary, because the R-7 zoning would automatically limit it to residential and R-7 uses. He stated that he felt Section 2 conflicted with Section 3. He stated that, if the Board wished to limit the number of structures for the property to a maximum of four, then Section 3 should be changed to state "a maximum of four dwelling units can be placed on the property, if all other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are met."
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to amend Section 2 of the Developer's Agreement to remove the "a", before "single family", so that it states, "The owner agrees to limit the uses of the property to single family residential structure(s) and those uses allowed in R-7 (Mixed Residential) zoning."
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-7 (Mixed Residential), for the construction of single family residence(s), with staff's recommendation of approval and with approval of the Developer's Agreement, as amended.
PETITION NO. 24-96-1 - R-8 TO RP - OSMOND N. BERNARD
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, Department of Growth Management, explained this request, stating that the applicant in this case is Mr. Osmond N. Bernard, being represented by Mr. Steve Richey's Office. He stated that the request is for a rezoning from R-8 (Mixed Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), for construction of residential duplexes, or a residential triplex. He stated that the existing zoning is R-8 and the parcel in question is .81 +/- acres, in the Leesburg area, off C-468 and Jones Drive. He stated that there is an existing one story house on the property and that it is within the Urban land use category. He stated that the surrounding area is a mixture of municipal, as well as county, and that the overall density within the area is approximately three dwelling units per acre. He stated that there is one letter of support and one letter of opposition on file. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. He submitted an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a map (County Exhibit B) of the property, for the record.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, with Steve Richey's Office, in Leesburg, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant. He noted that he had a presentation, regarding the request, as well as a site plan and video tape of the area in question.
At this time, Mr. Crawford reviewed the video (Applicant's Exhibit A) and the site plan (Applicant's Exhibit B) of the property in question and answered questions from the Board regarding same. He stated that Mr. Bernard plans to build three (3) duplexes, each consisting of 820 square feet, on said property.
Mr. Crawford requested the Board to amend Section 2 of the applicant's Developer's Agreement, which states that the applicant agrees to limit the property to a residential duplex. He stated that the applicant would like to have said language changed to residential triplex. He then requested the Board to omit Section 3 of the Developer's Agreement, because Section 2 already explains how the applicant can use the property. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz noted some concerns he had about duplexes and where their driveways are located (usually along the sides of the duplexes, or in front of them, near roadways), with regard to the safety of children who may live in the duplexes. He suggested that staff look at the issue of duplexes and come up with a better location for the driveways.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to amend Section 2 of the Developer's Agreement, changing the word duplex to triplex, and to omit Section 3, limiting the density of the property.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-8 (Mixed Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), for the construction of a residential triplex.
PETITION NO. CUP96/7/2-1 - CUP IN A - KEVIN M. CONWAY
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner II, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board stating that this was a request from Mr. Kevin Conway, for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for the recreational use of paint ball fields, which includes two paint ball fields and an office. He stated that the proposed building is to be donated to Law Enforcement (Phase II), for training. He stated that Phase II of the project would include a 50' x 100' indoor paint ball field and Phase III would include possible batting cages. He stated that the property in question is 5.5 +/- acres, in the Leesburg area, off Radio Road, approximately one mile south of the CR 44A intersection. He stated that there are presently two houses on the site, noting that one is proposed to be demolished and the other to be donated to Lake County Law Enforcement, for training. He stated that the future land use category is Suburban and is primarily a rural area, with a mixture of agricultural and residential uses on the surrounding properties.
Mr. Richardson stated that staff was recommending denial of the proposed request, however, should the Board choose to approve the request, staff would recommend striking the use of the remaining house for law enforcement training, based on not having any control over what that training would involve for that particular area. He stated that the applicant was requesting to use a portion of a larger tract of property to construct and operate the paint ball game fields. He stated that staff is of the opinion that the requested use is under the Commercial Recreation use classification and this type of use, as outlined in the Zoning Classification Matrix, is only allowed in Commercial Zoning Districts. He stated that the property does not meet the Lake County Comprehensive Plan's Objectives and Policies concerning Commercial Locations, thus, the reason staff is recommending denial. He submitted an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a map (County Exhibit B) of the property, for the record.
