A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 19, 1997

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, 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: William "Bill" H. Good, Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

The Chairman noted that there were two Addendums to the Agenda, Addendum No. 1, containing a request under the County Manager's Consent Agenda, and Addendum No. 2, containing a request under the County Manager's Departmental Business.

Commr. Cadwell noted that he would like to address an issue, with regard to an appointment to one of the Evaluation and Appraisal Advisory (EAR) Committees, under his Commissioner's Business.

MINUTES

Regarding the Minutes of June 24, 1997 (Regular Meeting), clarification was made in the spelling of 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 24, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as presented.

Regarding the Minutes of July 9, 1997 (Special Meeting - Budget Workshop), the following was requested:

On Page 12, Line 24, change exiting to existing.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 9, 1997 (Special Meeting - Budget Workshop), as corrected.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 10, 1997 (Special Meeting - Budget Workshop), as presented.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 22, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as presented.

CLERK'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Budgets/Office of Budget



Request for approval of Budget Adjustments for FY 96/97, as follows:



A. Resolution:



Fund: Law Library

Department: Law Library

Revenue: Law Library Fees-Circuit Court $ 2,900

Expenditure: Machinery & Equipment $ 2,900

Amendment #: 97-301



Justification: Resolution to receive unanticipated monies from fee increase adopted by Board of County Commissioners on March 4, 1997.



B. Transfers:



Fund: County Transportation Trust

Department: Public Services

From: Contingency $20,000

To: Professional Services $20,000

Transfer #: 97-281



Justification: Transfer needed to pay for legal services regarding the Todd vs. Lake County case.



Fund: Solid Waste Capital Project

Department: Solid Waste Management

From: Buildings $47,534

To: Improvements Other Than

Buildings $14,500

Roads $33,034

Transfer #: 97-302



Justification: Transfer necessary to fund the remainder of the Scales and Breakroom Project.



Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges



Request for approval of Satisfactions of Judgment, as follows, and authorized proper signatures on same:

State of Florida vs Luis Martinez, in the amount of $250.00, Case No. 90-1697-CFA.



State of Florida vs Luis Angel Martinez, in the amount of $250.00, Case No. 93-1556-CFA.



Accounts Allowed/County Property



Request for approval of list of items to be deleted from Fixed Assets, for the month of July, 1997, in the amount of $45,238.20.



Accounts Allowed



Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.



Accounts Allowed/Reports



Request to acknowledge receipt of Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending July 31, 1997, in the amount of $163,052.90. Same period, last year: $123,852.53.



Ordinances/Municipalities

Request to acknowledge receipt of City Ordinances, as follows:



City of Eustis Ordinance No. 97-09, annexing into the corporate limits of the City of Eustis, Florida, .38 acres of land, at 2802 S. Grove Street, with a single family residence, subject to the Lake County Land Use Map designation of "Urban Expansion"; passed, ordained, and approved by the Eustis City Commission, on July 17, 1997.

City of Eustis Ordinance No. 97-12, annexing into the corporate limits of the City of Eustis, Florida, 9.72 acres of vacant land, on the southeast corner of Hicks Ditch Road and CR 44, subject to the Lake County Land Use Map designation of "Urban Expansion"; passed, ordained, and approved by the Eustis City Commission, on July 17, 1997.



City of Tavares Ordinance No. 97-08, amending the boundaries of the City of Tavares, by including within the City limits property described as 3.4 acres, located southeast and northeast of the SR 19 and CR 561 intersection; subject to the rules, regulations and obligations ordained by the City of Tavares Council; rezoning the property from County A and MP to City PCD; providing certain PCD conditions; and providing an effective date.



City of Minneola Ordinance No. 97-05, amending the boundaries of the City of Minneola, by including within the City limits approximately 5 acres of property, generally located on the west side of U.S. Highway 27, between North Grassy Lake Road and

CR 561-A; passed and ordained by the Minneola City Council, on June 6, 1997.



City of Minneola Ordinance No. 97-08, amending the boundaries of the City of Minneola, by including within the City limits approximately 120 acres of property generally located on the west side of U.S. Highway 27, between North Grassy Lake Road, west of Turkey Farm Road, and east of Plum Lake Lane; passed and ordained by the Minneola City Council, on July 8, 1997.



City of Minneola Ordinance No. 97-11, amending the boundaries of the City of Minneola, by including within the City limits approximately 17 acres of property generally located approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 561-A and mile west of U.S. Highway 27; passed and ordained by the Minneola City Council, on July 8, 1997.



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA



Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that she would like to change the date for the State of County Address from Wednesday, October 22, 1997, to Wednesday, October 15, 1997.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Commissioners/County Manager/Meetings



Request from the County Manager for approval to schedule the 1997 State of the County Address for Wednesday, October 15, 1997, at 6:00 p.m., at the Administration Building.



Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health



Request from Community Services for approval of payment of the monthly Medicaid hospital bill, in the amount of $55,553.26, and the Medicaid Nursing Home bill, in the amount of $16,580.55, for the month of June, 1997.



Accounts Allowed/Economic Development



Request from Economic Development for approval of the Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund monies to Bailey Industries, in an amount not to exceed $35,000.00.



Accounts Allowed/Economic Development



Request from Economic Development for approval of the Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund monies to Diversified Reproductions, in an amount not to exceed $48,050.00.



Accounts Allowed/Facilities and Capital Improvements

Museum/Public Works



Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of Florida Power's work order, for the redistribution of the proposed underground electrical services required by the demolition of the Historical Museum, and the commencement of construction of the new Public Works building, at an estimated cost of $20,414.53.



Environmental Health/Facilities and Capital Improvements

Public Works/Rights-of-Way, Roads and Easements



Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval of the granting of easements required for Florida Power to install and maintain the necessary underground power distribution system to the Public Works, Environmental Health, and Health Care buildings.



Fire and Emergency Services



Request from Fire and Emergency Services for approval of Memorandums of Understanding for Special Needs Evacuation Facilities, by the Board of County Commissioners.



Bonds - Mobile Home



Request from Growth Management for approval of the cancellation of the following Mobile Home Bond:



MB96-06-02 Arlie L. Jarrell



Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County and State/Signs



Request from Public Works for approval of a Resolution authorizing the posting of "No Parking on Right-of-Way" signs on both sides of CR 448, at its intersection with CR 561, for a distance of approximately 400' easterly, and on the east side of

CR 561, from Southridge Industrial Drive to CR 448.



Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County and State

Request from Public Works for authorization to execute a Resolution accepting a 3,296' extension of Division Street

(4-8198L) into the County Road Maintenance System.



