A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
APRIL 19, 2005
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commr. Stivender gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Hill recognized the following individuals who were present in the audience: Ms. Nadine Foley, Soil and Water Conservation
Council; Ms. Elaine Renick, City Council, City of
Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney, introduced Mr. Kevin McBride, a former
Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, noted that she had one change on Tab 2, Item 4; the check request from the Sheriff’s Office for payment of inmate medical invoice is to be retroactive.
Commr. Stivender complimented the fact that there were no addendums to today’s agenda.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, Deputy County Attorney, stated that
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and
carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the item to the
agenda, as requested, under the
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 11, as follows:
Request to approve Contractor Bonds, as follows:
4804-05 James F. Chaffee d/b/a D & J Electric Company (Electrical)
4871-05 James A. Croson/J A Croson LLC (Plumbing)
5642-06 Smith Roofing/John M. Smith (Roofing)
5766-05 Guy Clement/Clement Electric Inc. (Electrical)
6063-05 Felix Martin/Commercial Lighting & Electrical Services, Inc. (Electrical)
6358-05 James Allen Sherrod d/b/a South Lake Roofing, Inc.
Boucher d/b/a Down to Earth of
6360-05 Robert W. Rettman d/b/a American Residential Exteriors
6361-05 Donald R. Hardee d/b/a Machine Control Repair LLC
6362-05 Douglas George Callais d/b/a Callais Construction Company
6363-05 Robert G. Meyer d/b/a Buccaneer Construction, Inc.
6364-05 Christian Ferris d/b/a The Fellowship Group, LLC
6365-05 Diamondback Site Development, Inc./Underground Solutions, Inc.
6013-04 Louis Tutin/Bob’s Landscaping Inc. (5/29/2005)
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Annual Financial Audit for 2003-2004 and Annual Financial Report for the Lake County Water Authority.
Application/Water and Wastewater Certificates/Central Sumter Utility Company
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Application for Original Water and Wastewater Certificates – Notice is hereby given on the 21st day of March, 2005, pursuant to Section 367.045, Florida Statutes, and Section 25-30.030, Florida Administrative Code, of Central Sumter Utility Company, L.L.C., 1020 Lake Sumter Land, The Villages, Florida, 32159, Application for Original Water and Wastewater Certificates for described territory in Sumter County, Florida. Any objections can be filed, as described in notice.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the CD copy of the St. John River Water Management District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2004.
Ordinance/City of Clermont/Annexation
Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy of Ordinance No. 492-M, from the City of Clermont, for the annexation of a certain parcel of land contiguous to the present city boundaries, as described, passed and ordained on Final Reading the 8th day of March, 2005, by the City Council of the City of Clermont, Florida.
City of Eustis/Annual Financial Report
to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the City of
Public Notice/City of Mascotte/Ordinance
Request to acknowledge receipt of a Public Notice – Pursuant to Section 163.346, Florida Statutes, the City of Mascotte, Florida, does hereby give public notice of its intention to adopt an ordinance creating and establishing a community redevelopment agency, as described in Resolution No. 2005-02-249 adopted by the Mascotte City Council on February 14, 2005, to be considered on April 11, 2005, beginning at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, at the Mascotte Civic Center located at 121 North Sunset Avenue, Mascotte, Florida.
Reports/Operational Audit/Wireless E911 Funds
Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy of Report No. 2005-161, an Operational Audit of the County Wireless E911 Funds for the Period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003.
Southwest Florida Water Management District/Agenda/Minutes
to acknowledge receipt - from Governing Board, Southwest Florida Water
Management District, minutes of January 25, 2005, meeting held in Bartow,
Florida; and agenda for Governing Board Meeting to be held March 29-30, 2006,
Florida Public Service Commission/Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Before the Florida Public Service Commission, Notice of Commission Hearing and Prehearing to Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Office of Public Counsel and All Other Interested Persons, Docket No. 041414-EI, Petition for Approval of Long-Term Fuel Supply and Transportation Contracts for Hines Unit 4 and Additional System Supply and Transportation, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; information on location of hearings included in Notice.