Mr. Richardson stated that, in summary, staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is a commercial recreation type use and the commercial recreation uses require commercial designations, or a CUP, within the agricultural zoning. He stated that the property in question does not meet the Lake County criteria for direct commercial development and the potential impacts in the rural area, where the proposed development is located, are estimated to be significant, given the rural nature of the area. He stated that, while staff recognizes that space is necessary for this type of use, they feel the use would be incompatible with the surrounding land uses. He stated that there are no letters in opposition to the request, or in support of the request, on file.
Commr. Hanson stated that she saw very little difference between this request and a request that went before the Board at a previous meeting, concerning approval of a baseball field/school that was proposed on Hwy. 437, that staff recommended, stating that it was commercial recreation. She stated that she has been struggling to get a classification that will allow the County to have commercial recreation in the Agricultural classification, because just the term Agricultural tends to delete or remove the ability to have other quasi-commercial and recreational uses.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the densities involved in this request are different than those involved with the proposed baseball complex.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if the Hwy. 437 location was not the right one for commercial recreation and staff recommended it, she found a conflict with that. She noted, too, that there is no opposition in this case and it is more of a commercial area than the proposed development on Hwy. 437. She stated that that is the basis of her case, noting that it may not be more commercial, but it is certainly a higher density and less rural, so she found some conflicts in staff's recommendations.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Kevin Conway, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that commercial property surrounds his property, which he elaborated on. He stated that there are three existing homes on the property, one he lives in, and the other two are vacant. He then answered questions regarding the paint ball games, with regard to how they are played and how many people would be participating at one time.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Good stated that there are certain identifiable agricultural practices and he feels the County has begun to stray away from that, in some of the urban areas, which he elaborated on. He stated that the proposal before the Board this date does not seem to have an agricultural use, but does seem to have a commercial use. He stated that he feels when staff looks at these types of proposals that they need to look very seriously at the commercial use, versus the agricultural use, and, if it is not going to be an agricultural use, then staff should not give it a CUP in A (Agricultural), but should zone the property into a commercial use. He stated that the Board needs to address the issue.
Commr. Swartz stated why he felt staff had given the request a classification of CUP in A (Agricultural). He stated that he felt they outlined the appropriate points and that their recommendation of denial was appropriate. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission obviously struggled with it, because they had a 4-4 tie vote, which he noted is a negative recommendation, not a positive one. He stated that he felt staff's recommendation was the correct one and that he would support it.
Commr. Gerber expressed a concern she had that most of the land around the property in question is rental and that the owners, rather than the rental occupants, may have been the ones that were notified, rather than the residents, and that the residents may not have been aware of what was going in beside them. She stated that she felt there may have been more opposition than what was noted, had the residents felt they had a voice.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was going to vote against the request, even though she felt the property in question was a good location for a paint ball field, because she felt the site was too small for the proposed activity.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for recreational use of paint ball fields, which include two paint ball fields; an office; a proposed building to be donated to Law Enforcement (Phase II); a 50' x 100' indoor paint ball field (Phase II); and possible batting cages (Phase III).