Deeds/Public Works/Roads-County and State



Request from Public Works for acceptance of the following deeds:



Quit Claim Deeds



William C. and Kay Hawkins

Apiary Road (5-6745)



Drainage Easements



Judy R. Morris

Lake Eleanor Drive (3-4062)



Statutory Warranty Deeds



Arthur L. Lambert and Sherry E. Lambert

Altoona Road (5-8375)



David J. Hines and Lisa L. Hines

McCall Road (5-8376)



Delphine E. Meyers, as Personal Representative of the

Estate of Jeanette A. Tranor

Dove Valley Lane (5-7010)



William C. Hawkins and Kay B. Hawkins

Apiary Road (5-6745)



George J. Albright, Jr. and Agnes E. Albright

Marion County Road (4-8010)



Robert K. Brown and Deborah L. Brown

Laws Road (2-0528)



Public Works/Rights-of-Way, Roads and Easements

Road Vacations



Request from Public Works for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 849, by Ronald Stephen Rogers, Randal Herbert Rogers, and Timothy Wayne Rogers, to vacate drainage and utility easement, Section 33, Township 19, Range 29, Sorrento/Wekiva River Area - Commissioner District 4.



Public Works/Rights-of-Way, Roads and Easements/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 850, by Larry Carlson, Sawmill Lakes, Inc., to vacate right-of-way (Jacaranda Avenue), Clermont Farms, Sawmill Lakes, Section 11, Township 23S, Range 25E, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2.



Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County and State/Signs



Request from Public Works for approval of a Resolution authorizing the posting of speed limit signs on the following roads:



Rea Way (5-8173)

Hinson Road (5-8274)

Dorr Road (5-8876)

Big Oak Road (5-8277 - paved portion)

Demko Road (5-8371)

E. Altoona Road (5-8375 - paved portion)

Boys Ranch Road (5-8572)

Lake Dorr Road (5-8676)

Ravenswood Road (5-8872)



Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements

Municipalities/Public Works



Request from Public Works for approval and authorization for the Chairman's signature on a Joint Participation Agreement with the City of Leesburg, who will contribute $7,784.00 to complete the FEMA mapping, at a cost to the County of $70,000.00.



Budgets/Mosquito-Aquatic Plant Management/Public Works



Request from Public Works for approval of the tentative certified budget for arthropod control for FY 1997-98.



Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works/State Agencies



Request from Public Works for approval and authorization for the Chairman's signature on three Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreements, between Lake County and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and approval to contract for services, to construct the three sidewalk projects in Lake County.



Public Works/Utilities



Request from Public Works for approval to establish accounts for the direct payment of recurring telephone, electric, water, and other miscellaneous utility charges billed to the Public Works Department.



Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Public Works/Subdivisions



Request from Public Works for authorization to release a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $90,348.00, for Wolf Branch Village Phase III Subdivision.



County Employees/Risk Management



Request from Risk Management for approval and authorization to hold a Health and Benefits Fair Wednesday and Thursday, September 24 and 25, 1997, for all employees of the Board of County Commissioners, the Constitutional Officers, and the Lake County Government Offices and their spouses.



Budgets/Solid Waste



Request from Solid Waste Management Services for approval to pay routine telephone and utility bills, not to exceed line item amounts in the FY 1997-98 budget, for such use.



Bonds/Contracts, Leases and Agreements

Economic Development/Resolutions



Request from Economic Development for approval and execution of a Resolution authorizing the execution of Joinder to the Interlocal Agreement between Orange County, Florida and the Florida Development Finance Corporation, for the purpose of authorizing the Florida Development Finance Corporation to exercise its power and authority within the corporate limits of Lake County, for the purpose of obtaining Enterprise Bonds.



PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

PRESENTATION OF FIVE YEAR ROAD PLAN

PUBLIC WORKS/ROAD PROJECTS/ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, appeared before the Board and reviewed various projects that the County completed and/or are currently working on, as follows:

Gas Tax Projects

Countywide Sidewalk Project - $124,800.00

C-455 Portion Rebuilt - $386,158.00

Lake Seneca Road Paving - $391,469.00



Special Assessment Gas Tax Projects



Carlton Village "Part" - $299,473.00

Crossen, Ironwood & Maple Streets - $88,257.00

Division Street Extension - $108,386.00



Road Impact Fee Projects



Tavares West Main Street Widening - $172,720.00

Merry Road North - $552,456.00

CR-561/SR 19 Intersection - $176,126.00

C-44/Emeralda Avenue Turn Lane -$65,836.00

Lake Minneola and Minnehaha Bridge Design - $278,598.00

Pitt Street/Jack's Lake Road - $1,683,175.00



Mr. Stivender stated that the following road projects were taken off the Gas Tax Program for the coming year, due to lack of interest:

Commission District 1

South Landfill Road (CR 1-6503) from Timbertop Lane to Lake Ella Road



Commission District 1 and 5



East Treasure Island Avenue (CR 1/5-5729) from Treasure Island Road to C-44



Mr. Stivender reviewed the County Transportation Trust Fund Road Program and the Road Impact Fee Program and answered questions from the Board regarding same, at which time he noted that Double Run Road, in District 2, may be pulled off the Five Year Road Program and placed on the list of roads not being considered for paving, at this time.

Commr. Swartz questioned the status of the Sidewalk Ordinance, which he noted staff was to prepare, which would expand the requirements for sidewalks in the County.

Mr. Stivender stated that said ordinance was not complete at this time, however, should be ready to bring before the Board in September or October of this year.

A brief discussion occurred regarding Double Run Road and the future status of it.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to remove Double Run Road (3-2745), in District 2, from the CTT (County Transportation Trust) Fund Program and place it on the list of roads that are not being considered for paving, at this time.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the CTT (County Transportation Trust) Fund Program, as modified.

Mr. Stivender addressed the Road Impact Fee Program, at which time he reviewed some differences in the way that the six benefit districts were handled this year, from past years. He stated that staff feels they have worked all the problems out.

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that he had asked Public Works to keep Lakeshore Drive off the road program, until the County received some indication from the residents that they were interested in continuing with the paved shoulders project. He stated that the County has since received a petition from the residents requesting that said road be put on the road program.



On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place C-452 (Lakeshore Drive) back into the District 2 program, for the design phase, which will include stormwater issues, with regard to Lake Dora, from Colley Drive to Old 441.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of the 1998-2002 Road Impact Fee Program, which includes road work and bridge replacements for two bridges in Benefit Districts 5 and 6.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

PRESENTATION OF FIVE YEAR ROAD PLAN

PUBLIC WORKS/ROAD PROJECTS/ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE (CONT'D.)

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, appeared before the Board and presented a request for approval of staff's recommended prioritization of projects for the FDOT Five Year Work Program, including enhancement projects, as listed in the Board's backup material.

A brief discussion occurred regarding traffic safety issues, with regard to the Five Year Work Program, at which time Ms. Maryann Bardon, Transportation Engineer, Public Works, answered questions regarding same.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee would be held August 21, 1997, at 8:30 a.m., in Room 223, of the Administration Building.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of staff recommended prioritization of projects for the FDOT Five Year Work Program, to include enhancement projects (two project lists).



PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

PRESENTATION OF FIVE YEAR ROAD PLAN

PUBLIC WORKS/RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS AND EASEMENTS (CONT'D.)

