The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 9, 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; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there was one published addendum and there would be some changes to the Consent Agenda when that item arises for discussion.
Commr. Good stated that a request had been made to move the minutes to the back of the agenda, in order to move forward with items that people were waiting to hear.
CLERK OF COURTS' 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:
Accounts Allowed
Acknowledge receipt of the list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Bonds - Contractor
Contractor Bonds, as follows:
Cancellations:
4340-97 Ray Bauder (Aluminum Contractor)
4629-97 Fix-All, Inc. (Specialty Contractor)
4869-97 Ronald Hagadorn (Policy No. 0002295 and Policy No. 0003213)
New
1965-98 Willard D. Kennedy (Electrical)
3096-98 Terry Ross d/b/a Terry Ross Plumbing
4245-98 James W. Spencer d/b/a J & R Signs (Electrical Sign Contractor)
5006-97 Gary Heath (Residential)
5544-98 Farmer Electric Co. Inc. (Electrical)
Courts-Judges
Request to approve and signature authorization on the Satisfaction and Release of Fine, James McCullough/Greg Padgett, in the amount of $350.
Courts-Judges
Request to approve and signature authorization on the Satisfaction of Judgment, State of Florida vs. Keith Wade Harris, Case No. 9600452CFA01, in the amount of $250.
Accounts Allowed/County Property
Request to approve the list of items to be deleted from Fixed Assets for the month of September, 1997, in the amount of $20,217.72.
Accounts Allowed/Clerk
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Proof of publication of unclaimed monies and payment to the Board for those monies advertised less claims and publication costs. Fiscal impact: $19,774.51 less amounts claimed and publication costs will be receipted as fines and forfeits revenue before September 25, 1997.
Utilities
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice from the Florida Public Service Commission - In re: Application for grandfather certificate to operate water utility in Polk County by Mountain Lake Corporation; Docket No. 970283-WU; Order No. PSC-97-0926-FOF-WU; Issued: August 4, 1997; Order Granting Grandfather Certificates, Setting Rates and Charges, Requiring Payment of Regulatory Assessment Fees for 1996 and Requiring Filing of 1996 Annual Report.
Other Counties/Reports
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Orange County, Florida, Citizens Annual Financial Report for year ended September 30, 1996.
Clerk/Reports
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Semi Annual Investment Report for FY 96-97, June 30, 1997, Clerk of Courts.
Budgets/Water Resources
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Southwest Florida Water Management District Tentative Budget for fiscal year 1998.
Accounts Allowed/Budget Amendments
Request to approved the following Budget Adjustments for FY 96/97, as follows:
A. Resolutions:
1. Fund: County Transportation Trust
Department: Public Works
Revenue: State and Community Highway $18,000
Expenditure: Contingency $18,000
Amendment #: 97-354
Justification: Resolution to receive unanticipated revenue from the State of Florida due to an award of a State Highway Safety Grant.
B. Transfers:
1. Fund: Landfill Enterprise Fund
Department: Solid Waste Department
From: Buildings $49,000
To: Machinery & Equipment $49,000
Transfer #: 97-355
Justification: Transfer to cover the purchase of a tire slicer and a tire derimmer. The pole barn budgeted is being postponed until FY '98.
2. Fund: General
Department: Constitutional Officer/Sheriff
From: Contingency $15,000
Transfer/Jail Personnel $ 7,000
To: Transfer/Law Capital $11,650
Transfer/Jail Capital $ 3,350
Transfer/Bailiffs' Pers. $ 7,000
Transfer #: 97-356
Justification: Pursuant to F.S. 30.49, the Sheriff is requesting the above transfers within his budget for Fiscal Year 1996/97.
3. Fund: General
Department: Judicial/State Attorney
From: Contingency $16,000
To: Expert Witness Fees $16,000
Transfer #: 97-357
Justification: Transfer needed due to the high number of expert witness fees incurred during the year.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested that Tab 14 be pulled for discussion, and that additional language be added to Tab 17, as follows: "authorization to accept a cashier's check in the amount of $1,210 for sod installation and execute a Developer's Agreement for construction of improvements."
Commr. Cadwell brought to the attention of the Board Tab 9 proclaiming September 15-20, 1997 as Industry Appreciation in Lake County, and Tab 4 regarding the Resolution renaming Merry Road Extension to David Walker Drive, and noted that he appreciated the City of Eustis bringing this forward.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Tabs 3 through 46, with the exception of Tab 14, and with the amendment made to Tab 17, for the following requests:
Resolutions/Streets-County & State
Request to approve execution of Resolution renaming Fig Street (4-7696A) to Jericho Trail.
Resolutions/Streets-County & State
Request to approve execution of Resolution renaming Merry Road Extension and a portion of W. Golflinks Avenue (3-5057) to David Walker Drive.
Accounts Allowed/Ambulance-Hospitals
Request to approve payment of Florida Hospital Orlando bill in the amount of $34,606.05 for a Lake County resident under the Health Care Responsibility Act for an inpatient hospital stay.
Ambulance-Hospitals/Community Services
Request to approve to establish a direct pay procedure for the monthly Medicaid Nursing Home and Hospital bills received in the Department of Community Services.
Assessments/Resolutions/Solid Waste
Request to approve execution of Resolution 1997-151 amending Resolution 1992-197 Establishing Guidelines for the Granting of Hardship Assistance for the Solid Waste Management System Non-Ad Valorem Assessment, providing for amendment to Section 1, Income Level, and Section 2, Asset Level, and providing for an effective date.
Community Services
Request for approval and execution of Satisfaction of Mortgage for Kem Dickens, also known as Kem McCook.
Economic Development/Resolutions
Request for approval and execution of Proclamation 1997-144 proclaiming September 15-20, 1997 as Industry Appreciation Week in Lake County.
Fairgrounds
Request for approval and execution of letter of appreciation to Mr. Don Channel for his donation to the Lake County Fairgrounds.
Resolutions/Fire & Emergency Services
Request for approval and execution of Proclamation No 1997-145 proclaiming October 5-11, 1997 as Fire Prevention Week in Lake County with the theme "Know When to Go: React Fast to Fire".
Fire & Emergency Services/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for approval for County Manager to send Notice of Exercise of Rollover Provision Clause to Florida Regional Emergency Medical Services.
Personnel/County Employees
Request for approval of Certificates for employees with one and three years of service, as listed in backup.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Roads-County & State/Subdivisions
Request for approval and acceptance of Final Plat for Secret Hill Subdivision, acceptance of Maintenance Bond in the amount of $8,716.00, approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for maintenance of improvements between Lake County and Ronald & Debora Davids, and approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-153 accepting Secret Hill Road (3-5235B) into the County Road Maintenance System.
Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-154 accepting Parkinsonia Street "Portion" (5-7710), Orange Circle (5-7710B), Azalea Way (5-7710C), Woodpath Lane (5-7710D), and Palm Street "Portion" (5-7710B) into the County Road Maintenance System.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Resolutions/Subdivisions
Request for approval and acceptance of Final Plat for Oak Pointe Subdivision, acceptance of Conservation Easement Deed from Leo & Nancy Steinmetz, approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for maintenance of improvements between Lake County and Leo & Nancy Steinmetz, acceptance of Maintenance Bond in the amount of $12,658.00, and approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-155 accepting Oak Pointe Drive (5-7509) into the County Road Maintenance System, and authorization to accept a cashier's check in the amount of $1,210 for sod installation and execute a Developer's Agreement for construction of improvements.