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCES/COMMUNITY SERVICES/FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor, for its first reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 11, LAKE COUNTY CODE, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ARTICLE II, EMERGENCY SERVICES, SECTION 11-19, CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO PROVIDING FOR FACTORS IN DETERMINING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one present wished to discuss the proposed ordinance with the Board.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board adopted Ordinance 1996-48 (later changed to 1996-59, due to the fact that number "48" had already been assigned to another ordinance), as read on its first and final reading, by title only.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCES/PUBLIC SERVICES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor, for its first reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO APPROVE THE RELEASE OF MURPHY ACT ROAD RESERVATIONS BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND; CREATING ARTICLE VI OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION AND FEE; PROVIDING FOR DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENT APPLICATION, REVIEW BY THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE AND COORDINATION WITH THE APPROVAL OF AFFECTED MUNICIPALITY; PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS FOR REVIEW; PROVIDING FOR APPEAL; PROVIDING FOR RULES OF CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff was moving forward with a blanket lifting of the Murphy Act Road Reservations, across the Board.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, stated that he had spoken with the State about the matter and they felt it was inappropriate to take a large area and lift the reservations. He stated that they consider it more of a title clearing process, therefore, are dealing with it on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that the problem he has with doing it in masses is that the County may give something away that they may find out later they needed.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one present wished to discuss the proposed ordinance with the Board.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 1996-49 (later changed to 1996-60, due to the fact that number "49" had already been assigned to another ordinance), as read on its first and final reading by title only.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/INFORMATION SERVICES
Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director, Information Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that, at a previous meeting, the Board directed him to look at what other counties have done, with regard to the issue of cablevision franchises, and that he found the city of Quincy, Florida, to be as close as one can get to the Lake County franchise. He reviewed a handout (Franchise Renewal Positions Proposed for Lake County), which contained the following eight recommendations from the Cable Television Committee, with regard to the issue of negotiating the renewal of the Lake County cablevision franchise, at which time he answered questions regarding same:
1. One time grant of $50,000.00 to Lake/Sumter Community College for television program equipment upgrade.
2. Local government utilization of Lake County Cablevision fiber network.
3. Franchise term of 7 years with automatic renewal to 11 and 15 years with service and operation compliance
review.
4. Three (3) public Educational and Government Access Channels (PEG).
5. Renewal fee of $2,500.00 per participant.
6. Expansion and upgrade of service plan and anticipated date(s) for same.
7. Fixed rate for service connection (not dependent on numbers of outlets).
8. 24-Hour; 7-day Customer Service.
It was the consensus of the Board to exclude Item No. 8, with regard to negotiating the franchise renewal with Lake County Cablevision.
A brief discussion occurred regarding COMCAST and the various cities involved with same.
Mr. Thorburn informed the Board that, with regard to Item No. 7, he would like to have verbiage in the franchise agreement that states, unless a technician has to physically do something with a cablevision outlet, there should be no fee applied to a prewired house.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that she felt the list before the Board this date was a good one; however, she would like to see some of the Internet questions addressed.
Mr. Thorburn stated that he felt the County could add verbiage to Item No. 2, as to Internet accessibility, or connectivity, to allay the concerns of the Board, with regard to the matter.
Ms. Whittle stated that the County needed to craft the language carefully, so that the County will be in a position to collect additional franchise fees, on additional businesses. She noted that the contract covers only cable television. She stated that the situation is changing, with regard to the franchise fees, and with the recent action on the electric franchise fees, she expects to see some big changes within the next few years and she would not like for the County to have any kind of language in any of the agreements that would preclude the County from taking advantage of opportunities that might arise.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the County had the legal authority to pose a franchise fee on all telephone providers, then it could impose it on COMCAST, if they decided to do it, as well. He stated that the County could ensure that the language contained in the contract states that, if the County imposes a franchise fee on other types of services, that COMCAST will have to pay it too, if they are providing those services.
Commr. Swartz stated that he agreed with the first seven items, however, noted that, as the County goes through the negotiations, it is going to be important to have an evaluation made of what those things are going to cost a subscriber, before the contract comes back to the County.
Mr. Thorburn stated that he could propose it and then request that the cable company get back to him with any external costs to the subscribers.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, with regard to Item Nos. 1 and 5, the basic renewal fee costs be reviewed, in terms of what it is actually going to cost the County to negotiate and provide the new service, and (2) through the County Attorney's Office, that staff look at the ability for things, such as a one-time grant, to flow down into an initial renewal fee, or a renewal fee at periodic times, because things are changing so quickly in telecommunications and cable that seven years from now there may be some significant changes that will have to be made, for Lake Sumter Community College to continue its public education governmental broadcast, or there may be other changes. He stated that he would like to see the Board consider doing something, with regard to the renewal fee, to where the County can get back what the taxpayers are paying.