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, appeared before the Board stating that, on April 1, 1997, his staff brought several issues before the Board and the issue of rights-of-way acquisition was one that they wanted to be brought back to them, at a later date.

Ms. Kathy McDonald, Administrative Services Coordinator, Public Works; Ms. Sally Stoddard, Rights-of-Way Manager, Public Works; and Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Works, appeared before the Board and gave a presentation regarding the Rights-of-Way Acquisition Program, at which time they answered questions from the Board regarding same.

It was noted that staff was putting together a Rights-of-Way Team, to do the prioritization and make recommendations to the Board, regarding the Rights-of-Way Acquisition Program.

Commr. Gerber noted a concern she had regarding the issue of impact fee credits and the fact that she is not in favor of using them, under the system that the County presently has.

Mr. Stivender interjected that impact fee credits are included in the current Impact Fee Ordinance.

Commr. Gerber stated that they are not included in the formulas that the County used to determine impact fees.

Commr. Swartz stated that they are included in the Impact Fee Ordinance, however, noted that they are taking away construction money, in order to acquire land for future road construction. He stated that he feels the County needs to look at the impact fee issue, based on the rights-of-way acquisition program.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Works, informed the Board that staff is finding it much more difficult to implement the County's Adopt-a-Road Program just with donations. He stated that there are projects that live on said program for years, because of rights-of-way problems.

It was noted that staff was recommending the following individuals for the Rights-of-Way Team:

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Works

Ms. Sally Stoddard, Rights-of-Way Manager, Public Works

Ms. Maryann Bardon, Transportation Engineer, Public Works

A land appraiser

A land use planner

A value engineer

An environmental specialist



Mr. Stivender stated that the team does not have to be comprised of all the above noted individuals at one time. He stated that there may be one group of individuals for a particular series of roads, however, that same group may not be needed for another series of roads, because they would not apply.

Commr. Swartz stated that he feels the team would be a reasonable approach to take, however, feels at some point the County is going to have to identify funding for the payment of rights-of-way. He stated that he feels the County needs some staff review of alternatives for finding the funds necessary for acquiring rights-of-way.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to see the Board have more discussions on the Maintenance Maps and questioned how they would play in, as part of the process.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, if the County builds a road and maintains it for four years, it becomes the owner of the land where said road has been maintained, and the County can record a map, after the four years is up, as evidence of what it has been maintaining. He stated that the Maintenance Map does not vest the rights-of-way, it is the actual construction of the road and the four year maintenance of said road that vests it. He stated that the map just puts it on public record, so everyone can see it.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Good stated that this was something staff needed to iron out and bring back to the Board, in terms of a new policy and procedure.

The Board thanked the Public Works staff for their presentation.

No action was taken at this time.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:28 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

COMMUNITY SERVICES/LIBRARIES

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Community Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for approval of the interlocal agreement between Lake County and the governing bodies, related to the provision of library services. He stated that his staff requested a time certain, to allow the governing bodies that are working with the member libraries to come forward and raise any comments or concerns they might have about the structure of the agreement.

Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Coordinator, Library Services, appeared before the Board and addressed the major differences between this agreement and the previous one. She stated that a lot of small changes were made, to conform with changes in the Florida Administrative Code. She then reviewed other substantive changes that were made, as follows:

Ms. Breeden stated that, if the Board approved Attachment A (Estimated Total Dollars for Each Library From County Grant, Reimbursable Program Fiscal Year 1997-1998) this date, they needed to keep in mind that it should only be approved, pending the budget process, because it is based on the tentative budget, not the budget that has been set.

Ms. Whittle informed the Board that this year, for the first time, at the Board's direction, the agreements are one year agreements, with the understanding that the County is going to look at the entire system during the year.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had informed the League of Cities, at their last Board of Director's Meeting, of the Board's concern about the direction of the Library System. He stated that they are going to form a subcommittee, with regard to the matter, however, noted that they want to meet with the elected officials and talk about the long-term future of the Library System.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like for the County Manager and the County Attorney to review the language in the interlocal agreement, noting that it should not contain language that the Board does not understand. He stated that the Board needs to understand what is being called for and that they can reasonably expect that it is being complied with. He stated that the County needs to send it to the Cities and make sure that the language is understood.

Ms. Breeden interjected that it was sent to the Cities, thus, the reason for having the time certain, to allow the Cities to comment, if they had any problems with it.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval of the Interlocal Agreements between Lake County and the governing bodies of participating libraries, relating to the provision of library services; and execution of the agreements, pending execution by affected parties, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval, particularly with regard to the issue of tracking appropriations.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

WORKSHOP

PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA AND TOWER ORDINANCE

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES

Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Long Range Planning, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that staff presented the Board with a draft Ordinance, dated March 18, 1997, on April 1, 1997, after which they met with the Planning and Zoning Commission, on May 1, 1997, and then with amateur radio operators and representatives from the industry, on June 9 and 16, 1997. She stated that staff took all the comments they received from said meetings and compiled them into a Discussion Document and, as a result of said document, proposed numerous changes to the March 18, 1997 Ordinance, in an effort to make it a little clearer. She stated that the Board had before them this date the revised Ordinance, dated July 21, 1997, which she noted is what staff would be going forward with, if the Board approved all the changes that were proposed in the Discussion Document. She noted that the Board's backup material contained the revised Ordinance, dated July 21, 1997; the Discussion Document, dated July 21, 1997; and the original Ordinance, dated March 18, 1997.

Ms. Strum stated that there were some major issues that needed to be addressed, with regard to the Ordinance, the first and probably the biggest being the inclusion of Amateur Radio Operators' Equipment. She stated that amateur radio operators have expressed an opinion that Federal Regulation PRB-1 (Federal Communications Commission determination) precludes the County from any regulation of said equipment, at the local level. She stated that she, as well as the County Attorney's staff, had read said regulation and had cited portions of it in the Discussion Document, at which time she read a portion of Section 25 of said regulation

into the record. She stated that staff had revised the regulations from March 18, 1997, to recognize amateur radio's unique status as a personal hobby, but also its valuable public service component. She stated that the revisions place limited regulations on amateur radio operations, primarily in the area of requiring building permits and ensuring that the towers are installed to meet the current wind load standard.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether there was really a need to regulate amateur radio operators, noting that it seemed to her that it would be simpler to just exempt them, unless a problem was created. She questioned how much of a problem they had been.

Mr. Dale Greiner, Building Services Director, stated that he did not have any documentation of them being a problem in the past, his only concern was that of the structural portion of the antenna and how it was being installed, with regard to the wind load standard for the State of Florida, as well as the County. He stated that he would not recommend that the Board exempt them entirely, because any structure that is built in the County should meet the wind load standard. He stated that it is a State Statute.