Accounts Allowed/Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Contract, Leases & Agreements/Bonds
Request for approval and acceptance of Final Plat for Weston Hills Phase 1 Subdivision, acceptance of Conservation Easement Deed from Weston Hills-Lake County Limited Partnership approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for construction of improvements between Lake County and Weston Hills-Lake County Limited Partnership, and acceptance of Performance Bond in the amount of $1,392,966.00.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Resolutions
Roads-County & State
Request for approval to release a Cashier's Check in the amount of $500.00 that was posted for the submittal of the as-builts and the lot line certification letter, acceptance of Letter of Credit for maintenance in the amount of $28,731.20, approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for maintenance of improvements between Lake County and Montclair Land Trust, and approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-156 accepting the following roads into the County Road Maintenance System: Versailles Boulevard "Part" (2-0936B), Marseilles Boulevard "Part" (2-0936C), Cannes Place (2-0936D), Nice Court (2-0936E), and Chantilly Court (2-0936F).
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Resolutions
Roads-County & State
Request for approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit for performance in the amount of $213,290.00, acceptance of Letter of Credit for maintenance in the amount of $19,500.00, approval and execution of Developer's Agreement for maintenance of improvements between Lake County and Lesbar Enterprises, Inc., and approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-157 accepting Donnavista Place (4-5483) into the County Road Maintenance System.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivisions
Request for approval to release a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $36,100.00 for Lake Crescent Pines Subdivision.
Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions
Request for approval to release $20,289.50 held in escrow for landscaping improvements at Woodridge Phase I and II Subdivision.
Roads-County & State
Request for approval to add South Landfill Road CR 1-6503 and East Treasure Island Avenue CR 1/5-5729 to the Double Surface Treatment Program.
Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-158 accepting Sybil Avenue (4-4386C) into the County Road Maintenance System.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Request for approval and execution of Change Order No. 2 to CR-455 Rebuilding and Resurfacing Project No. 11-96 for asphalt curbing and concrete spillways in the amount of $3,580.00 from the Transportation Trust Fund - Commissioner District 2.
Road Vacations - Permission to Advertise
Request for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 853 by Tommy and Susan Powers to vacate road (Eighth Av.), East Umatilla Sub., Sec. 8, Twp. 18, Rge. 27, Umatilla area - Commissioner District 5.
Road Vacations - Permission to Advertise
Request for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 854 by John & Janice Daly to vacate easements, Plat of Saratoga, Sec. 23, Twp. 19, Rge. 27, Sorrento area - Commissioner District 4.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Request for approval and execution of Interlocal Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement between The City of Umatilla and Lake County Traffic Operations for the repair of traffic signal systems to facilitate the safe and efficient flow of traffic in and about Lake County.
Resolutions/Municipalities/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-159 authorizing the posting of speed limit signs on the following roads in the Clermont area:
Amber Ave. (2-1044) Katherine Cr. (2-1145F)
Topaz St. (2-1044A) El Viento St. (2-1146A)
Garnet Dr. (2-1044B) Maria Av. (2-1146B)
Sapphire Dr. (2-1045A) Warren Rd. (2-1146C)
Valencia Dr. (2-1145) Palmer Dr. (2-1146D)
Pineapple Pl. (2-1145A) Casper Ln. (2-1146E)
Sunshine Dr. (2-1145B) Sunset Av. (2-1246)
Sunshine View Ct. (2-1145C) Lakeview Av. (2-1246A)
Sunshine Cr. (2-1145D) Hook St. (2-1346)
Nicolette Ct. (2-1145E) Anderson Hill Rd. (2-1146)
Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-160 authorizing the posting of a "Stop" sign on Palisades Bv. (2-1736) at its intersection with Spring Lake Dr. (2-1835).
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request for approval and acceptance of Statutory Warranty Deeds, Quit Claim Deeds, Drainage Easements, and Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds.
Assessments/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for approval of Settlement Stipulation in case of Lake County vs. Carter, Special Assessment #669028 and #669029.
Accounts Allowed/County Policy/Purchasing/Detention Center
Committees/Taxes
Request for approval for Facilities and Capital Improvements to negotiate a contract at an estimated amount of $26,400.00 with Schweizer Planning and Design, Inc., the number one ranked respondent for RFP#97-090, Architectural Services for modifications to the Inmate Housing Pods at the Lake County Detention Center in compliance with Florida Statute 287.055 (Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act) and County Policy LCC-19. On August 13, 1997, the Selection Committee held public interviews with the three firms which were short listed for the project and submitted the following ranking:
1. Schweizer Planning and Design, Inc.
2. Marcet, Ribar, Ikegami Architectural Group, Inc.
3. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc.
Approval of Project Negotiating Committee:
Doug Conway, Facilities & Capital Improvements
Captain Kevin Drinan, Sheriff's Office
Don Griffey or designee, Public Works
David Crowe, Solid Waste
Funding for this project will be from Account Number 301.08057620.513.8600620 (Sales Tax Capital Projects, General Government Buildings Fund).
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request for approval for Public Works to execute a contract with Keith & Schnars in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00 for the 1997 Lake County Geodetic Control Densification Project, RFP#97-092. Funding for this project will be from Account Number 112.5055100.541.8300310 (County Transportation Trust Fund, Professional Engineering Services), subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
County Policy/Risk Management
Request for approval to renew the County's commercial insurance policies for Fiscal Year 1997/1998 and authorization for Chairman to execute the applications, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Risk Management
Request for approval of Annual renewal of the County's Protected Self-Insurance Program with Arthur J. Gallagher & Company and contract for claims management with Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., effective October 1, 1997, and authorization for the Chairman to execute the appropriate document(s), subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
County Policy/Fire & Emergency Services/Risk Management
Request for approval to renew the workers' compensation insurance policy with the Florida Municipal Self Insurers Fund (FMSIF) for Lake County Board of County Commissioners - Fire Services, effective October 1, 1997, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies
Request for approval and execution of Agreement between the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and Lake County, authorization for Mr. Donald Post to sign the Financial Invoice as outlined in the Agreement as official designee, authorization for staff to perform all necessary personnel, materials, services and facilities necessary for the performance of work and services as set forth in the agreement and Scope of Work as outlined in reference Attachment A.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Request for approval and execution of Notice of Exercise of Option to Renew Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and City of Leesburg relating to leachate disposal for the term of October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities
Request for approval and execution of Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Eustis for leachate disposal for the term of October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998.
Resolutions/Subdivisions
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-161 providing for certification of assessment roll for Greater Groves Subdivision, providing for certified copies, providing for effect of adoption of Resolution, and providing for an effective date, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Resolutions/Subdivisions
Request for approval and execution of Resolution 1997-162 providing for certification of assessment roll for Greater Hills Subdivision, providing for certified copies, providing for effect of adoption of Resolution, and providing for an effective date, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Resolutions/Subdivisions
Request for approval and execution of Resolution 1997-163 providing for certification of assessment roll for Greater Pines Subdivision, providing for certified copies, providing for effect of adoption of Resolution, and providing for an effective date, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Resolutions/Subdivisions
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-164 providing for certification of assessment roll for Village Green Subdivision, providing for certified copies, providing for effect of adoption of Resolution, and providing for an effective date, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Resolutions/Assessments/Fire & Emergency Services
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-165 providing for certification of assessment roll for the Fire Protection and Rescue Services Assessment, providing for certified copies, providing for effect of adoption of Resolution, and providing for an effective date, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Resolutions/Assessments/Solid Waste
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 1997-166 providing for certification of assessment roll for the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Assessment, providing for certified copies, providing for effect of adoption of Resolution, and providing for an effective date, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Assessments
Request for approval and execution of Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for three road assessments which have been paid in full, as follows:
661059 Peg Jolley 06/05/97
669021 Ruth B. Clark 06/11/97
686029 Robert Peterson 07/08/97
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
Presentation of Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service
Kathryn Padgett, Workers Compensation Coordinator, Human Resources/Risk Management
Frederick J. Schneider, Engineer IV/PE, Public Works/Engineering
Presentation of Plaques to Employees with Ten Years of Service
Marlin D. Stewart, Equipment Operator III, Public Works/Roads/Maintenance Area II
Richard D. Massey, Equipment Operator II, Public Works/Roads/Maintenance Area III
Presentation of Plaque to Employee with Thirty Years of Service
Charles W. Carlton, Area Maintenance Supervisor, Public Services/Maintenance Area II
Presentation of Plaque and Bond to "Employee of the Quarter", 3rd Quarter (April, May, June)
Scott D. Harper, Public Education Specialist, Solid Waste Management Services/Recycling Services/Recycling Education Grant
Presentation of Plaques to Retiring County Employees
Betty H. Dittman, Expo Center/Fairgrounds Director/Facilities & Capital Improvements/Fairgrounds Section -- Eleven Years One Month of Service (not present)
Lewis "Pop" D. Holland, Equipment Operator I, Public Works/Roads Division/Special Projects -- 17 Years 10 Months of Service (not present)
"PRIDE" CERTIFICATES
PRIDE is a program established to recognize our employees for the quality performance they are giving to Lake County and to let the employees know we appreciate their efforts.