Mr. Thorburn interjected that the Federal Government has stated, in order to collect the franchise fee, it is incumbent upon the local franchise authority to spend some portion of that franchise fee for cable regulation, therefore, some portion of the franchise fee that the County is collecting is going from the General Revenue Fund into the Information Services budget, to handle complaints and various other things.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Information Services for approval to proceed with the Cable Television Committee recommendations, with the exception of Item No. 8; to look at possibilities, with regard to Item Nos. 1 and 5, as directed; and to determine what costs users of the system might bear, should any or all of said items be negotiated and required by the County in a new franchise.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
COMMITTEES/DEPARTMENT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT/RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Department of Growth Management for approval and execution of a Resolution amending Resolution No. 1995-86, to add three months to the original Environmental Education Task Force term of one year.
OTHER BUSINESS
DEPARTMENT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ZONING
The Board acknowledged the issuance of the following vested rights determinations:
That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 20 South, Range 24 East, Lying East of U.S. Highway 27; Less the North 200 Feet (Waterwise, Inc.) - Vested Rights Issued 6/24/96
Lake County denies any vested rights associated with property legally described as follows: that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 20 South, Range 24 East, lying East of U.S. Highway 27; less the North 200 feet.
Glenbrook PUD (Ordinance 74-90) - Vested Rights Issued 6/24/96
Lake County denies any vested rights associated with the Glenbrook Planned Unit Development (Ordinance No. 74-90).
Bella Vista Golf & Yacht Club PUD (Ordinance No. 38-87) - Vested Rights Issued 7/1/96
Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with Ordinance No. 38-87. Lake County will not deny the property owner, acting in good faith upon governmental acts, the right to develop the property in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance No. 38-87.
Notwithstanding any vested rights associated with Ordinance No. 38-87, the developer shall not be relieved from paying any fees associated with development orders issued by the County, or the concurrency management system adopted by Lake County.
Woodridge (Condev Orlando U.S. 27, Ltd.) PUD, Ordinance No. 42-90 - Vested Rights Issued 7/1/96
Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with property legally described in Ordinance No. 42-90. Lake County will not deny the property owner, acting in good faith upon governmental acts, the opportunity to continue development of the property.
For the purpose of this vested rights determination, acting in good faith upon governmental acts shall mean that:
1. a final development plan for property legally described in Ordinance No. 42-90 is approved by the Board of County Commissioners within one (1) year from the date of this vested rights determination, indicating amendments reflected in the Minutes of the February 6, 1992, Technical Review Committee meeting;
2. a final plat, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, has been recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida, for all residential development associated with Ordinance 42-90, as amended, within four (4) years from the date of this vested rights determination;
3. a building permit(s) has been obtained for a minimum of 170 multifamily dwelling units associated with Ordinance 42-90, as amended, for which physical development has commenced within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination;
4. a site plan for all commercial development associated with Ordinance 42-90, as amended, has been approved pursuant to the Lake County Land Development Regulations, within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination; and
5. a building permit(s) has been obtained for a minimum of 66,000 square feet of commercial development associated with Ordinance 42-90, ad amended, for which physical development has commenced within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determinations.