Commr. Good questioned what problems the County Attorney would anticipate the Board might generate, if an exemption was made, and whether they would run into a problem, if they exempted one group, but enacted regulation for another group.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he did not think there would be a problem, if the County had different regulations for non-commercial use versus commercial use; however, he felt there would be a problem in exempting a structure from the Building Code, because it is State mandated. He stated that the County cannot make its building codes any less stringent than what the State requires. He stated that, if the standard building code that the County has adopted would require a tower to get a building permit and meet the engineering thresholds, this Ordinance could not remove that requirement. He stated, however, that this Ordinance might say that one would not have to obtain a zoning clearance for such a structure.

Commr. Good questioned whether amateur radio operators presently needed a building permit to put up a tower and was informed that, technically, they did; however, it has not been a historical practice.

Ms. Strum referred to Page 9, Section 3.13.05 - Non-Commercial Wireless Communications, of the Discussion Document, which she noted is the language that is contained in the July 21, 1997 Ordinance regarding same. She stated that staff is recommending that towers, antennas, and equipment facilities up to 100 feet in height be permitted in all zoning districts and that towers up to 200 feet in height be permitted on conforming lots in the A, RA,

A-1-20, and A-1-40 zoning districts, as well as the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern Rural Conservation and Core Conservation land use classifications, which are the categories with a minimum five acres or greater lot size. She noted that the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) supersedes anything that the County does; therefore, anything 200 feet or higher automatically requires FAA review. She stated that FAA restrictions can be required at less than that, depending on the location of the tower, with regard to an airfield.

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, recommended that the Board consider making the zoning clearance not applicable to amateur radio communication towers, but to put in language that said towers have to meet any applicable building code regulations.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County had gotten away from the original intent of the Ordinance, which was to regulate the proliferation of commercial towers coming into the County. She stated that she did not feel the County should be trying to regulate non-commercial wireless communication towers at this time.

Mr. John Watson, former Emergency Coordinator for Amateur Radio Operators in the County, and the former West Central Florida

District Emergency Coordinator, appeared before the Board and presented, for their perusal, a catalog that he indicated 95% of most amateur radio operators use, giving wind load standards for various towers, as well as drawings indicating exactly how far out the guide wires have to be placed, to make the towers safe, with regard to the wind load standards. He stated that safety is of the utmost importance to amateur radio operators. He stated that they are tested and regulated by the Government and have to do things certain ways. He stated that, if the County decides to regulate the amateur radio operators, he has a problem with the setback requirements. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the Tower Ordinance.

Mr. Steve Eschom, President of the Lake County Amateur Radio Operators Association, appeared before the Board stating that amateur radio operators would like to be exempt from the stringent requirements for communications towers and be allowed to follow the manufacturer's instructions, with regard to construction of the towers and wind load data. He stated that the Ordinance was drafted around commercial towers, rather than non-commercial, and amateur radio operators fall under the non-commercial/non-profit category. He stated that there is a world-wide infrastructure of communications that is totally supported by the ham operator community and they receive no government dollars, whatsoever, in their efforts. He noted that they presently have 10 satellites in orbit and are ready to launch a $28 million satellite, in the near future, as soon as they get the necessary tests completed. He thanked the Board for their consideration in the matter.

Commr. Swartz stated that his main concern was the overall proliferation of towers in the County, particularly big, tall towers. He stated that it seems like the majority of the amateur operators' towers are 100 feet or less and, if that is true and they meet the wind load standards, he feels comfortable with it; however, once the towers go above 100 feet, whether it is commercial or non-commercial, it gets into the issue that he is very concerned about, being the proliferation of big, tall towers.

He stated that he felt towers of 100 feet or less could be handled as non-commercial wireless towers and be required to meet whatever the building inspection requirements are for any structure, by showing the necessary plans that meet the wind load standards. He stated that he felt the only setback requirements that would need to exist would be those setback requirements that presently exist, depending on the zoning district. He stated that the only reason the Board has taken such a critical view of this Ordinance is because they do not want to see Lake County covered with towers.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the setback issue would be addressed by the installation of the towers and that certain things would limit its height. She reiterated the fact that she felt the County should exempt non-commercial wireless communications towers.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hanson that non-commercial wireless communications towers of 100 feet or less be exempt from this Ordinance and only be required to pull a building permit.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the 100 foot requirement should be changed to 150 feet, due to the fact that a lot of individuals already have towers that are taller than 100 feet.

Commr. Swartz made a motion to amend the original motion, to include a requirement that setbacks be measured from the base of the towers and that anti-climbing devices be installed on them.

Commr. Cadwell seconded the amendment.

The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.

Commrs. Hanson and Gerber voted "No".

The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.

Commrs. Hanson and Gerber voted "No".

Commr. Good noted that the Board had addressed the issue of non-commercial communications towers under 100 feet and questioned whether the Board wished to address the issue of non-commercial towers over 100 feet, during this workshop meeting.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to see some changes in the language regarding conforming lots.

Ms. Strum stated that, with regard to the issue of conforming lots, five acres would resolve a great number of the non-conforming lots in the A, RA, A-1-20 and A-1-40 zoning district and would make it consistent with conforming lots in the agricultural zoning district. She stated that staff would have no problem with five acre lots and/or conforming lots in any of those districts.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, questioned whether the motion included the modifying of Paragraph D, on Page 15 of the Ordinance, to say that none of the other provisions of the Ordinance would apply to the towers - not only the separation requirements, but any of the other requirements.

Commr. Cadwell stated that that was the intent of the motion.

Commr. Swartz stated that there would be no separation requirements.

Mr. Minkoff stated that there were other requirements in the Ordinance, such as landscaping, and questioned whether they were exempt.

Commr. Cadwell stated that his intent was to exempt non-commercial wireless communications towers of 100 feet or less from the Ordinance, other than what would normally be required, which would be to get a permit and meet the normal setback requirements.

A brief discussion occurred regarding whether or not to address the issue of towers between 100 and 200 feet, this date, or whether there should be another workshop meeting, regarding the matter, before voting on it.

Mr. Minkoff stated that there would not be enough time for another workshop meeting, noting that the Board would be addressing

a number of commercial tower cases on September 23, 1997, and the Ordinance needs to be done, or those cases will be considered without an ordinance. He stated that the Ordinance requires two public hearings, because it affects uses in zoning districts, and September 23, 1997 will be the second hearing.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Gerber that the Board approve previous non-commercial wireless communications towers under 100 feet and up to 200 feet and that they be permitted, with the language changed from conforming to non-conforming lots, in the A, RA, A-1-20 and A-1-40 zoning districts, and that they be required to come under the other requirements - Paragraphs B, C, and D, under Section 3.13.05 - Non-Commercial Wireless Communications of the revised draft Ordinance, dated July 21, 1997, the same as those towers under 100 feet.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned how a 200 foot non-commercial tower was different from a 200 foot commercial tower, in terms of structure and appearance, noting that it would have to be built somewhat similarly, regardless of whether it is a commercial or a non-commercial tower.

Ms. Strum stated that the types of towers could differ.