Office of Agricultural Education Service
Lloyd Singleton, Horticultural Learning Center
Carol Skinner, Cooperative Extension Service
Department of Growth Management
Sue Carroll (not present)
John R. Pollaert, Code Enforcement Division
LAKE COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AWARDS PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE
Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board
Presentation of plaque to Mr. Frank Rakofsky for his service on the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board from 1990-1997. (Not present)
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES
Lake County Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Hope H. Lamb for service from 1996-1997 (not present)
Judy Smathers for service from 1994-1997
Lake County Comprehensive Health Care Committee
Robert E. Snyder, Jr. for service from 1994-1997 (not present)
Lake County Cultural Affairs Council
Mollie Cunningham for service from 1995-1997
Allan Gold for service from 1995-1997 (not present)
Kristin Ludecke for service from 1995-1997 (not present)
Shirley Sojourner for service from 1995-997 (not present)
Suzanne Staples for service from 1995-1997 (not present)
Lake County County-Wide Solid Waste Study Committee
Preston Davis for service from 1995-1997 (not present)
Arthur M. "Mac" Elder for service from 1995-1997
Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board
Miguel E. Ordonez for service from 1994-1997
Lake County Women's Hall of Fame Selection Committee
Estella Crummer for service from 1995-1997 (not present)
Elizabeth Pringle for service from 1995-1997
Cecil Shumacker for service from 1995-1997
Orlando Area Sports Commission
George J. Becker, Jr. for service from 1996-1997 (not present)
PRESENTATION OF LETTER OF CONGRATULATIONS
Commr. Good read the Letter of Congratulations and presented it to Susan Larson for being selected as the 1997 Public Information Officer of the Year by the Public Information Officer Section of the Florida Fire Chiefs Association.
PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION
Commr. Good read the Proclamation adopting the "Children's Bill of Rights" and presented it to Mr. Ron Hale of Road Knights Corporation.
PRESENTATION OF LAKE COUNTY CULTURAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL REPORT
BUDGETS/REPORTS
Mr. Alton Roane, Chairman of the Cultural Affairs Council, made a presentation to the Board of the Lake County Cultural Affairs Council's 1997/98 Annual Plan and Budget. Mr. Roane acknowledged those members that were present in the audience and stated that the bylaws of the Council require that, on a yearly basis, it presents to the Board an annual plan and budget. Mr. Roane presented a budget in the amount of $16,000, and the goal of the Council, and stated that the plan consisted of seven objectives, as noted in the back up material.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Lake County Cultural Affairs Council's 1997/98 Annual Plan and Budget.
PUBLIC HEARING
ASSESSMENT - PICCIOLA ISLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LIGHTING
Ms. Cindy Heffler, Assessment/Customer Service Coordinator, addressed the Board to discuss the Picciola Island Subdivision street lighting non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll. She stated that petitions were received from 55 percent of the owners who own 55 percent of the parcels within the subdivision requesting the County establish an assessment program for the electrical service for the street lights. The final cost per parcel has been recalculated and was now set at $14.69 per parcel for Fiscal Year 1997/98. Ms. Heffler noted that this cost should remain in effect for future years unless the electrical service cost increases. For budgetary and noticing purposes, staff calculated a five percent increase per year and any future increase will be determined on cost only and will be approved each year as part of the budget process. All costs collected will remain in a Picciola Island Fund, and any funds remaining at the end of each fiscal year will be carried forward and will reduce the assessment cost per parcel. She noted a question and answer sheet that had been developed by staff regarding the most common questions asked by the public. For the record, Ms. Heffler stated that Notice of Objections were received from Harry and Bessie King, Clyde Doer, Kenneth Bowen, William and Janine Sullivan, and Alberta Metz.
Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Ms. Jean Sullivan stated that she and her husband wanted to go on record as objecting to the proposed assessment. She stated that the Homeowner's meeting that was held to discuss the issue was not open to all residents, and she did not feel that all details of the proposal was thoroughly explained. Ms. Sullivan stated the following reasons for the objection to the assessment: the lights would not be a deterrent to crime; the lights that were already there draw insects and blind mosquitoes; the cost of the lights should not be levied in the manner of tax assessment, because failure to pay the assessment would result in the loss of title to their home; the Homeowner's Association should have no right to instigate any assessment that could result in the loss of their property; if the subdivision was forced to accept such a unfair proposal, then all subdivisions in Lake County should be forced to accept the same assessments for any lighting within their subdivisions the method of apportionment was unfair and the property owners should be taxed by the frontage of their property where it would be lighted and not by the parcel. She noted that the original lights in the subdivision were put in and pay for by individuals, and the Homeowners' Association took on the responsibility of the lights and it was not forced to do so.
Ms. Bessie King, member of the Homeowners' Association, went on record as opposing the lights for the same reasons stated by Ms. Sullivan. Ms. King stated that they have lived there for 16 years and have never had the need for lights, and there was nothing that has happened in that period of time to make lights necessary.
Mr. Charles Jacobs, President of the Homeowners' Association, addressed the Board and stated that the Association started the proceeding about two years ago, and because of information from the County, the Association decided to review the issue again. The Association held meetings of the membership of the Association and overwhelmingly approved going in this direction to support the street lights, with one of the reasons being the budgetary affairs of the Association. The Association made appeals to the non-members for donations to pay the bills for the services that are afforded to all of the residents, but only one resident make a contribution. Mr. Jacobs stated that over 50 percent of the residents signed a petition regarding the proposed additional taxes. He noted that there were currently 16 lights and 20 lights were being calculated for the area. He stated that the total revenue that would be generated from the taxes would be $22,052.78. The current rates from Leesburg Electric, based on 20 lights, would be $1,418. 88, which would leave a balance for the County of $833.90. He noted that this would be a 58.77 percent markup on the electric charges, which he felt was rather absorbatent. However, the Association would accept this, but would respectfully ask the Board to review the charges.
Commr. Swartz noted that the costs were higher when the Board first tried to do some of these types of special assessments. He explained that these were not dollars that just flowed into the County, but were dollars that covered actual expenses, because there were State requirements that had to be met. Commr. Swartz explained that staff has done everything to bring the costs down, including grouping advertisements for such projects.
Mr. Jacobs stated that he still feels less government would be better, however, the residents want the lights and they will pay the bills. He noted that the Association does not have the ability to require membership in the organization and stated that there were 146 parcels in the development and they were currently represented by 95 memberships. Mr. Jacobs explained that, if you are not a members of the Association, you are not allowed to attend the meetings.