Notwithstanding any vested rights associated with Ordinance No. 42-90, as amended, the developer shall not be relieved from paying any fees associated with development orders issued by the County, or the concurrency management system adopted by Lake County.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Manager for approval to change the terms of Ms. Susan Weinstock and Mr. Lou Tally, appointed to the Cultural Affairs Council on July 9, 1996, from terms ending June 20, 1999 to terms ending June 20, 1997.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCES/DEPARTMENT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval to advertise the Ordinance Amending the Land Development Regulations to Remove any Reference to the Technical Review Committee.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/SUITS AGAINST THE COUNTY
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board about the details involving a suit between the County, Donald and Carliss Watson, and a group of Mr. and Mrs. Watson's neighbors, known as the Hill Group, with regard to a permit that Mr. and Mrs. Watson obtained from Lake County, for a mobile home in the Fruitland Park area. He stated that the permit was obtained after a mobile home count, which was done by county staff, showed that a majority of the dwellings within a half mile were mobile homes, so they would be entitled, under the County's Code to a mobile home permit. He stated that the County process, up to that point, had been not to count homes within adjacent municipalities, but to only count the unincorporated area. He stated that the Watsons were given their permit and moved their mobile home onto the site.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, subsequent to that, the Board discussed the issue and the County Attorney, at that time, gave an opinion and the official county opinion changed, to where the County counted everything within the circle, including the municipalities. He stated that the count was redone for the Watsons and they no longer had a majority of mobile homes, but it was actually a majority of conventionally built structures. He stated that the Watsons then applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals, both for a variance, as well as an appeal, to question whether or not inside the city should be counted and the Board of Adjustment determined that the full circle should be counted, including the cities, and granted them a variance, to allow them to keep the mobile home in place, because they had lawfully been given a permit and had relied on it.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that that variance was appealed in court and Judge Hill ordered that the case go back to the Board of Adjustment for a new hearing, to determine whether or not the variance should be given and, when it did, some of the members of the Board of Adjustment had changed and the Board denied the variance. He stated that the County is in a position now, where almost over an 18 month span, the Watsons had a home in place, the County in the interim had given a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling, but the home was now in violation of the County's Codes, because it did not meet the mobile home test and did not have a variance, even though the County had participated somewhat in approving it and leading to its placement there.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the County began to discuss enforcement methods and the Watsons, with their attorney, Ms. Leslie Campione, filed a petition for a Special Master Hearing, under the new Property Rights Act, and invoke those procedures. He stated that mediation was held on July 10, 1996 with Mr. Bob Williams; the Watsons, with their attorney, Ms. Campione; Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, as the negotiator for the County; Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney; and a group of neighbors, called the Hill Group, represented by Mr. Steve Richey. He stated that the mediation session ended with a Settlement Agreement, which County staff, the Watsons, and all the individuals comprising the Hill Group were able to enter into, which is what is before the Board this date. He stated that, as part of the Special Master process, said agreements require approval from the Board of County Commissioners, before they become effective, so staff negotiates with an eye towards what the Board might approve.
Mr. Minkoff summarized the Agreement, noting that the Watsons will deed the two lots that are involved in this case to the Special Master, Attorney Bob Williams, to be held in trust. He stated that, once they do that, they will have 30 days to remove two mobile homes, the one in question, as well as a mobile home on an adjacent lot. He stated that, once they deed the property, they will remove the mobile homes, leaving the wells, septic tanks, electrical service, etc., so that they can be used again.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Hill Group has agreed to give $20,000.00 to the County this date and do some title work on taking the property back, to make sure that there is good title, as well as some title work when the property is sold, and they have agreed to fund some additional monies, in case a contingency occurs. He stated that the County's obligation is that it pay the Watsons $66,000.00 for the land, at the closing, which will occur one to two weeks from this date, should the Board approve the agreement, and it is also agreeing to provide some survey work and pay the mediator's fee. He stated that, once the County acquires the land and the mobile homes are removed from it, the County and the Hill Group will market the land and sell it, either as one single family building lot, or two single family building lots, whichever will bring the most money.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, from that sale, the County will get the first $26,200.00, which, assuming the County netted exactly $26,200.00, that would mean that the Hill group would have paid $20,000.00 to resolve this matter and the County would have paid $20,000.00. He stated that, if the County gets more than $26,000.00 net, then the additional amount will be split between the Hill Group and the County. He stated that, if the County gets less than the $26,200.00, then the Hill Group agrees to pay the County one-half of the amount that is less. He stated that, in essence, the Hill Group and the County are splitting, equally, the costs of settling with the Watsons. He stated that the County anticipates that the property is worth between $20-30,000.00, so the ultimate cost to the County, to resolve the matter, will be $18-23,000.00.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval of the Settlement Agreement between Donald and Carliss Watson, the Hill Group, and Lake County, as presented this date.