Commr. Hanson stated that towers that are non-commercial, over 150 feet, are very isolated and that is why she felt a 150 foot requirement would take care of the problem.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

Mr. Minkoff clarified the motions, noting that the language in Section 3.13.05 - Non-Commercial Wireless Communications, on Pages 14 and 15 of the proposed draft Ordinance, would read as follows:

A. - Non-commercial wireless communications towers, antennas, and equipment facilities up to one hundred (100') feet in height shall be permitted in all zoning districts. These towers and antennas up to two hundred (200') feet in height shall be permitted

on lots, which have a minimum of five acres, in the A, RA, A-1-20 and A-1-40 zoning districts and in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern Rural Conservation and Core Conservation land use classifications. The maximum height permitted in all cases is subject to FAA review and approval.

B. - Setbacks shall be measured from the base of the wireless communications tower to the property line of the parcel on which it is located. Normal zoning district setbacks shall apply.

C. - Anti-climbing devices shall be installed on each tower.

Mr. Minkoff further clarified that none of the other provisions of the Ordinance shall apply to said towers.

It was noted that Mr. Minkoff's clarification was correct.

Ms. Strum referred to Chapter II - Definitions, of the Discussion Document, and noted that the definitions of Wireless Communications and Wireless Equipment Facility, on Page 4 of the document, were new, however, other than that, no further changes were made to the Definitions. She stated that, with regard to the Use Chart, staff moved Towers from Agricultural Uses to Community Facility Uses.

Mr. Minkoff suggested that staff work off the revised Ordinance, dated July 21, 1997, rather than the Discussion Document, noting that he felt it would be a lot simpler to do so.

At this time, the Board reviewed the revised Ordinance, page by page, as follows:

Page 1 - No changes.

Page 2 - Commr. Gerber suggested striking the language contained in the last sentence of this page, on Lines 20-22.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to strike the language contained in the last sentence of Page 2, on Lines 20-22, under Wireless Communication Tower, under Section 1 of the proposed Ordinance, as follows: An array consisting of one (1) or more wireless communications tower units and supporting a ground system that functions as one (1) broadcasting antennae shall be considered one (1) wireless communication tower.

Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.

Page 3 - No changes.

Pages 4-9 - Ms. Strum stated that staff was recommending deletion of Communication Tower, on Line 17 of the chart contained on Page 4 of the revised Ordinance, under Agricultural Uses, and noted that it would now be permitted under a Conditional Use, under Community Facility Districts (CFD), as shown on Page 9 of the Ordinance.

Commr. Good questioned whether there would be any further changes in the chart, contained on Pages 4-9, of the Ordinance.

Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted to make sure that the definition of Camouflaged, in the chart on Page 9, was so tight that it would not mean one thing to staff and the industry and something different to him or the Board.

Commr. Good referred back to Page 3 of the revised Ordinance, to the definition of Wireless Communication Antenna and/or Tower, Camouflaged, and questioned whether Commr. Swartz approved of said language, which he read into the record.

Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the County may need to tighten the definition of what cannot be seen and observed, as opposed to camouflaged. He stated that, if camouflaged towers are going to be permitted in every zoning district, the County needs to be very clear as to where they are located. He stated that he did not feel the current definition was tight enough. He stated that he wanted Lake County to be known in the industry as having a fair, but incredibly strict tower ordinance, so that the County does not look back five to ten years from now and see them all over the place. He stated that the County needs to work with the League of Cities, as well as the Cities themselves, regarding the matter, noting that it makes no sense for the County to have such a strict ordinance, when one can cross the border between the County and a

city and see them. He stated that the County needs to find a way to push the commercial operators, by encouraging them and giving them some incentives, to put up stealth and camouflaged, lower towers, with adequate separation, and not let them dictate to the County what its landscape is going to be. He stated that one incentive might be that, with regard to stealth towers, they can be placed almost anywhere, they can be almost any height, and one can have as many as one would like, because they cannot be seen, and, with regard to camouflaged towers, they should blend in as much as possible. He stated that monopole, lattice, and guide towers should be increasingly restrictive.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 12:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

WORKSHOP

PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA AND TOWER ORDINANCE

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ORDINANCES (CONT'D.)

Commr. Good continued to review the revised Ordinance, as follows:

Page 10 - Ms. Strum stated that the language and in existence on June 1, 1992 was struck from the sentence on Line 16.

Page 11 - Ms. Strum stated that this is a continuation of non-conforming uses, from Page 10 of the Ordinance.

Page 12 - Ms. Strum stated that, starting with Line 16, the Ordinance contained language on Wireless Communications Towers, to specific non-conformities. She stated that it pertained to existing non-conforming towers.

Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted to see language in the proposed Ordinance that would ensure that, if communications towers are abandoned, they will come down.



On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board directed the County Attorney's Office to review the language in the Tower Ordinance, with regard to the issue of individual, co-location, or multiple use wireless communications towers, and ensure that necessary bonds are provided so that, should they become abandoned, under the terms of the definition, they can be dismantled.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that there was no definition of "abandoned" in the Ordinance, therefore, questioned whether Commr. Swartz meant, if the tower is not used for 180 days, that it be taken down. He referred to Page 11 of the Ordinance, noting that it gives a time limit of 12 months for non-conforming use.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not have a problem with it, as long as there was some type of activity to acquire another tenant.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would not want to see the time limit be less than 12 months.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the County add a second section to the Ordinance that deals with future non-conforming uses, basically, to state that, should technology become available in the future that would obsolete the towers and create other technologies that would allow for less obtrusive permitted uses, that the Board, at a point in the future, would be able to declare the existing towers as non-conforming uses and have the ability to require that the new technologies be put into place, as opposed to leaving the towers up. He stated that he would like to have the County Attorney address the issue and bring it back to the Board at a later date.

Mr. Minkoff referred to Item No. 2, on Page 12 of the Ordinance, noting that, on Page 17, beginning with Line 18, it contains language about additional antennas being placed on existing towers without site plan review, and that, on Page 20,

Line 8, it states that a communications tower may be modified, or rebuilt to a taller height, not to exceed forty (40') feet. He stated that those three sections all discuss the same thing; however, the first and last sections disagree, because the first section states that you can put antennas on the towers, if you do not increase the height, but the section on Page 20 states that you can modify the tower and make it 40 feet higher, to accommodate co-location. He stated that there was a conflict in the Ordinance.

Discussion occurred regarding the best way to solve the conflict, at which time the County Attorney suggested that staff change Section 3.13.12 - Modification or Rebuilding, on Page 20 of the Ordinance, to require that towers be conforming. He stated that the only other question would be on Page 12, being whether the increase in height would be caused by the tower or the antenna.

Ms. Strum referred to Section 3.13.06 - Height, on Page 15, Line 11, stating that the language states, "Communication tower and antenna height, as measured from ground level to the highest point above ground level of the tower or antenna, whichever is greater."