Ms. Heffler stated that, if the costs go over the amount that has been advertised, staff would have to start the process over again.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that each year the Board approves the assessment roll, which includes the actual amount that is assessed, and by doing so, the Board is approving the budget. He stated that the assessments would be the equivalent of ad valorem property taxes, so they would be treated the same as property taxes, unless this was a totally exact homestead, there were special provisions, but otherwise, it would be treated as taxes.
Commr. Gerber noted that she had discussed with Mr. Minkoff other methods of assessment, because of the problem being expressed about having the costs included on the tax bill, but the County does not have in place a process to do otherwise.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the County could assess and not utilize the ad valorem method, but the costs would be extremely high, because the cost of enforcing nonpayment would be court action, and this would drive the cost per parcel significantly higher.
Mr. Jacobs stated that he was very pleased to know that the process could be rescinded by 50 percent plus of the population vote.
Commr. Swartz stated that, as a point of clarification, the County has in place a special assessment policy within the road program, which generally calls for 55 percent, but that has never been strictly applied to this type of special assessment. He stated that, whatever the outcome of this particular issue, the County might want to look at developing a policy that would deal with special assessment programs other than what the County presently has for roads.
Ms. Heffler noted that staff has already been having discussions with the County Attorney's Office and is beginning to work on those.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
It was noted that there are no County meetings that individuals cannot attend.
Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve and authorize Resolution 1997-167 adopting the Picciola Island Subdivision street lighting non-ad valorem rate schedule and the assessment roll.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that there was a problem with fairly spreading the cost of particularly the existing street lights among all of those who live in that area. The County tries to put into place, in the current new subdivision, or projects, Homeowners' Associations that can require membership, or some other type of special assessment in the very beginning, because there is an equity issue, and he felt that everyone that presently is benefiting from those street lights should share in the costs. He encouraged those individuals who are not members of the Association to join and be heard.
Commr. Good commented that, as a rule, he was not real excited about seeing street lights in rural areas and, in this case, there are existing street lights, and he felt that this was an equity issue. He explained that particular issue involves a 59 percent petition, and in the future years, if their position prevails, a petition can be brought to the Board and he would probably vote very differently on it.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
COUNTY FEE SCHEDULES
RESOLUTIONS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that, in the Addendum packet, there was a summary of all fee changes.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that the information included one correction to the schedule on the Resolution.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 9:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
COUNTY FEE SCHEDULES
RESOLUTIONS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the fee schedules for Fiscal Year 1997-1998.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 13, Exhibit "A", and stated that, in regards to the mining reinspection fees, he felt that, where it was necessary, it would be a reasonable fee, but he wanted to make sure that the inspectors try to work with the mining entities when they are there the first time. On Page 14, regarding the Planned Unit Development (PUD), he suggested that staff look at a fee schedule for a very small scale PUD, because for those people who wish to subdivide smaller parcels, they do not want to go through the PUD process partly because of the fees and other costs associated with them, which may be to the advantage of the County and the property owners.
Ms. Farrell noted that, on Page 16, the fee for the preliminary plat in a PUD had been reduced, although there was consistently more staff review with a PUD.
Discussion occurred regarding the PUD preliminary plat fee of $975.00 plus $6.50 per lot, with Ms. Farrell indicating that staff could consider looking into a $975.00 fee, up to so many lots, and then above 100 lots, the $6.50 fee per lot would be added.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 17, Lot of Record Determination and Vested Rights Determination, with Ms. Farrell noting that staff could come up with some language in terms of so many lots for this particular area also.
Commr. Good referred to Page 13, and questioned the $250 fee being proposed for chicken farms/ratite ranches/agricultural business and noted that a ratite ranch has not been defined. He stated that, before a fee is passed, these types of things needed to be defined.
Ms. Farrell explained that staff has been charging fees indicated in the individual ordinances for those uses. She noted that, in the schedule where the current fee has been indicated as "NONE', staff has been collecting the fee, but it has not specifically been in the fee schedule. She further noted that language would be presented to the Board in mid-October to clarify the noted uses.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, in a lot of the small CUPs, staff has come back and recommended that the inspection fee be waived, which the Resolution allows to occur. If there were one or two only and an inspection no necessary, staff could waive the fee.
Commr. Gerber referred to Page 19, Tree Removal, and the lowered fee and stated that she wanted to see the fee remain the same. She knew of instances where individuals would rather pay the $870 and take their chances.
Discussion occurred regarding individuals having permits to remove trees, with Commr. Swartz noting that the worst examples of tree removal have been involved where there was no permit whatsoever.
Commr. Hanson felt the Board was looking at two different issues, one was permit and the cost of labor for staff time to issue that permit, and the other was a fine, and she felt both of these were being mixed in this exorbitant fee. She felt that, between the legal department and staff, they could look at the time involved for the permit, and then look at Code Enforcement for a fine for acting without the permit.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not have a problem with fee as a permit issue, but he wanted to see some clear understanding by staff that, if a permit may not be received where development of some kind is occurring, or no development is occurring and trees were just being taken down, the issue will be taken before the appropriate body and appropriate fines and replacement trees are set up.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 20, Mailed Information /Agendas and the $3.20 fee, and it was noted by Ms. Farrell that a net page was being designed, and that the fee of $3.20 was reasonable and appropriate for staff time.
Commr. Good felt that the significant reduced fee for Conditional Use permits for Home Occupational & Greenhouses (Page 14) was a good decision by staff.
There was a question about mining sufficiency with Ms. Farrell explaining that this would be the information provided to the technical staff, and staff would determine whether or not it was sufficient to make comments.
After some discussion, it was noted that the laboratory fees indicated on Page 21 were fees that are being collected but have not been adopted in the fee schedule.
Mr. Minkoff noted that, on Exhibit "B", Page 2, under Board fees, there was a typographical error and the proposed fee should be $60.00. He also pointed out that the Board had a revised Page 22 in the Addendum.
Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Swartz addressed Exhibit "F", (10), the additional fee to be charged for behavior by truck operators that is likely to cause damage to truck scales and questioned whether the County was actually having problems with this and how it would actually be enforced.
Mr. Don Post, Senior Director, Solid Waste Management Services, stated that there were problems mostly at the Waste to Energy Plant. He explained how some of the problems have been occurring and stated that the County has been paying for the repairs. Mr. Post stated that these were outside contracted haulers with Ogden Martin.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would prefer to see some understanding with Ogden Martin where, if haulers were bringing in special waste or otherwise, if they damage the scales and there is a cost, they will pay it.
Mr. Post stated that the County would actually bill the company that does the hauling, and it would notify Ogden Martin. If the County was unable to collect from the company, the County would send the bill to Ogden Martin.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff have some discussion with Ogden Martin and get some clarification with them that, if some of the people they are contracting with to bring waste to the plant are damaging those scales, the County would send them the bill, because they would be billing those people anyway.
Mr. Post explained that the fee would allow signs to be put up outside of the facility, which would indicated enforcement of fines, and the company would be billed, and the company would bill the individuals.
Commr. Swartz asked that the Solid Waste Department and the County Attorney's Office try and find some additional way of dealing with this, particularly at the Ogden Martin facility. He stated that the Board could adopt the fee and schedule, but he felt that more should be done in looking at this issue.
Discussion occurred regarding Exhibit "F", Page 4, with Mr. Post noting that the recycling in the unincorporated areas was being worked out through the haulers negotiations' contract. He stated that the results would be brought back to the Board before the end of October with the initial proposal from the three haulers.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see that, as staff negotiates, it gets some alternative options to the number of collections.