Ordinances/City of Mascotte
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following
Ordinances from the City of
Ordinance No. 2005-13-376 – Amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6; Elections; By Adding a New Section 6-7, Early Voting Opt Out Provisions; Repealing All Ordinances or Parts of Ordinances in Conflict Herevity, Providing for Severability, and an Effective Date; Passed and Adopted March 28, 2005.
Ordinance No. 2005-03-377 – Annexing Certain Real Property into the City of Mascotte, Florida, Upon the Voluntary Petition of the Owner of all of the Property to be Annexed, Filed with the City of Mascotte by Flagship Development LLC (Weber Property); (as described further in the Ordinance); Passed and Adopted March 28, 2005.
Ordinance No. 2005-03-379 – Annexing Certain Real Property into the City of Mascotte, Florida, Upon the Voluntary Petition of the Owner of All of the Property to be Annexed, Filed with the City of Mascotte by Lorene Leininger, Chester W. Leininger and Kerri S. Leininger; (as further described in the Ordinance); Passed and Adopted March 28, 2005.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that, under Tab 2, Item 1, the $819,250.00 is a budget transfer, and the backup shows where the funds are going.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 2 through 20, with Tab 2, Item 4 being retroactive, as noted: Budget Transfer/Landfill Enterprise Fund/Covanta
Request from Budget for a budget transfer – Landfill Enterprise Fund, Department of Environmental Services, Covanta Contract Management Division, in the amount of $819,250.00 is requested. Funds needed for new software required for scanning Covanta documents, to repair tipping floor camera for Covanta monitoring, for promoting Covanta/Lake County public – private partnership, and to return unused litigation funds to Reserve for Operations. Funds available in Travel & Per Diem, Professional Services, and Contractual Services not needed because of the contract settlement.
Budget Transfer/County Transportation Trust Fund
Request from Budget for a budget transfer – County Transportation Trust Fund, Department of Public Works, Road Operations/ Engineering/ Special Services Divisions, in the amount of $979,660.00 is requested. Transfer $979,660.00 from Reserve for Operations to Overtime – Road Operations ($120,000.00), Personal Services – Engineering ($18,000.00), Personal Services – Special Services ($1,600.00), and LAP Projects – CR 48 ($840,060.00). Funds needed to increase the Road Operations overtime account; to fund the possible reorganization of the Engineering Division; to fund the possible upgrade for three support staff positions; and fund the CR-48 LAP Agreement that was approved by the BCC on January 25, 2005. Funds available in Reserve for Operations.
Budget Transfer/Building Services Fund/
Request from Budget for a budget transfer – Building Services Fund, Department of Growth Management, Building Services Division, in the amount of $64,000.00 is requested. Transfer $64,000.00 from Professional Services to Repair & Maintenance. The Building Services Division is in need of a higher degree of maintenance and service for the permitting/ inspection/ code enforcement/development review modules of CD-Plus due to the increase of permitting activity and the direction of internet permitting and plan review. The current Gold Plan allows for 45 hours per month. The Diamond Plan will allow 160 hours per month and will include all CD-Plus modules. Funds available in Professional Services.
Check Request/Sheriff’s Office/Inmate Medical Invoice
from Budget for approval of Check Request (Direct Pay) from the Sheriff's
Office for payment of inmate medical invoice. The request exceeds the
Community Services/Coordinator/Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Certificate of Participation
Request from Community Services for approval for the Board of County Commissioners to serve as the coordinator for local governments in Lake County in the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant application process; signature on the "Certificate of Participation" document; and designation of Robbie Hollenbeck to identify and convene on behalf of the BCC any required advisory board members and meetings, the preparation of the application and/or other required documents or grant processes.
Satisfaction and Release of Fine
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by William & Maralyn Barney, CEB Number 2004040216.
Satisfaction and Release of Fine
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Ilar & Erman Drew, CEB Number 222-99.
Satisfaction and Release of Fine
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by John C. & Alfreida Anderson, CEB Number 18-94.
Satisfaction and Release of Fine
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Mary Faith Bylsma and Kathryn Mayotte, CEB Number 46-00.