Mr. Minkoff stated that the way the Ordinance is written, on Page 12, one could not replace the whip, even if it was six inches taller than the old whip.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if a tower is non-conforming, because it fails to meet the separation requirements, if one is adding an additional user, one may be allowed an additional 40 feet, which he felt would be a good trade-off against a new antenna.

It was noted that the problem could be addressed, by stating, "a conforming tower or a non-conforming tower only, as it exists from a separation standpoint."

Mr. Minkoff stated that he could insert said language on Page 20 of the Ordinance.

Page 13 - No changes.



Page 14 - Commr. Swartz noted that this page contained the definition for Camouflaged Wireless Communications Structures; however, he wanted to make sure that the Ordinance also contained the definition for a stealth tower.

Page 15 - Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, pointed out the fact that the chart on said page contained a typo on Lines 23 and 24, under the Zoning classification, because CFD is listed on both lines and should only be on Line 24, under the Zoning classification.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff insert something back in the chart that was in it before, being a separation requirement, based on other off-site use or designated area. He stated that it was in the preliminary draft; however, it is not in this draft. He stated that it seemed to him that that would be one way to attack the height issue, because the tower will be separated from off-site use, or designated areas, based on tower height. He stated that he felt said requirement should be put back in and suggested that it be put back in, in the fashion of the Orange County Tower Ordinance, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that the Orange County Tower Ordinance chart contains lattice and guyed towers, as well as three different sizes of monopole towers, and he would suggest adding to that camouflaged towers. He stated that a stealth tower need not be on the chart, because it can be anywhere. He continued to review the Orange County Tower Ordinance chart, suggesting changes that he felt should be made in the Lake County proposed Tower Ordinance, noting that said changes would take the towers away from residential areas and/or make them smaller.

Page 16 - Commr. Swartz suggested adding Camouflaged tower, which he noted would reduce, by 50%, the monopole separation.

Discussion occurred regarding the separation requirement.

Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Communications Systems Director, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the transmission capability of the various towers, with regard to the separation

requirement. He stated that the maximum transmission would be approximately 5,000 feet, for continuity, depending on the type of service, the topography, whether one is traveling through forested areas, how much water one is traveling over, etc. He stated that there are so many facets the engineers need to consider, when installing towers.

Commr. Swartz discussed the issue of having incentives for co-locating on towers and suggested that the Board use the criteria he reviewed with them earlier in the meeting, taken from the Orange County Tower Ordinance, noting that it requires more separation between the towers.

Page 17 - No changes.

Page 18 - The language without co-location was struck from the sentence on Line 15.

Page 19 - No changes.

Page 20 - The County Attorney stated that references made to DRS will be removed from this page, noting that there is no formal committee that does the reviewing, it is the County Manager and staff.

Page 21 - Mr. Thorburn, Communications Systems Director, stated that the reason for including one meter or less exemptions is because they are specifically required by the Federal Communications Commission.

Page 22 - No changes.

Page 23 - No changes.

Commr. Swartz suggested that there be increased public notice for all towers that require a public hearing, to allow the public the opportunity to have input regarding the matter.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, questioned whether Commr. Swartz intended for staff to do that for the tower cases that are scheduled for September.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if they were going to fall under this Ordinance, he felt the notice needed to be made. He suggested that staff notify those individuals on any parent tract, at least those located 300 feet from a proposed tower.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt there needed to be consistent notification for all land use issues. He stated that he felt the County would be asking for trouble, if it started picking and choosing different notification processes for different uses.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the proposed Tower Ordinance contained language to deal with the use of antennas on top of larger buildings.

Ms. Strum referred to Page 17, Item A - Use of Existing Structures, noting that said paragraph addressed said issue, at which time she read same into the record.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like for staff to review said issue and bring some alternative language back to the Board at a later date.

It was noted that another workshop meeting would be held August 26, 1997, prior to the Zoning portion of the meeting, regarding the proposed Communications Antenna and Tower Ordinance.

CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

Mr. Jerry Cox, Assistant Superintendent, Lake County Schools, appeared before the Board, stating that he had provided to the Board, this date, a copy of a letter from Dr. Jerry Smith, Superintendent, Lake County Schools, requesting, on behalf of the Lake County School Board, a portion of the County's one cent sales tax that is currently being collected, to be used solely by the School Board for the construction of schools.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time the Board indicated to Mr. Cox that the County had commitments of its own to fulfil; however, the Board would be willing to discuss the matter with the School Board, at a later date.

Mr. Richard Gander, a resident of Lake County, appeared before the Board stating that he had applied to become a member of the Lake County Fire Rescue Advisory Board, in the position of

Representative of Private Homeowners, and requested the Board to review his application and consider him for said position, when addressing the matter later in the meeting.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained this request, stating that Alan and Catherine Abrams appeared before the Board March 25, 1997 and requested a Conditional Use Permit for the

A (Agricultural) zoning district, to operate a dog kennel on approximately 8.9 acres, which failed by a 2-2 vote. He stated that Commr. Cadwell had to leave the meeting and was not present for the vote. He stated that the Abrams requested a Special Master hearing and, as a result of said hearing, Lake County and Alan and Catherine Abrams entered into the Settlement Agreement before the Board this date, dated August 4, 1997. He stated that, if the Board accepted said Agreement, it would require two votes - the first one to accept the Agreement and the second one to implement it and, if the Board voted to accept it, they would need to vote as to whether or not to hold another public hearing, to be held on October 28, 1997, during the Zoning meeting. He stated that, if the October 28, 1997 hearing is held and the CUP is granted on that date, the Abrams would be able to use their property, in accordance with the approval; however, if the hearing is held and the CUP is denied, the Abrams would be allowed to continue to use their property as they have been, until November 15, 1998. He stated that the Agreement allows substantially the same use, except that the dogs will only be allowed to be outside between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. He stated that, if the Board voted not to hold the public hearing, their previous decision would remain in place and the Abrams would be allowed to use their property until November 15, 1998, which would give them time to sell their property and locate another place for the kennel. He stated that the Abrams agreed that, after November 15, 1998, they would only

have four (4) dogs on the property and they would not make any additional applications to have the property in question used as a kennel.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval of a Settlement Agreement, dated August 4, 1997, between Lake County and Alan and Catherine Abrams.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval not to hold a further public hearing, with regard to the Abrams case.

CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD (CONT'D)

Dr. Tully Patrowicz, representing the Lake County Comprehensive Health Care Advisory Committee, appeared before the Board and requested funding, in the amount of $12,500.00, to fund an Indigent Health Care Needs and Services Study, for the We Care Program.

It was noted that the request was brought up and discussed during one of the budget workshops and that the Board came to the consensus that the appropriate place to obtain the funds was through the hospital districts, because that is where indigent care funding comes from.

Discussion occurred regarding the need for a structural change in the Northlake Hospital Taxing District and the fact that, until such change is made, it would be immaterial what results the study alluded to by Dr. Patrowicz would bring.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see the Board put its emphasis into creating an additional position on the Northlake Hospital Taxing District Board, to avoid what is a three to three vote, when it comes down to issues such as indigent care and the spending of funds.