Ms. Cindy Heffler, Assessment & Customer Service Coordinator, explained Exhibit "F", Municipal Service Benefit Units and Other Special Assessments and the cost of $650 plus $1 per unit of assessment.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 1997-168 establishing the Fee Schedules for Fiscal Year 1997-98.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOWER ORDINANCE
ORDINANCES/GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, read the following proposed Tower Ordinance, by title only, at the first required public hearing:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING SECTION 14.00.03(D)(1), MAIL; AMENDING SECTION 6.06.03(B)(5), MINING SITE PLAN APPLICATION; AMENDING CHAPTER II, DEFINITIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER III, ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AMENDING SECTION 3.01.02 CLASSIFICATION OF USES, AMENDING SECTION 3.01.03 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, AMENDING SECTION 3.01.04 KEY TO CONDITIONS IN TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES #19, TOWERS; AMENDING SECTION 3.11.03 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES AND DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING SECTION 3.11.04 TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING USES AND DEVELOPMENT, CREATING SECTIONS 3.13.00 THROUGH 3.13.17 WIRELESS ANTENNAS, TOWERS, AND EQUIPMENT FACILITIES; AMENDING CHAPTER X, ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES, AMENDING SECTION 10.01.04, SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
It was noted that the following staff members were present for the discussion: Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management; Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning and Development Services; and Mr. Dale Greiner, Building Services Director.
Ms. Farrell noted staff met with the representatives from the tower industry yesterday, and staff was proposing some minor changes to the Ordinance dated August 29, 1997. She reviewed those changes with the Board and noted that staff was also proposing a change on Page 22, 3.13.11 Landscaping, B. 1, from ten (10) feet apart, to 20 feet apart, because at ten feet apart, the trees cannot survive. Ms. Farrell referred to Page 22, Line 20, and stated that a correction needed to be made as follows: change "CFP" to "CFD". Ms. Farrell stated that staff was comfortable moving forward with what was being proposed.
Commr. Good opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Gus Gowens, Assistant Emergency Coordinator for the Lake County Amateur Radio Emergency Services, addressed the Board and questioned why the amateur radios were being included in the ordinance.
Commr. Swartz explained that towers that are 100 feet or less in height are exempt from virtually everything other than being required to get a permit that would show that the towers meet the standards that the industry requires them to meet.
Mr. Gowens explained that his amateur radio club owns repeaters, and in their local club house, they have a 180 foot tower, but they do not have five acres. He questioned how they would provide communications from emergency shelters with the Red Cross, if the tower goes down.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the tower was destroyed by a storm under the County's current code, it could be re-established within two years.
Mr. John Watson addressed the Board and stated that, at the last meeting, he presented to Mr. Greiner and Ms. Farrell and her staff a letter from a registered engineer in the State of Florida that stated that the towers that the amateurs use would meet the criteria. Mr. Watson stated that he was not in favor of the regulations, but he had a problem with the language that states a tower up to 200 feet in height shall be permitted on lots containing a minimum of five acres. He stated that in the Rohn catalog, it addresses what the amateurs use for their towers, and it allows for a safe installation of 80 percent of the height of the tower for the guide points. He felt it could be reduced in the rural sections to one acre or larger lot. He referred to Page 18, Section 3.13.05, D., and stated that he felt that Section 3.13.04, Radiation Emission Standards, should be deleted. He referred to Page 16, Section 3.13.02, Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations, and questioned what kind of fee an individual would be assessed if an amateur comes in with a tower situation where he does not fall exactly into the regulation as stated today. If amateurs were going to be required to have a fee, or come in and get a building permit, what kind of fee would they be assessed, since the amateur radio community provides at no cost to the County emergency communications. Mr. Watson stated that he would like to see amateurs exempted all together.
Commr. Hanson stated that it would be her feeling to exempt this requirement rather than looking at all of the other issues, because it would be the simplest way to address the concerns.
Commr. Swartz stated that the conditions, as stated, were ones that Mr. Watson had found to be acceptable, and he suggested that, with staff's concurrence, in Section 3.13.04, the same language be used and to add the "where applicable" at the end of the section.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff was considering a $68 fee, which would include $30 for the building permit plus $3 per $1,000 of the value.
Discussion occurred regarding the setbacks being measured from the base of the wireless communications tower to the property line of the parcel on which it is located, with Mr. Watson stating that he would like to see the amateur radio station operators to be preempted all together, or secondly, if they are going to be regulated to any extent, the County make the exception to Section 3.13.04 that it does not affect them.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the County could not vary the codes, and those codes are all adopted in separate ordinances, so if the building code applies to a tower, it could not be removed from the building code, because the Florida Statute requires the County to adopt the State minimum building codes.
Commr. Swartz stated that, with the exception of getting the very basic review that the tower meets the standards that Mr. Watson says the industry provides, a permit fee for a tower 100 feet or less is exempted from everything, and it is only a tower that is over 100 feet that has to meet the five acre requirement in certain rural zoned categories.
Mr. Lee Bernard, Panicle Towers, addressed the Board and stated that they have several existing communication towers in Lake County. He referred to Page 21, Section 3.13.09, Communication Antenna Co-location, B., and stated that the language indicates that Lake County encourages the use of existing towers. He referred to Section 3.13.12, Modification or Rebuilding, and stated that, for him to rebuild an existing tower, he would have to meet all of the requirements of Section 3.13, which are the tower separation and the residential separation. He cannot meet those with the existing towers that he has right now, because they are in areas where, over the last 20 to 25 years, homes have been built. Each one of the towers presently have a number of tenants on them and they are legal, but the County is telling the new carriers to go on the existing towers. Mr. Bernard stated that the County was not giving him the ability to rebuild the tower to hold the new carriers. He noted that he was close to maximum on all of their existing towers. Mr. Bernard stated that the counties and cities were adopting a code that, if you are not changing the type of tower, you can come in and replace it to accommodate collocation. For him to replace the tower, he was having to meet the tower separation and the setbacks from residential.
Mr. Minkoff noted that the Board had inserted at the last meeting all of 3.13 other than landscaping, so you could only modify or rebuild it, if you met the requirements of the code. Under the traditional non-conforming uses, it would not be allowed to be taken down and rebuilt He noted that, on Page 15, the Ordinance does propose a change to the nonconforming uses to allow additional antennas.
Mr. Bernard stated that he would be more than happy to replace a tower with another new tower and he had no problem with placing the bond, or bringing it up to the 1997 building code, but he could not meet the physical setbacks from residential and other towers. If the Board would give him some flexibility, he could spend a large amount of money and replace the towers with modern 1997 building code towers that would accommodate colocation. He would like be exempted from Sections 3.13.07, Setbacks, and 3.13.08, Separation between Towers.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney representing someone who wants to build a radio tower in south Lake County, stated that he had three revisions that he wanted to present to the Board that would help further the goals of the ordinance in encouraging colocation and reasonable separation between towers. He referred to Page 20, the Co-Location Reduction chart and stated that he had suggested to staff that seven (7) might be 40 percent; eight (8) at 45 percent; and nine or more be 50 percent. He referred to the Tower Separation and stated that, if there is another tower within that area, colocation should be required on it, if possible. He would like to see some sort of administrative hardship waiver from the Tower Separation requirements, if it can be shown to staff's satisfaction that the tower that is the neighboring tower cannot be colocated on. He referred to Page 19, 3.13.07, Setbacks, and stated that most broadcast towers are located in rural areas, however, this place is an absolute prohibition on locating one within 1,320 feet of home that is not owned by the owner of the property. He would like to get letters of no objection, or waivers of objection of neighboring landowners.