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/SUITS AGAINST THE COUNTY
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, brought to the Board's attention the case of Martha Carswell vs. Lake County, which involves an automobile accident that occurred in the Sunnyside area. He stated that Mr. Steve Lengauer, Trial Counsel, has asked that the County make an offer of judgment in the amount of $500.00, noting that it would set the stage later to allow the County to claim attorney's fees in the case. He stated that it was not an admission of liability and recommended that the Board approve said judgment.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval of a judgment, in the amount of $500.00, to settle the case of Martha Carswell vs. Lake County.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:25 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m.
TIMES CERTAIN
BUDGET WORKSHOP - FY 1996-97
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, reviewed the Enhanced Budget Requests for FY 1996-97, as follows:
GENERAL OTHER
FUND FUNDS
July 11, 1996
Solid Waste
Adopt Enhanced/40 hour work week
budget with these exceptions:
Reduce revenues by the additional
transfers for Special Assessments.
That will put the total budget at
$15,894,290.00. $ (332,927)
Reduce corresponding expenditures
in Special Assessments. This will
put Capital Expenditures at the CM
Recommended Level, and reduce
Operating Expenditures by
($180,427.00). $ (332,927)
Reduction of administration fee
transfer to General Fund, based on
revised revenue estimates. $ 32,731 $ (32,731)
Public Services
Temporary Labor $ 30,000
Engineer II ($20,000 revenue from
Transportation Disadvantaged) $ 47,890
Upgrade to Engineer III $ 2,609
Downgrade Tech $ (4,614)
Special Assessments-Roads-County
Share $ 100,000
Parks - Youth Recreational Fund
to Cities $ 40,000
Fire and Recreational Services
Reorganization $ (15,330) $ (21,429)
Animal Control-Sterilization Program $ 11,000
July 12, 1996
Community Services
Part-time librarians (from grant this
year only) $ 12,337
Feasibility Study for Children's
Services (mid-range) $ 18,000
Probation-automation $ 35,000
July 18, 1996
Community Services/Tourism
Part-time Coordinator for Cultural
Affairs. Possible Grant from TDC. $ 5,000
Agricultural Education Service
Upgrade computers;purchase computers $ 5,000
Human Resources
Training Coordinator $ 24,008 $ 24,336
EDC
Additional Funding from Job Growth
Incentive Fund $ 300,000
Purchasing
Electric hole punch for reprographics $ 800
Growth Management
Revenue estimate revision $ (257,440)
Code Compliance Officer and truck $ 51,778
Deputy Building Official $ 48,000
Inspector with truck $ 59,649
Inspector with truck $ 59,649
Water Quality fees inadvertently
omitted from revenue sources $ (50,000)
Reduction of overtime $ (15,000)
Sheriff
Reduction in budget $ (58,862)
Aquatic probe $ 11,000
Reduction due to health care costs
- (unknown at this time)
July 19, 1996
Guardian Ad Litem
Part-time Clerical $ 11,602
Computer Services
Enhancements to existing cost
center (Additional $176,221). $ 107,130 $ 69,091
TOTAL $ 118,715
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, stated that the request from Community Services for a feasibility study, for Children's Services, was not something that was on her recommended list, up to this point in time; however, the Children's Services Commission made a strong case for it.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it would be a disaster to go forward, if the Board chose to do so, without a feasibility study.
Commr. Swartz suggested budgeting said funds in a Special Contingency Reserve Fund so that, as the Board goes forward, they can look in more detail at what they may be wanting to do, so that the Board and the Children's Services Commission has a good feel for where the County is going with it.
It was the consensus of the Board to do so.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, stated that the request for a part-time Coordinator for Cultural Affairs, to be paid for from a possible grant from the Tourist Development Council, may be a budget decision that the Board may want to hold off on and reevaluate at mid-year, since it has not yet been before the Tourist Development Council.