Dr. Patrowicz stated that he agreed entirely with what Commr. Swartz stated and that he felt, if that was the consensus of the Board, that it was constituting an impediment to the health care of indigent people in Lake County; therefore, there needs to be some reform in the structure of the Northlake Hospital Taxing District Board. He stated that it needs to be stated publicly and loudly and that he felt, if it was, the hospitals will be responsive to it, because the money that is spent by hospitals for indigent care is probably not effective and efficient, because most of it goes out through the emergency rooms. He stated that he felt it was a worthwhile position to take.

Commr. Swartz suggested putting the matter on a future agenda, for discussion, and to let the County's legislative delegation know of its desire to support such a position.

Commr. Hanson stated that she concurred, however, felt that, if the Board granted the $12,500 for the study, she felt that much of the information received from it would be helpful to the Board and to the taxing district, as well, to show where the dollars could and should be spent. She stated that the Board is talking about long-term, when they talk about legislative, and she feels the Board is at the point where it should be looking at some major changes in how the County delivers health care to it indigents.

Dr. Patrowicz thanked the Board for their consideration.

No action was taken at this time; however, it was noted that the issue would probably be placed in the Board's legislative packet, as something that they would like to see the legislative delegation address with the Legislature.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 3:25 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.



PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

PRESENTATION - FIVE CENT LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX

PUBLIC WORKS/ROADS-COUNTY AND STATE/ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, appeared before the Board to discuss the local option gas tax, in general, and the formulas of the existing sixth cent and the five cent local option gas tax and how they effect the County's and the Cities' revenue stream. He distributed a handout (blue sheets), titled Distribution of Local Option Gas Tax, which he reviewed with the Board, stating that it gives the current average of all the cents - 1st and 2nd; 3rd and 4th; and 5th and 6th, with the average of all six cents being 66.3767% and with an estimated revenue of $3,648,038.00. He noted that the various cities in the County were indicated on said handout, as well. He stated that slowly, but surely, numbers are being taken away from the County's current revenue stream.

Mr. Stivender then distributed a second handout (green sheet), titled Maintained Road Miles - Population - Averaged - 5 Cent Local Option Gas Tax, which he reviewed with the Board, stating that staff feels the percentage of road miles maintained and the percentage of population, with regard to the County and the Cities, when averaged and updated annually, is a formula that is equitable for everyone. He noted that it is not based on expenditures. He stated that the County, based on the existing sixth cent, would have to relinquish $175,000.00, with the Cities gaining $175,000.00. He noted that there are approximately 1,250 miles of paved roads in the County and 200 miles of clay roads. He stated that the two things that become the biggest factors, when it comes to the roads, are the miles of roads being maintained and the people that the County serves and how they equate to the responsibility of those roads. He stated that these are the two

areas staff has looked at and see as areas that should be given consideration in any future formulas that the County comes up with.

Mr. Stivender reviewed a third handout (yellow sheets), titled Maintained Road Miles - Population - Averaged - 6 Cent Local Option Gas Tax, noting that the number of road miles maintained by the County, as of September 30, 1996, is 1,228.81, or 71.2135% of the total miles in the County.

Commr. Cadwell noted, for informational purposes, that he had informed the League of Cities that the Board was scheduled to have this presentation.

Mr. Stivender interjected that his staff was scheduled to give the League of Cities a presentation at their next meeting.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board would be making the final decision; however, he would not want to pinpoint a particular plan, until they get the League's input, regarding the matter.

Mr. Stivender stated that, if the County would go to something like he presented, for all the six cents, and could agree on it with the Cities, there would not be as many formulas; therefore, staff would be dealing with a lot simpler situation, thus making their lives a lot easier.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he did not believe the Cities could act on the matter independently of the Board, noting that it would take an agreement between the County and those Cities representing the majority of the population.

Mr. Stivender requested direction from the Board to proceed with the same presentation to the League of Cities, in September of this year, and then, in October of this year, come back before the Board and discuss the formulas between the Board and the League. He stated that, if staff could develop a new formula, or agree on a formula, by December, 1997, interlocal agreements could be put together in January, 1998. He noted, however, that it would all have to take place prior to July, 1998, in order to notify the Department of Revenue, for it to become effective October 1, 1998.

He stated that staff came up with said time lines, in cooperation with the League, noting that they were looking for a January 1, 1998 decision and a spirit of cooperation on some type of solution to the issue.

It was noted that Mr. Stivender would proceed to meet with the League of Cites, as scheduled.

Mr. Stivender stated that, for a five cent local option gas tax, which he noted is probably the critical issue, there has to be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, because the Capital Improvement Plan has to be part of the Comprehensive Plan, so the plan has to be put together by October, 1997. He stated that, in January of 1998, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be adopted, hopefully, by the Board and staff would like to adopt the pennies by March of 1998, processing all the agreements with the Cities, etc., over the next couple of months, with the deadline being the same as anything else with the State, July 1, 1998. He stated that any new pennies would come into collection in January of 1999. He noted that said date is different than the October 1 date, because it is a new formula. He stated that the numbers staff put together are based on the same percentage formula as the sixth cent local option gas tax, being 63% County/36.8% Cities.

Mr. Stivender then discussed the Revenue Estimates, noting the County's share, based on the 63%, versus the Cities' share, based on the 36.8%. He stated that, with the five cents, the County has a revenue source of approximately $2.5 million per year.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, questioned whether the Cities would have to do Comprehensive Plan Amendments, designating said funds as separate funds.

Mr. Stivender stated that they would.

Mr. Stivender distributed a handout (several pages), titled Lake County Department of Public Works 1997-2002 Countywide Resurfacing Program, stating that the cost of resurfacing in the County is approximately $300,000.00 per year, at the present time,

which he noted is well below what staff feels the County should be doing. He stated that resurfacing the roads in the County, over a five year time frame, would cost the County $5,226,470.32 - $1 million per year, based on the 20-25 year cycle that is necessary to resurface roads. He stated that, with regard to construction projects, the Board approved, this date, $62 million worth of projects. He stated that the estimated revenue over the next five years, through impact fees, would be $20 million, which would allow $10 million of unfunded projects to be constructed, using the five cent local option gas tax, which would increase the collector and arterial program by one-third. He stated that staff was seeking direction from the Board on the formula alluded to earlier, noting that they wanted to present it to the League of Cities, if there is a recommended formula; however, if there is not, they will listen to input from the League and come back to the Board at a later date. He stated that, if the Board wanted to consider the five cent local option gas tax this date, staff would need to get started on addressing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, because of the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Advisory Committee) reports, noting that there is a gap where the County cannot make Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He stated that this one would be the last one available to the County.

It was noted that the $62 million that was approved for road projects was for impact fee related road projects only, it did not include CTT (County Transportation Trust) funds.