Satisfaction and Release of Fine
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned by Houston & Jane Busby, CEB Number 362-00.
Request from Growth Management for approval of purchase of a v890 to replace the original GIS Sun 450 server that was purchased in 1997, the old server will be given to Building Services as a backup to their Sun 450 server; and approval of Capital Substitution Form in the amount of $42,775.00.
Growth Management/Public Lands Manager
Request from Growth Management for approval of the creation of Public Lands Manager position within Growth Management Department to support Public Lands Acquisition Advisory Council and County's Environmental Lands Program.
Grants/Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Request from Public Safety for approval to for the Lake County Manager to apply for a grant in the amount of $515,000.00 through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for initiatives/projects identified in the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS).
Public Safety/E911 Hardware and Software
Request from Public Safety for approval to transfer some reserve funds from wire and wireless accounts to Capital Outlay (640 Account) for E911 hardware and software additions per Agencies requests with a Fiscal Impact of $74,283.00.
Letter of Credit for Performance/Western Pines Phase 2
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Performance in the amount of $1,430.00 posted for Western Pines Phase 2. Western Pines Phase 2 consists of 10 lots – Commission District 3.
from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for
Final Plat/Beauclair Ranch Club/Bond/Developer’s Agreement
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Beauclair Ranch Club and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Beauclair Ranch Club final plat; accept a Performance Bond in the amount of $1,127,869.44; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Florida & Ranches, Inc. Beauclair Ranch Club consists of 87 lots – Commission District 3.
Final Plat/Las Colinas Phase II/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement/Sonoma Hills
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Las Colinas Phase II and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Las Colinas Phase II final plat; accept a Letter of Credit in the amount of $132,747.98; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Sonoma Hills, Inc. Las Colinas Phase II consists of 104 lots – Commission District 3.
Agreement/Altamese Boxier/Road Project/Lady
from Public Works for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement with Altamese
Boxier for a parcel of land to be used for a water retention area, in
conjunction with the C-466 Road Project in the
Purchase Agreement/Litson/Road Paving Project/Howey-in-the-Hills Area
Request from Public Works for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement with Dwight D. Litson and Margaret Litson for right of way, and authorization for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign any and all documents necessary for closing, in conjunction with the South Dewey Robbins Road Paving Project located in the Howey-in-the-Hills area.
Resolution/Permission to Advertise/Road Vacation Petition 1051
Allan M. and Ellen L. Muller – Pennbrooke Phase IA – District 1
Request from Public Works for approval and signature on Resolution 2005-49 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1051 by Allan M. and Ellen L. Muller, Representative Mary Ludwig, to vacate a utility easement, in the Plat of Pennbrooke Phase IA, located in Section 19, Township 19 South, Range 24 East, in the Leesburg area – Commission District 1.
Resolution/Permission to Advertise/Road Vacation Petition 1049
Request from Public Works for approval and signature on Resolution 2005-50 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1049 by Ginn Pine Island, GP, LLC, Representative Xabier Guerricagoita, to vacate easement, in the Plat of Lake Highland Co., in conjunction with the platting of Bella Collina, located in Section 10, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, in the Montverde area – Commission District 3.
PRESENTATION: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR)
THE COUNTY’S EXTERNAL AUDITORS, ERNST & YOUNG, INCLUDING
VARIOUS AUDIT REPORTS
Commr. Hill stated that a presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) will be made by Auditors Ernst & Young.
Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk,
Mr. Vodenicker addressed the Board and stated that he is here today to present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2004. He stated that the Board members have previously received the CAFR from staff, and he is now presenting them with the 2004 Audit Results, which he will address momentarily, but first he would like to read into the record the following, as shown on Page 15, Paragraph 3, and their opinion on their financial statements:
“In our opinion, the basic financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activity, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of Lake County, Florida as of September 30, 2004, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof and the respective budgetary comparison information for the general fund, road impact fees fund, and county sales tax fund for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.”