It was noted that the $5,000 allocated for said funds would be omitted from the Enhanced Budget Requests list, until a later date.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, stated that, prior to this year, the Board had budgeted $200,000.00 toward the Jobs Growth Incentive Fund; however, during this year, $300,000.00 had to be added to the fund. She stated that the request before the Board was a recommendation to recognize that fact and start the 1997 year with $500,000.00 in said fund.
Commr. Swartz questioned how much, if any, of the additional funds that the Board put into the fund earlier this budget year did the County anticipate would be left in the fund, at the end of this budget year.
Mr. Barry Brown, Director of Economic Development for Lake County, appeared before the Board stating that, out of the $500,000.00 that was budgeted this year, approximately $100,000.00 will be left at the end of this fiscal year.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board would be making that total $500,000.00, not $600.000.00, so, if $100,000.00 is the balance at the end of the year, then the Board would essentially be adding $200,000.00 to the $200,000.00 already in the fund.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the $500,000.00 is a marketing tool that the County uses, letting people know that it is available to them, if they qualify for it.
Ms. Whittle stated that, with regard to the Sheriff's budget, the County is adding $11,000.00 for an aquatic probe.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted to talk to the Sheriff about a request for two additional marine officers.
Commr. Swartz stated that there may be some other areas in the Sheriff's budget that the Board may want to consider, along with the request for the marine officers.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the matter should be readdressed with the Sheriff and noted that he would do so, before the final budget hearings.
Ms. Whittle stated that, as the Board requested, she budgeted a part-time clerical position for the Guardian Ad Litem Program.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel it was the County's responsibility to provide for said position. He stated that he did not feel the State was doing its job, with regard to the matter.
Commr. Swartz concurred, stating that he feels the County is caught between a rock and a hard place and the State knows it, so they do not fund some of the programs that are needed; therefore, the individuals come to their local officials for funding.
It was the consensus of the Board to fund the part-time clerical position for the Guardian Ad Litem Program.
Ms. Whittle stated that the request for funding from Computer Services, in the amount of $176,221.00, was to pay for two additional people to complete the office that was started during this fiscal year; however, noted that $82,515.00 of the $176,221.00 is in one-time-only start-up costs and could be funded from the Excess Carryforward Contingency account, due to the fact that some additional funds have been identified in said fund that it is felt will be available.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board would agree that this is going to save the County money in the long run.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that, during the budget process, the County eliminated 15 positions at the baseline. She stated that, if the County adds back the 8 new positions that have been identified this date, which includes the additional position in the Building Department, the County is still at 7 net cuts in authorized positions, for the upcoming year, which she noted is one of the things that the County has been attempting to do - fund the new services that were needed, by identifying areas where the County could eliminate programs.
At this time, Ms. Whittle, County Manager, reviewed the handout contained in the Board's backup material, titled Issues Needing Follow-up, as follows:
Lake Apopka Clean-up
Ms. Whittle informed the Board that staff had identified possible funding sources for the flow way project, for the Lake Apopka clean-up, as follows:
. Infrastructure Sales Tax
. Excess Cash Carryforward in the General Fund
. Issue long term debt with Racing Tax Revenues as pledge
. Fish Conservation Fund
. Tourism Tax
. Boating Improvement Funds
Ms. Whittle then referred to a memorandum from Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, stating that it was the opinion of the County Attorney's Office that it would be appropriate to use infrastructure sales tax for said project, as well as a memorandum from Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance, in which she indicates two alternatives for borrowing funds for said project.
Ms. Lehman informed the Board that the County could (1) refinance the Certificate of Indebtedness bonds for a range of 10 to 30 years, and (2) borrow short term funds from the FAC commercial loan program, which she elaborated on.