Commr. Swartz clarified the fact that the total projected costs for maintenance, new roads, and clay to paved roads, over the next five years, amounts to at least $62 million, with an estimated $20 million in revenue, over that same five year period, from impact fee funds. He stated that, currently, the balance of the County's CTT Fund is approximately $10 million; therefore, the County will be $32 million in the hole, over said five years. He

stated that he was concerned that the County was not raising gas tax monies to pay for what ought to be impact fee projects.

The Board thanked Mr. Stivender for his presentation.

SOLID WASTE

Mr. Don Post, Senior Director, Solid Waste Management Department, appeared before the Board and presented a request from Solid Waste Management for approval to implement the Adopt-A-Shore Program in Lake County; approval of a coordinated effort between Keep Lake County Beautiful and the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, with direct support from several county departments; and to delegate to the County Manager authority to waive disposal fees for the Adopt-A-Shore Program, not to exceed $2,500.00 annually, for use in other than the St. Johns River Cleanup Project. He stated that the main focus of the program was contained within the Agenda packet, which he reviewed with the Board, as follows:

Mr. Post then brought to the Board's attention a request from Keep Lake County Beautiful, noting that they were requesting the

Board's help with the initial printing of approximately 2,500 brochures, to advertise the Keep Lake County Beautiful Program, to get people involved.

Commr. Gerber suggested that the County, if they had not already done so, talk with Ogden Martin about helping absorb some of the costs.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Gerber to approve a request from Solid Waste Management for approval to implement the Adopt-A-Shore Program in Lake County; approval of a coordinated effort between Keep Lake County Beautiful and the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, with direct support from several county departments; and to delegate to the County Manager authority to waive disposal fees for the Adopt-A-Shore Program, not to exceed $2,500.00 annually, for use in other than the St. Johns River Cleanup Project.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned whether the program would be limited to the unincorporated area.

Mr. Post stated that it would be for the Cities, or the County, thus, the reason staff is looking at the recycling revenue.

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell would take the issue to the League of Cities, for their input and possible support.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS

TOURIST DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, appeared before the Board and requested approval to extend the existing contract with Cramer-Krasselt for one year.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Tourist Development for approval to renew the existing contract between Lake County and Cramer-Krasselt, per Section 9 of

said contract, for advertising and promotional services, in the amount of $284,096.00.

GRANTS/TOURIST DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, appeared before the Board and requested approval of the Tourism Five Year Plan, as presented by Cramer-Krasselt.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County should have someone on board to pull together its environmental interests, as well as its attractions - cultural heritage and nature based attractions, noting that she felt the County could do a lot more to develop those activities, if it had someone that was designated to do so. She stated that the County might be able to obtain a grant for said purpose, however, suggested that the $40,000.00 the County has from the Lake Apopka Cleanup Project, which is apparently not going to be used, be put toward such an effort.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Gerber to approve a request from Tourist Development for approval to adopt and implement the Tourism Five-Year Plan.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz referred to the last paragraph on Page 84 of said plan and suggested that the language that refers to the selling of the land be deleted.

Commr. Good referred to Page 110 of said plan, noting that, under the heading of Eco-Tourism, it discusses eco-tourism marketing and the fact that Cramer-Krasselt is banking on its "specialist" having established a basis for eco-tourism, which will allow the County to target advertising in specialized publications that include hiking, birdwatching, etc. He questioned the issue of the "specialist".

Commr. Swartz stated that it was his understanding that said position would not be a paid position.

Mr. Warren stated that that was correct. He stated that the County is looking at a State grant for said position and that, once

the plan is approved, staff will see what it can do about a grant for that position.

Commr. Hanson amended her motion to include the change alluded to by Commr. Swartz, being the deletion of the language in the last paragraph on Page 84 of said plan that refers to the selling of the land.

Commr. Gerber amended her second to the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 5-0 vote.

ADDENDUM NO. 2

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Resolution amending Resolution 1996-116, adopted August 27, 1996, amended by Resolution 1997-98, on May 27, 1997, revising the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Schedule for Calendar Year 1997, Amending the Second Amendment Schedule for 1997.

OTHER BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Lee Bryan to the Fire Rescue Advisory Board, representing the Agricultural Community.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Ralph Bernish to the Fire Rescue Advisory Board, representing the Unincorporated Area.



On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Richard Gander to the Fire Rescue Advisory Board, representing the Private Homeowners.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/COMMUNITY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for renewal of the agreements with Tommy Carle, Ezra Witsman, Mary Ann Plecas, and James Hope, for legal representation of indigents in criminal court proceedings.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

ORDINANCES

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 an Ordinance providing for waivers and deferrals of impact fees for day care facilities.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

BUILDING DEPARTMENT/REPORTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the Building Department will be generating weekly reports indicating permits without inspections, within the last six months, or that have not posted final inspections within one year from the date of issue. She stated that letters will be sent to contractors informing them that their permit is null and void and that the County's software will automatically flag the contractor's certification file, thereby

alerting staff that permits cannot be acquired by said contractor, until the expired or void permit has been addressed.

It was suggested that said information be provided to the press.

REPORTS

COUNTY MANAGER

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COUNTY EMPLOYEES

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board, for informational purposes, that two staff members have been selected for Leadership Lake County this year, being Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, and Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management. She stated that she felt they were excellent choices and that it will be beneficial to the County to have their involvement.

Commr. Hanson suggested that the Board consider periodically sending an individual to Leadership Central Florida, particularly in the area of economic development.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GERBER

POLLUTION CONTROL/COMMITTEES

Commr. Gerber informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the Pollution Control Board was set up years ago, through a special act; however, when the Board recently changed the scope and service of the Pollution Control Board, they inadvertently repealed the ability of the County to have authority over environmental enforcement in the Cities, which has become a problem. She stated that it will require an ordinance to remedy the situation.

The County Attorney's Office was requested to formulate some language, regarding the matter.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested starting over with a whole new set of regulations that would be countywide and would implement it through the new advisory committee.



REPORTS

COMMISSIONER SWARTZ

GROWTH MANAGEMENT/MEETINGS

Commr. Swartz informed the Board, for informational purposes, that a Land Use Forum presentation will be given on Wednesday, August 20, 1997, at 6:00 p.m., at Lake Sumter Community College, as well as a series of three presentations, which will be given on Thursday, August 21, 1997, starting at 3:00 p.m., designed for the elected officials.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER HANSON

MISCELLANEOUS

Commr. Hanson informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the Boys and Girls Club Auction is scheduled to be held Saturday, August 23, 1997.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD

MISCELLANEOUS

Commr. Good informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the 4-H Annual Volunteer Recognition Luncheon is scheduled to be held Saturday, August 23, 1997, at 11:30 a.m.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD

COURTHOUSE

Commr. Good informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the Historical Courthouse will be presented to the National Register of Historic Buildings Board August 22, 1997, at 8:00 a.m., in Tallahassee, for the purpose of placing it on the National Register of Historic Buildings.



There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.





_______________________________

WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



sec/8-19-97/9-10-97/boardmin