Mr. Vodenicker referred to Pages 44-45 and stated that
Mr. Vodenicker explained that there is more dialogue
between auditors and audit committees and, in the County’s structure, they are
the audit committee. They are required
to communicate to the audit committee and, as shown on Page 2, these are their
required communications. He stated that,
under Significant Accounting Policies, they need to report to them on any
changes from one year to the next. The
only change noted was that
On Page 3, Mr. Vodenicker pointed out that they are
required to give them assurances that they are independent, and they were not
aware of any relationships that they have with
Mr. Vodenicker reviewed the information provided in the Audit Results noting that, under the Statement of Net Assets, the County had a $32 million increase over the previous year, and the liabilities did not significantly increase; they are very small in relation to their activity. Under Net Assets, they had a $42 million increase over the previous year, which is about a 13% increase, a nice strong increase in their net worth.
Mr. Vodenicker noted that the rest of the charts are on a per capita basis and, on Page 3, Revenues, two categories had some jumps over the previous year. Under the Taxes, most of that is ad valorem in nature but, as they know, they did not increase the millage rate, so all of that was assessed valuation. They did a lot in Special Assessments this year, a $36 increase over the previous year, so they can see positive growth on a per capita basis in their revenues. He referred to Page 4, Taxes – All Governmental Fund Types, which is their largest per capita revenue, and stated that they did have a nice increase in their ad valorem tax, with the millage rate being the same for the past three years. He noted that all of it has been assessed valuation increases, so the County has some vibrant growth that is taking place. Under the Infrastructure Surtax, it had been noted earlier that this has dropped, because they changed their allocation formula. On Page 5, he addressed the Expenditures – All Governmental Fund Types/Per Fund Financial Statements noting that there was a good increase in Public Safety, which is where the hurricane costs landed, so that is not all a reflection of Public Safety, but the one time hurricane. Under Debt Service, that number has dropped from the payoff of those bonds.
Commr. Stivender questioned whether the gas tax affected the decrease in the transportation area, and Mr. Vodenicker explained that the road expenses run through that category and, if they go back and look at some of their transportation funds, they can see where they generated a lot of revenue, but they did not spend as much and, as shown, the County did not do as many projects in that category, because there is a lot of capital in there.
On Page 6, Landfill
Mr. Vodenicker stated that they continue to give the County some benchmarking against some of the other counties and, as a general comment, he certainly noticed, in looking at ten years or so ago, that Lake County, because of the development both commercial and residential that is taking place in the County, they are starting to see a lot of revenue items, and a lot of the tax information in the report shows that they are closing the gap on Seminole County and leaving Marion and Alachua behind. In looking at Page 10, Ad Valorem Taxable Assessed Value (Per Capita), they can see that they have development that is vibrant and very good.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Osceola County might be a good one to compare Lake County to, at least population wise, and Mr. Vodenicker noted that they could certainly add it, but the issue they would have with Osceola County is the sales tax, and a lot of resort kinds of things but they could certainly look at putting that in going forward.
In regards to Page 12, General Government Expenditures, Mr. Vodenicker stated that he makes this comment every year to them, because it is a very good one. He stated that this is their General Government Expenditures category within the governmental funds; this is what it is costing them to run each of their Constitutional Offices, the Purchasing Department, all the general administrative, the attorney, the County Manager’s Office and, on a per capita basis, Lake County does very well here in their budget. He thinks it is good to highlight that because sometimes, as their government continues to grow, more gets thrown into the administrative and this is showing that they are able to use a lot of their resources to do those other things, those other services that are needed by the citizens.
On Page 13, Governmental Fund Types Public Safety
Expenditures, Mr. Vodenicker stated that this is one of their larger
expenditure areas, and he would say that there is a lot less unincorporated
In looking at Page 14, Governmental Fund Types Debt
Service Expenditures, Mr. Vodenicker stated that they are accomplishing a lot
of their capital programs to date through a pay as you go, so they still have a
good fund balance in
Commr. Hanson noted that this will change next year with the programs they have for bonding roads, and Mr. Vodenicker noted that they have been working this down nicely over a period of time to a very low number.