Commr. Swartz stated that the four areas he would like to see the County go into would be (1) the Boating Improvement Fund, (2) the Fish Conservation Fund, (3) Excess Cash Carryforward in the General Fund, and (4) the Tourism Tax Fund. He stated that he would be hesitant to see the County use the Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund, because the cash flow in that fund is not sufficient and he feels the County would have to borrow money and he did not want to see the County do that. He stated that he felt, with the other four sources of revenue, the County could make a significant commitment this year that would allow the County, with the other funds that were identified by the St. Johns River Water Management District, to make a serious contribution to the effort.
Ms. Whittle stated that she had brought to the Board possible funding sources for said project and had answered the question of whether or not the County could use Infrastructure Sales Tax funds, Boating Improvement funds, or Fish Conservation funds for same, because it was her understanding that the Board felt this matter was a priority project; however, she felt the appropriate thing to do, at this point, would be to include the project in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. She stated that there would be a workshop in August, regarding the matter, and that the Board would be adopting the first year of the Five Year Capital Improvement Program, formally, with the budget hearings in September of this year, which she noted would give the County more time.
It was noted that the request from the St. Johns River Water Management District was for $1 million this year.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was in favor of using Tourist Development Tax funds and that he felt the Tourist Development Council would approve allocating $250,000.00 toward said project, however, noted that Commr. Hanson would have to take the matter before the Council, for approval. He suggested that $250,000.00 be allocated from the Tourist Development Tax Fund; $250,000.00 from the Fish Conservation and Boating Improvement Funds; and $250,000.00 from the County's Excess Cash Carryforward Fund, for a total of $750,000.00, which he felt was a substantial amount of funds to be donated.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the County donate $300,000.00 from the Excess Cash Carryforward Fund; $250,000.00 from the Tourist Development Tax Fund; and $100,000.00 from the Boating Improvement and Fish Conservation Funds, for a total of $650,000.00.
Mr. Casey Fitzgerald, St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), appeared before the Board and stated that he felt it was a major contribution on the part of the Board to look into this matter at the level of funding that was indicated ($650,000.00) and that he appreciated it. He stated that the SJRWMD would put together a draft of an interlocal agreement and would include some criteria standards, with regard to what they will need to accomplish during the first year, as well as scope out what they hope to have built this time next year, so that the Board will know what it is investing in. He stated that the SJRWMD will do its part and thanked the Board for doing their part.
Commr. Swartz requested the SJRWMD to start sending the County, if they are not already doing so, the monthly water quality monitoring reports that they are conducting.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 2:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
BUDGET WORKSHOP - FY 1996-97 (CONT'D.)
The Board continued to review the handout titled Issues Needing Follow-up, however, no action was taken at this time.
Discussion occurred regarding the budget and the fact that it would be set at the roll-back rate of 4.909 mills.
Ms. Whittle referred to Page 31 of the Board's backup material, with regard to the budget, stating that it had all the changes, personnel wise, in both the baseline and enhanced budgets. She stated that some of said positions had no dollar impact, they were just reclassified positions.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the bottom line was that the County was net seven (7) less employees.
The Board thanked Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Finance Director, and her staff for a job well done, noting that the process has been a smooth one and as pleasant an experience as they could hope for.
Ms. Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the
roll-back rate was 4.909 and recommended that the millage be set at the roll-back rate of 4.909 mills.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board set the tentative millage for FY 1996-97 at the roll-back rate of 4.909 mills.
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
MISCELLANEOUS
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the County's pilot bus program was finally on the road.
No action was needed or taken.
MINUTES
Regarding the Minutes of June 18, 1996, the following was requested:
On Page 16, Line 25, add the language without public input.
On Page 12, Lines 24 and 30, a correction was made in a proper name.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of June 18, 1996 (Regular Meeting), as amended.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of June 20, 1996 (Special Meeting), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of June 25, 1996, the following was requested:
On Page 10, Line 20, delete the language up to 50 percent of the total.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of June 25, 1996 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.
MEETINGS/PROPERTY APPRAISER
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board that the Value Adjustment Board had been scheduled for August 1, 1996, at 9:00 a.m.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
_______________________________
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/7-23-96/8-2-96/boardmin