Ms. Laura Belflower, Planner and Attorney for Holland & Knight, stated that she was representing PrimeCo Personal Communications, and she wanted to discuss the letter that had been submitted by Holland & Knight. Ms. Belflower stated that the goal for PrimeCo today was to work with the Board and get an ordinance that works that protects the interests of the Board was concerned about that allows them to put in the service in a way that works for them. She was concerned about some of the inconsistencies in the proposed ordinance, and she felt there were some steps that had been taken that seemed to be inconsistent with the purpose. The greatest concern was the setback from residential areas, as shown on Page 19 of the draft. She stated that the setbacks, as proposed, appeared to do two things. They encourage the use of monopoles, but it should be understood that monopoles do not work for everybody, because for all practical purposes, a monopole cannot go over 180 to 200 feet in height, because it would be difficult to recover the costs. She stated that a monopole cannot accomodate everybody, and it discourages colocation. Ms. Belflower explained the information in detail, in terms of economic value, technical views, and locational limitations for monopoles. She stated that, in Lake County, PrimeCo was going in on an average of 195 feet, which is an extremely expensive monopole, and if it would be possible to recover the costs of using a monopole as opposed to a lattice, you would have to have several carriers, and they are just not out there right now.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the costs are so extensive in the monopole, it seemed liked it would be to the industry's benefit to say we will go a little bit taller with the monopoles, and it will be more expensive, but it will colocate on those, because to do the alternative, which would be lattice or guyed, you would have to have more separation, more setback, etc.
Ms. Belflower stated that the second purpose was the protection of residential areas and what residential areas are being protected from is not identified in the ordinance.. She stated that towers do not block light and air, and the proposed draft requires that they be build to all applicable codes, which means a tower presents no greater safety risk than any building. She presented more detailed information on the safety issues and stated that there has to be a connection between the Board's purpose of protecting property values, which is a legitimate purpose, and its purpose of protecting aesthetics, which is a legitimate purpose, but there has to be a tie between what the Board is imposing and what it is seeking to do. Putting in a flat setback distance on all locations, based on the type of tower, without any review of the situation at the property is a flat prohibition.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in the back of the proposed ordinance, it indicates that these are minimum standards and the Board would have the ability to take into account issues such as variation of drain, or vegetation, and other things to determine whether, in fact, the 1,320 feet was enough.
Ms. Belflower stated that rigid setback requirement, although it provides a separation, it does not necessarily provide aesthetic protection. There suggestion would be that, if you meet those setbacks, it is aesthetically appropriate, and it would be a permitted use if it meets the different requirement. Otherwise, it would come through the public hearing review process for the specific situation to be analyzed, and if there is no intervening use and nothing that affects the aesthetics, then it would be denied. She stated that it needed to be taken into consideration that the prohibitation takes up a significant amount of land. Ms. Belflower clarified that they were not asking that the setbacks be eliminated, but that the purpose of the setbacks be better integrated into the ordinance, so that it will be an evaluation of the aesthetic impacts within those setback areas, and that there be a cut off point beyond which it is presumed to be acceptable and within which it requires a special examination.
Ms. Belflower stated that another issue she wished to discuss is the separation between towers. She stated that tower separations are a way to limit the total number of towers in a particular area, but the ramifications can be significant, which she explained at this time. She suggested that the separation requirements be part of the review criteria under the conditional use criteria, so that, if an applicant comes in and does not meet the tower separation requirements, he can provide justification for not meeting the requirement. She stated that, instead of having a strict prohibition, use it as a one of the review criteria.
Mr. Richard Dudley, District Emergency Coordinator for the Eries for five counties that include Lake County, stated that he was here to speak for the Lake County amateurs. Mr. Dudley stated that he was concerned that the important repeaters that Lake County that are used for emergency service are higher than 100 feet, and should they go down, he was concerned about whether they can be re-erected at the same height.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the current code allows all non-conforming uses that are destroyed in either an accident, or an act of God, to be rebuilt , as long as they are done within 24 months.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWER ORDINANCE
ORDINANCES/GROWTH MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Mr. Brian Milder, American Portable Tele-Com (APT), Tampa, Florida, addressed the Board and stated that APT was in the process of finalizing their entire network for Lake County, and in Lake County, they have a total of 11 sites. Mr. Milder stated that this was the limit that they will have in Lake County, because they feel it will give them adequate coverage of Lake County. Out of the 11 sites, six of them have been located on existing structures, and they make every effort to avoid building new towers, because it is expensive and unpleasant for them. Their primary goal is to locate on an existing structure. From a business approach, Mr. Milder stated that they were not going to spend money that they do not have to spend, and if there is an opportunity to colocate, they will take this option, because there is an incentive for them to colocate. It it is cheaper and faster to do so, and right now speed market means they have a competitive edge. Mr. Milder felt that the PrimeCo has also submitted for the majority if not all of their system as well, and he was guessing that, if AT&T has any further build out plans in Lake County, they were fairly modest, and he did not see a giant wave coming to Lake County. He stated that a lattice tower would offer greater flexibility in terms of colocation. A monopole it is a solid pole, and they are prefabricated when they are put up, so if they are going to be designed for colocation, you have to build in the attachments points at the top of the tower. He understood that people viewed the monopoles as being more aesthetically pleasing, but they needed to understand that there were limitations to them. He explained that they have commissioned a property appraisal company to do appraisals in different counties and they have found that the existence of towers, whether they be monopole or lattice, do not affect property values at all. He noted that he was the Zoning and Siting Director at APT.
Ms. Mary Dody, Legal Counsel for APT, addressed the Board to offer specific suggestions for modifications to the ordinance that would promote colocation. She stated that, from Mr. Milder's speech, it should have been interpreted that lattice towers create much more flexibility in terms of colocation. She addressed the chart on Page 19 of the proposed ordinance and noted that in Section 3.13.07, the setbacks from residential zoning and from single family or duplex residential units were the same for guyed towers and lattice towers. Staff had explained earlier that monopole towers have been given a break in terms of separations, which would be great, if the Board wanted to encourage monopoles. They feel it would not be consistent with the goals that they perceive the County to have of colocation to treat lattice and guyed towers the same way in terms in setbacks. If the Board decreases the setbacks of the lattice tower to something more reasonable for the industry, you would probably see more lattice towers and colocation. Ms. Dodie referred to comments made by Mr. Milder indicating that monopoles go in with certain colocation capabilities at specific predetermined heights, and with a lattice tower, a user can come in after the tower has been put in place and select the height they want considering separation requirements between users. She stated that, if the County lessened the setbacks from residential, it would promote more lattice towers, thus promoting more colocation and fewer towers. She felt that, if the County was promoting the monopoles because of their aesthetics, it would be getting just more monopoles and not the colocation it wants. Ms. Dody suggested that, in Section 3.13.08, in the tower to tower separation where the lattice and guyed towers were treated differently, she felt there should be some graduation between the types of towers ranging from the monopoles or the camouflaged towers on the bottom to the guyed towers on the top, in terms of tower to tower separation. Ms. Dody stated that, in Paragraph B, the chart, there was a changed that resulted from their meeting yesterday with County staff and the County Attorney, and it was a change that had been done at her request. She noted that "more than four" and leave "(4) or more", which would be left in the language, which would be consistent with the colocation reduction chart below the language. She further requested that the County allow the few property owners that may fall within a separation distance to waive any objection, or allow the tower company to come in with letters of no objection from any property owners who are within that setback. The County has sufficient property line setback requirements to ensure public safety, and the separation requirement from off site residential uses it is clearly an aesthetic concern. Ms. Dody commended staff for working with all of those individuals involved with this process.
Mr. Steve Eshom, President of Lake County Amateur Radio Association, stated that he felt that the County has created a win-win situation. He stated that Section 3.13.05 represents a minimum practical regulation, even though they would prefer to be exempted. Mr. Eshom stated that they would like some concessions such as having their permit fees waived; that the engineers accept the manufacturers' data as presented; and they be exempted from the admissions standards. He referred to Section 3.13.10, Fencing, regarding a six foot fence and a climbing device, and he suggested that the language read "a anti-climbing device, or a four foot fence", because it will fit better in residential areas. They would also like to see a reduction in the parcel size requirement to a parcel of sufficient size to support the tower. Mr. Eshom commended Ms. Farrell and staff for their professionalism, and for working with them to develop a solution to the issue.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in regards to the fees, staff has the ability to look at these and come back to the Board with any changes. In regards to the 100 foot tower or less, as an accessory use to a residential property, the issue of the zoning clearance may not be necessary and staff will be looking at this because it is an accessory use. Secondly, staff has indicated repeatedly that they are going to do whatever they can to utilize the manufacturers' data, and thirdly, he was the Board was going to amend Section 3.13.04 to include at the end "where applicable". As number four, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt someone would climb over a four foot fence as well as a six foot fence. He stated that the five acres was included because the zoning districts in which those larger towers are allowed require five acre tracts; however, even if you have a smaller tract, you can go before the variance board, if you have a lot of record that was a smaller size.