In conclusion, Mr. Vodenicker stated that, as he had mentioned earlier, they got very good cooperation; they have got very good people working; and they are very optimistic in the Sheriff’s Office where they have got some new people that will help them in getting the Sheriff’s information more timely. He knows that they are about ready to go into a new computer system, or they are going through the process right now, and he would like to suggest that the County Commission be as supportive as possible with the process, because they have an opportunity with this new system to create some efficiency throughout the County that they have never had before and there is just as much work in really looking at their processes, their manual processes, and bringing in this new system, and there should be money dedicated to making sure that this happens. They want to try and create a more efficient system and a data base that various people throughout the County can draw information and, when that system is up and running, they want to spend a lot more time looking at the control and making sure that they are looking at not only getting the computer system in, but looking at their processes, which is just as important. He thinks this is a good report and, if the Board has any questions, he will be happy to answer them.
In response to questions regarding their participation in the new process, Mr. Vodenicker explained that, in the new audit environment, they have to be careful about how much they do, as far as making suggestions for the processes, but he would like to suggest that there be a pretty significant look at that and automate as much as they can in the new system. He thinks that where they can be helpful is at the end of the process, when it is up and running and making sure that those general computer controls, the security, is all up and running and, because people will be so wrapped up in getting this done, certain things might not get done, and they will have some management letter comments addressing some of those items.
PRESENTATION: PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL TO BE CHILD ABUSE
PREVENTION MONTH IN
Commr. Hill asked Commr. Stivender, liaison for the Children’s Services Commission, and Ms. Emily Lee, Childrens’ Services Director, to come forward for the presentation of Proclamation 2005-45 declaring April to be Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Commr. Stivender introduced Ms. Ruth Harvey Gilligan, Executive
Director, Haven of Lake and
Ms. Diane Peshak,
Ms. Ruth Harvey Gilligan, Executive Director, Haven of
Ms. Annie McPherson, Program Director,
Ms. Emily Lee, Childrens’ Services Commission, wanted to say thanks to each one of the Board members because, without their support, these things could not happen.
PRESENTATION: INTRODUCTION BY LEE JOHNSON, TRANSFORMU
OF THEIR ROBOTICS TEAM
Mr. Lee Johnson addressed the Board and stated that he
will be making a presentation on a program called FIRST (For Inspiration and
Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics. Mr. Johnson stated that this is a brand new
educational program that they have introduced to
Mr. Johnson stated that one of the big benefits to this
program is the scholarship moneys that are available, over $5 million, to the
students that participate with FIRST Robotics.
Today they are joined by one of their mentors, Mr. Joe Petro, and some
of the teachers, Mr. Bob Baldeck and Mr. John Watkins. From the teachers that participate in this,
they are finding that 84% would like to bring a robotics curriculum into their
schools. He stated that 93% of the
school personnel report that the understanding of science, math, and education
with their students has enhanced. Mr.
Johnson stated that this will be the first team in
Mr. Johnson stated that, as a vision, they want to see a
robotics program in every high school in
In closing, Mr. Johnson shared a story about the
potential of all of this. He explained
that NASA, being a big supporter of the program, turned to FIRST and held a contest
that presented a tremendous challenge to students. It was a FIRST student that developed the leg
aperture that they actually used with a Mars Lunar Rover, and he is now a 25
year old NASA, R & D Scientist. He
stated that they have some of that same potential in
Mr. Johnson stated that, in terms of their funding, next
year they are working with the Tavares Rotary to start a new event very similar
to the Dragon Boat Races dealing with go-carts, and they will continue to raise
money through private sources. He stated
that they are very proud of their students, of their community, and they want
to see this grow and make a good impact in
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10 a.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board will be taking a 15 minute recess.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT NUMBER 94
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, stated that Special Assessment No. 94 was rescheduled from the Board Meeting of March 15, 2005, to address concerns about price and longevity of this project. Staff was asked to go back and see exactly how everyone felt about the petition, and the prices. He noted that the Board has before them a check list, which coordinates with his map, which shows that the “hot pink” areas support the project; the “blue” do not support the project. As shown on the check list, the ones with checkmarks reflect a cap amount, as discussed the last time with the Board, and the County will pick up anything above that amount. As shown on the last page, 68% of the front footage supports the petition; 51% of the property owners support the petition as it is today; so they are above the 55% on one and a little bit below on the other. Mr. Stivender stated that staff is recommending approval to go forward and award this project to Art Walker.