Mr. Bruce King, Cypress Real Estate Services, and representing AT&T Wireless, stated that he wanted to commend the County staff for their level of effort that they put forth on drafting the ordinance. They firmly believed that they have struck a reasonable balance between their need to provide the variance wireless communication facilities and balancing their needs with the protection of residential properties. Even though they were not 100 percent in agreement with the ordinance, they did think it was a reasonable base from which to begin operations, and they do hope that, on the adoption of the ordinance, it will establish some minimum standards and criteria by which applications could be adequately evaluated.
At 1:30 p.m., Commr. Good called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that this was the first reading and the Board had before it a proposed ordinance. It is was noted that changes would be made to it by motion for the record.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following: on Page 18, Section 3.13.04, to add at the end of the last sentence in that section the words "where applicable."
Discussion occurred regarding the standard fence requirements, with Ms. Farrell stating that there was a minimum of four feet, as far as a pool, for security purposes. She stated that staff would be comfortable with the four foot fence and noted that a fence or an anti-climbing device was required, but not both.
Commr. Hanson felt that a four foot fence would serve no purpose, if there was no anti-climbing device.
After some discussion with staff, Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to require the anti-climbing device and delete the requirement and/or the option of a fence for those uses only.
It is was noted by Mr. Minkoff that, on Page 18, C., Lines 16 and 17, the second sentence would be deleted.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Watson stated that, in the amateur community, they build their own anti-climbing device.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the amateur comes in to get the permit, he will have to show an anti-climbing device, either as a part of what the manufacturer shows or something that will be satisfactory to the building official.
Mr. Watson stated that the problem could be solved by maintaining an anti-climbing device of a minimum of eight feet in height.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 22, Section 3.13.12, Modification or Rebuilding, and stated that, if it was the Board's intention to try and find ways to encourage colocation, then it should try to do that, but at the same time, it needed to be careful in not allowing something to happen through a non-public hearing process that it does not want to happen. He suggested that this section be broken into two areas, one would be an urban area, which would include the urban land use designations, and the other would be a rural designation. In the urban designations, if someone wanted to modify or rebuild a tower in order to accommodate additional communications antennas, it could be done by increasing it by 40 feet, but it would have to go to a monopole and there would have to be an agreement, or contract for a term of service. In the rural areas, where there it is an existing tower, they could modify or rebuild with an agreement and with the County Manager's approval or a designee to ensure that the rebuilding or the modification was still at least consistent or no more obnoxious in appearance than the existing tower. Commr. Swartz noted that the language before the Board allows for modification and rebuilding and an increase in height without any public hearing.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board should make this an incentive to colocate, if they are modifying or building in the same location for the purpose of adding additional antennas.
Commr. Good felt that all of this could be accomplished by exempting them from Section 3.13.07 and Section 3.13.08, and this would encourage the colocation, and he did not see the 40 feet has being an incentive on way or the other.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the ordinance was adopted, there are non-conforming towers that would fail to meet virtually everything in it. What this it is saying to even those non-conforming towers is, if you can colocate and show the agreement for colocation, the County will let you rebuild or modify that tower and increase it by 40 feet; in the urban areas, however, it was going to have to be a monopole for them to do this.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, that under Section 3.13.12, language would be added that would eliminate those individuals from Sections 3.13.07 and 3.13.08, and leaving in the 40 feet, adding language that would say they would have at least one agreement for additional colocation and have the same type of tower.
Under discussion, the Board members discussed changing the type of tower and why this would not be allowed.
Commr. Good stated that he could support the motion, if it kept the tower the same height so there would not be a more obtrusive structure.
Commr. Swartz stated that this would be the only way he would support the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to amend the motion to strike the language that allows for the rebuild or modification to have any additional height.
Commr. Hanson voted "no".
The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, as amended, with the motion being carried by a 5-0 vote.
Mr. Minkoff restated the motion for clarification, as follows: in Section 3.13.12 and as a footnote on Page 15 of the non-conforming section, it would allow an existing communications tower, conforming or non-conforming, to be rebuilt without an increase in height, without considering 3.13.07 and 3.13.08, so long as there was a written agreement showing that there would be at least one additional colocation on the tower and that this tower was the same type as what was existing previously.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 20, the colocation reduction, and stated that the colocation reduction was only the tower to tower separation, and the words "more than" would need to be removed, which was in the staffs' recommendation, with signed agreements.
Commr. Swartz made a motion to strike language on Page 20, Line 14, B., that is redundant so that the language reads "designed to accommodate four (4) or more service providers", and to change the language on Page 21 to indicate as similarly as before that they be required to provide signed colocation agreements in order to get the reduction in separation.
Commr. Gerber seconded the motion for discussion.
Under discussion, the members reviewed the intent of the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voted "no".
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to plant the trees 20 feet apart rather than ten, as recommended by staff.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to accept the staff recommended language in Section 3.13.03(B), Structural Design.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to accept the recommended changes in Section 3.13.07, Setbacks, in A. And B.
It is was noted that a correction would be made to the spelling of "Municipal".
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved 400 percent of the tower height, and 200 percent of the tower height, as recommended.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Section 3.13.08(A), Separation between Towers, as recommended by staff.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Section 3.13.10, Fencing, as recommended by staff.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved that, in the new Section 3.13.11(B)(1), as recommended by staff, or as necessary, that the landscaped and buffered area around the structure excluding the tower itself, be landscaped per the existing code for other structures.
Commr. Hanson felt that the Board should allow for the administrative variances, and also for the no objection for setbacks from neighbors.
Discussion occurred regarding the recommendation for the allowance of no objection letters, with the Board deciding not to make a motion.
Mr. Minkoff noted that the final hearing on the ordinance was scheduled for September 23, 1997, at 5:05 p.m.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would not support the ordinance because she believes that it would be much more up front to exempt the amateur radio operators at the beginning, except for setbacks and perhaps, as recommended, a notarized statement regarding installation, than to leave them in the ordinance and have them come back in and exempt them from all of these things, and she does not support it, because the ordinance does not allow the incentives that were set out for colocation.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve, on the first reading, an Ordinance dealing with the County's Land Development Regulations and more specifically with towers, as amended today.
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that she was not going to support the motion, although she agrees with the amendments and other parts of the ordinance, because of the 150 foot limit for the amateurs. She would like them to be exempted under 150 feet.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Hanson and Gerber voting "no".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 2:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
WORKSHOP: GIS Report - Kitty Cooper
COUNTY MANAGER/COMPUTER SERVICES
It is was noted that the following staff members were present for the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Workshop: Mr. Chris Greco, Computer Services; Mr. Al Hewitt, Water Resource Specialist; Ms. Kitty Cooper, GIS Analyst; and Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Director.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that, in January, she put together five people, Mr. Frank Royce, Property Appraiser's Office, Ms. Cooper, Mr. Greco, Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Griffey, and asked them to put together a plan for transitioning the GIS program from the Water Authority to the County Commission. The contracts that the County had with the Water Authority required this to happen as of October 1, 1997. The GIS Team developed not only the transition plan, but the plan for the growth of the system over the next three years. The implementation it is included in the budget, but there has not been an overview workshop on it.