Mr. Jim Hunt addressed the Board and clarified that there were 12 who indicated “no” and four who do not live on the road at all; it is vacant land. Mr. Hunt stated that he just spoke to an individual who recently purchased a piece of property, Mr. Roy Bolling (#17 - Larry D. Simmons, as noted), and he wants the road approved but he will not be closing on the property until the end of April.
Mr. Stivender pointed out that the cap rate, as noted, probably made this project workable for property owners.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Don Aiken addressed the Board and explained that he is the father of Anita Combs, #51 on the check list, and she wanted to know how staff determined the rate of assessment on each piece of property, because he did not feel that the cap was fair to other property owners.
Mr. Stivender explained the formula and noted that the County absorbed the cost for areas where there were wetlands; they capped the cost for anybody that had a large frontage; and the County absorbed anything above the $8,530.86 cap. He explained that they were treating them as individual frontage; some were longer than others; but they were still individual parcels. He pointed out on the map the strange shapes of properties in the back that had very little frontage, which caused this to be a unique project. There were others that had huge frontages but most of them were wetlands, so they basically took that away and applied something more equitable for everyone else.
Mr. Aiken noted that, even though the large lots were based on per lot, he wanted to make sure the owners could not cut them up and sell them as ten lots next year.
Commr. Hanson explained that it will be difficult in the Wekiva to split those up into smaller lots, and those parcels will basically remain one unit per lot, as they are now, without other houses being built. It is basically a cap per residence, which makes it a little bit more equitable.
Mr. Hunt addressed the Board, once again, and stated that he talked to Mr. Stivender about the control the County has to foreclose on someone’s property, and he was assured that the County tries very hard not to pursue this avenue and, if the County places a lien on the property, they have no problem working with the people until the lien is paid, but he is not comfortable with the foreclosure process. Mr. Hunt pointed out that Ms. Barbara Schamel, Public Works Contracts Specialist, has worked very hard on this project, and there was about $100,000 of federal money available to those who need financial assistance; only six people qualified for funding, which totaled about $29,000. He wanted others to know that there are still funds available to those who qualify for assistance.
Commr. Stivender referred to #36 and #37, David E. Spawn, and noted that he voted no to doing the road. Each lot is over $6,000 and she questioned whether there are residents on both of these lots, or whether these could be tied together, with him meeting the cap amount of $8,530.86 instead of paying $12,000.
Ms. Schamel addressed the Board and explained that Mr.
Spawn has sold one of these lots and, unfortunately, they recorded the deed in
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Mr. David Spawn, owner of properties #36 and #37, addressed
the Board and stated that the property was sold last October, and he notified
the new owner in December when he got the first tax bill that the property
needed to be recorded in
Mr. Minkoff explained that they are required to record the lien against the owner of record’s name so, when they do it in the public records, it will show that he is being assessed for two parcels, but he will only be responsible to pay for the one that he still owns.
Ms. Schamel explained that invoices are not mailed until
after the road is completed and built and is brought into the County maintenance
system. Before she mails them, she always
checks the ownership so, hopefully, by then, the document will be recorded in
Ms. Anita Combs, #51, questioned the timing of the project, and Mr. Stivender explained that the contractor wants to start within 30 days. It will be about ten months before the project is completed. Ms. Combs requested a copy of the map, as shown, which Mr. Stivender noted would be provided to her.
Commr. Hill called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that this road has been in awful condition since her entire term of office, until the Board and the Sheriff started helping with some maintenance of it, and this is the only way that they have to get that road done and bring non-county maintained roads up to County standards. She thinks that the community has worked together very well to make this happen and she wanted to thank Mr. Hunt for his persistence and commitment, and the Board for their continued backing of the project. She also wanted to thank Mr. Stivender and Ms. Schamel for their hard work, which she appreciates very much.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Special Assessment Project Number 94 (Forest Drive "Part", Laurel Court, and Hillcrest Drive "Part"), Resolution 2005-51.
PUBLIC HEARING –
FOR ADOPTION OF
(LDRS) WITH THE CITY OF
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER XV, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, RESERVED; CREATING CHAPTER XV, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ENTITLED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; CREATING SECTION 15.00.00 LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR JOINT PLANNING AREAS OF LAKE COUNTY; CREATING
SECTION 15.00.01 PURPOSE, INTENT AND APPLICATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS). ; CREATING SECTION 15.02.00, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E,
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED CLERMONT JOINT PLANNING AREA (JPA) LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; ESTABLISHING A BOUNDARY, SUCH BOUNDARY DESCRIBED AS:
BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA
TURNPIKE AND THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF RANGE 26 EAST TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE WEST TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION
28, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTH TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT- OF
-WAY LINE OF US HIGHWAY 27; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF -WAY
LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE
WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 23 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE EAST-WEST CENTER SECTION LINE
OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 23
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE NORTH TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD NO.
50; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EASTERLY SHORE OF
THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL; THENCE IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID EASTERLY
SHORE OF THE PALATLAKAHA CANAL TO LAKE HIAWATHA; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
SHORE OF LAKE HIAWATHA TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, THENCE
NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 14 TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
COUNTY ROAD NO. 565-A; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE
EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Growth Management, showed a map, which meets the legal description, and noted that staff has verified the boundaries several times to make sure of its accuracy. In reference to the actual intent of the regulations and the application of them, he explained that staff intended for them to be applied to “new development” but, after discussing it further, they actually need to define “new development” in the context of Chapter XV.
Commr. Stivender wanted to be clear of the definition that has been determined by staff, that it means anything that is brought in for review after this is adopted; that the things already in the pipeline are not considered “new development.”
Mr. Richardson explained that the major concern is looking particularly at initial or individual lots that are already out there, so the lot frontages, lot widths, and lot sizes are not necessarily applying to those. Because there have been questions as to the application of the requirements, staff has been notifying everybody that this document is coming forward and has been strongly encouraging anyone coming forward with a site plan or subdivision to design to these standards. Mr. Richardson explained that there is one subdivision that has already designed and their preliminary plat does not necessarily match the lot sizes and the lot widths within this proposal; another one is a site plan for a hotel that exceeds the height limitations, as set forth in this proposal; at least one more will be affected by the lot widths, but not necessarily the lot sizes, and those will have an impact on that development. Mr. Richardson stated that he would like to review the changes at this time with the Board, as they are presented in the backup.
These requirements were worked on with City staff. Some of these zoning districts do not have a match for the City; they attempted to work out lot frontages using lot sizes; staff was concerned about two issues with the R-3 and R-4 districts; they were presented to the Local Planning Agency (LPA); the LPA made the recommendation to go with what is included in the proposed ordinance, R-3 – 100 feet and R-4 – 85 feet.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was very disappointed because these frontage requirements completely exclude the possibility of the conservation design. She thought they had gotten further than that and was hopeful that the cities had gotten beyond that. She stated that this requirement, for strict adherence to these frontage requirements, will not allow conservation design to occur, which is a concern to her, because it precludes and excludes conservation design; there is no incentive to do conservation development.
Mr. Richardson noted that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) allows for that flexibility but does require a rezoning to vary from these standards for anything that might come forward in the joint planning area (JPA). Currently the Lake County LDRs do not have a minimum lot size, or a minimum lot frontage, for new development.
Table 15.02.01B, Front Setback Requirements –
The main differences begin in the A, RA, AR, R-1, as well as R-2, R-3, R-4, R-6, RP and RM. The current regulations are 62 feet from the centerline for existing developments; 50 feet from the centerline on new development; or 25 feet from the property line on new development.