Ms. Cooper presented opening remarks and stated that Mr. Royce would be introducing a video which was created by the team.
Mr. Royce addressed the Board and stated that the GIS will allow all of Lake County government to effectively collect, analyze, to share and dispense information graphically to the public. At this time, the Board viewed a video that had been developed by the Team, which portrayed the GIS in detail.
Ms. Cooper stated that independent studies have consistently shown that 80 to 90 percent of all information used by local government it is based upon geography. She defined a GIS and stated that a working GIS integrates five key components, hardware, software, data, people, and methods, and she presented detailed information on each component. Ms. Cooper explained the mission of the Team and the scope of review and objectives, and she presented some of the history of Lake County GIS and reviewed the survey information of the adjoining counties that was acquired by the Team. Ms. Cooper reviewed the possible users and customers of GIS, which included Public Works in its stormwater management; Growth Management and its placement of cell towers; and public access terminals such as in libraries. She discussed the different possibilities of connecting everyone to the GIS data, which included the use of dedicated lines, the internet access, the Lake County fiber optic network, and public access terminals. Ms. Cooper stated that the Team was recommending a centralized GIS that will eventually become a distributed GIS. They were thinking of putting the GIS server in the Historic Courthouse above the Property Appraiser's Office and adding to it the Administration Building, the Water Authority, the Judicial Building, the Sheriff's Department, and Public Works as a beginning, and then adding some of the cities to it. She explained the organizational structure of the GIS section that was being proposed and stated that the GIS Division Manager would be at the top of the list. They had discussed hiring a Land Records Manager the first year and a GIS Analyst; the second year a Data Base Manager, an Assistant Administrator and a GIS Technician; and the third year a Projects Manager and a GIS Analyst. She stated that the Assistant Administrator would probably be shared with the Department of Computer Services as a Technical Support person. Ms. Cooper referred to the budget and stated that, at some point in time, if technology has gotten better, there may be a change in the hardware packages. The Team was recommending the creation of a GIS Advisory Committee to make recommendations for GIS projects as the Division matures. The Team was also recommending interlocal agreements with any agencies the County wants to exchange data with, and Ms. Cooper briefly discussed the implementation plan that had been developed by the Team, as well as Team goals.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved and adopted the GIS Report.
Commr. Swartz noted that since 1988-89, the Water Authority has operated the GIS system and brought it to the level that it is today, and it has done a very good job. The County has provided a certain amount of resources that helped to that, but he felt the Water Authority needed to thanked for their efforts in the past, because he knows that they will be a very active participant even into the future.
Ms. Whittle introduced the new Computer Services Administrator, Ms. Susan Greenberg.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
It is was noted that no one present wished to present questions, comments and concerns to the Board.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
OTHER BUSINESS
COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the ratification of Annie "Jo" Tucker as the 1997 Women's Hall of Fame inductee as selected by the Women's Hall of Fame Committee and approval to have a lapel pin developed for the award.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Gerardo (Gerry) Suarez, Jr. to the Lake County Housing Element Advisory Committee (EAR).
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would try to bring to the next regular Board meeting additional names of individuals for consideration for the Housing Element Advisory Committee.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that a letter of resignation had been received from Ms. Lucille M. Espey-Francis, which has created an additional vacancy on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. She stated that this vacancy would be for an individual to complete a term ending March 2, 1998.
Commr. Cadwell requested that the appointment of individuals to the vacant positions on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee be agendized for the next regular Board meeting.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY ATTORNEY
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the rate increase for outside counsel, Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, et al, from $115 per hour to $125 per hour effective October 1, 1997.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4
RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 1997-146 expressing appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Carroll "Bud" Ward for the unselfish donation of his time and knowledge for the betterment of his community.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #2
MUNICIPALITIES/RESOLUTIONS
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 1997-147 expressing congratulations and appreciation to Diversified Electronics, Inc. Of Leesburg on their nomination for the 1997 Governor's Business Leadership Award.
COMMISSIONERS/COMMUNICATIONS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the letter of support and encouragement to be sent to the Gethsemane Economic & Educational Ministry, Inc., on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/RESOLUTIONS
The Board addressed Tab 14, which was pulled by Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, for discussion.
Commr. Swartz explained that, in the agreement the County has with the Department of Transportation (DOT), DOT has agreed to do the road work between US 441 and State Road 19, and therefore, DOT has jurisdiction of that section.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, explained the request to the Board.
Commr. Swartz asked Mr. Stivender to look at the big dip where SR 19 crosses Old US 441 coming off of the old railroad bed.
It is was noted that the grade of SR 19 was going to be brought so there will be no dip, and Old US 441 will be built up to merge to the same height.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and execution of Resolution 1997-152 to transfer and coordinate a Transfer Agreement for the transfer of Old US 441 from State Road 19 to US 441 from the jurisdiction of Lake County to the State of Florida Department of Transportation.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
The following vested rights determination has been issued. (A complete letter of determination may be reviewed in the Board Office as a part of the original agenda packet.)
Vested Rights Determination for Property Obtained via Warranty Deed Recorded in Official Record Book 1328, Pages 0002 through 0004
Lake County will not deny the owner of property described in the Warranty Deed recorded in Official Record Book 1328, Pages 0002 through 0004, the right to continue development of the property in accordance with the Agricultural Zoning District, provided:
1. The mobile home placed on the property pursuant to Building Permit No. T-95-01004 is removed within thirty (30) days after issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the replacement mobile home; and
2. This vested rights determination is recorded in the Public Records of Lake County, Florida, within three (3) months from the date of this vested rights determination.
As an item of consideration for the Impact Fee Study Committee, to look at not staggering the balance of the school impact fee.
Public Works was making a presentation to the League of Cities on Friday, in regards to the gas tax.
COMMITTEES/EDUCATION
Commr. Hanson stated that, as an item for consideration for the Impact Fee Study Committee, she would like them to look at not staggering the balance of the school impact fee.
Commr. Swartz stated that the school impact fee it is not staggered, and with regard to this issue, one of the things that Mr. Gene Molner, Lake County Schools, passed onto the Board was that, if you take the most recent schools that have been built, it is costing the County more than impact fee was calculated on.
Discussion occurred regarding whether a new study would have to be done, with Commr. Swartz stating that it could be a modified study, because you would be changing the amount of cost that goes into the formula, as well as looking at whatever variations the School Board may be using in revenues.
Commr. Hanson stated that there were also some changes that have been made with a little less regulation from the State, which may have offset some of those higher costs, and this would be worth looking at, too.
MEETINGS/TAXES
Commr. Cadwell reminded the Board that the Public Works Department it is making a presentation to the League of Cities in regards to the gas tax.
TAXES
Commr. Hanson stated that had discussed with Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, the idea that the County needed to do a lot better job educating the public on how the one cent sales tax was actually utilized in efforts to keep down ad valorem tax and how the cities share in the tax.
Commr. Cadwell noted that in November, a video and presentation was going to be brought to the Board on Parks and Recreation dollars spent.
MINUTES
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 30, 1997 (Budget Workshop), as presented.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of August 4, 1997 (Budget Workshop), with the following changes being made:
Commr. Gerber referred to Page 3, Lines 24 and 25, the section regarding how Sheriff Knupp felt about Teen Court and stated that he was not for it because it was to be funded from revenues that would be added to traffic fines.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 4, 1997 (Budget Workshop), with the Recording Clerk verifying whether or not additional language needed to be inserted on Page 3, as discussed by Commr. Gerber.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of August 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting), with the following change being made:
Page 38, Line 20 - Change "perspective"to "respective"
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as amended.
It was noted that the first public hearing on the tentative budget would be held at 6 p.m.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR\BOARDMIN\9-9-97\9-25-97