Table 15.02.01C, Residential Side Setback Requirements –
The main differences fall under the AR through the RM. The current Lake County LDRs have a 10 foot side and rear setback on the AR and R-1; R-2 through RM are a five foot setback; there is no differentiation for pools.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether there was anything in the language that gives any incentive to do a PUD, because they talked about having a requirement on smaller parcels, or one standard for PUD open space, to get beyond all of these strict minimum footages and setbacks because this pushes the cookie cutter design, and Mr. Richardson noted that staff did not address PUDs at all within these regulations.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Table 15.02.01D Commercial Side Setback Requirements –
Table 15.02.01E Other Setback Requirements –
There were no real changes.
C Height requirements for the districts indicated are as follows –
The City has a different heights restriction and way of measuring the heights, so that was included. The current County code allows for a maximum of 40 feet in residential district; 50 feet in the commercial district; that height is measured between one-half of the distance between the peak and eave; Mr. Richardson believed that the City measures to the top.
15.02.02 Treatment of Land with Wetlands and Floodplains –
This is a brand new section. The City has a prohibition against alterations of wetlands; a prohibition against alterations of the 100 year floodplain. In discussions with the LPA, they wanted a change made to allow some flexibility; the language under this section reflects those changes.
15.02.03 Utility Construction Standards –
There is nothing in the current code that specifically speaks to the coordination with the cities but, in practice, staff has been following the noted standards. The City reviews those connections, and the County will do the inspections before any finals.
Table 15.02.03A Minimum Hydrant Spacing By Land Use –
Public Safety has reviewed these. The hydrant spacing for the County is typically 500 foot hose laying distance, so these do not affect that, other than bringing the hydrants closer together. If a property is annexed, it will not have existing non-conformities.
Solid waste collection service –
Current code only has provisions for screening; it does not necessarily give any architectural detail to those. There are some details that are included in the proposed ordinance.
Electrical, telephone and television cable service –
15.02.04 Architectural standards –
These were suggested by the City and, as reviewed by County staff, these actually seem like a reasonable move, to implement at least on a small scale, some architectural standards to go along with commercial development.
I. Buildings –
No single retail establishment may occupy more than 100,000 square feet. This is a substantial change. There is currently no requirement under the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, or LDRs, that would preclude a single tenant user from being greater than 100,000 square feet.
Commr. Pool stated that the City has approved at least two structures that exceed the 100,000 square foot requirement, so there is a variance opportunity for someone to come in and present their case to the County, or to the City but, because they have recently approved two such structures, a Super Target and a Super Wal-Mart, he thinks it is only right that they be given that same opportunity to review on a case by case basis, to approve or deny.
Mr. Richardson stated that, as part of a PUD or, as part of a planned commercial, staff can address that particular issue. It was not necessarily written as a prohibition.
Mr. Minkoff stated that another problem is that the County has a variance board that tends to strictly apply the variance requirements. The City Council tends to give variances that are really not variances; they are kind of negotiated land development approvals; so it would be very difficult to get a variance from this code through the County’s Board of Adjustment from this provision.
Commr. Pool stated that this is where he wants to bring this to the forefront. He stated that currently and just recently the City has approved the Super Wal-Mart and Super Target, and he does not think that they want to totally prohibit an opportunity. He explained that Home Depot is not very happy, because they were restricted to a certain size, and they have what they call a substandard store; other stores are larger but, at that time, the City said no to them. He questioned why they would want to restrict themselves, as the area grows, because he does not feel they are being fair and equitable. He clearly does not want to deprive a major retailer from coming to the area, so they need to at least look at this.
These would be supplemental to existing County regulations. All newly installed support structures shall be camouflaged. It was clarified that there is a current definition of “camouflage” within the County’s LDRs.
K. Miscellaneous: -
Staff felt these were very interesting and acceptable in this context dealing with cart returns, etc. This would be reviewed through the individual site plan, and as part of the final inspections on the property. Staff will do landscape inspections, and they will look at this.
15.02.05 Roadway and Street Design Standards –
A. Access to Commercial Sites - New commercial sites shall have direct access to public right-of-ways. This was a minor area of disagreement between the City staff and County staff. The LPA elected to go with the language, as included and provided to the Board today.
B. Minimum Right of Way - The City and the County have worked out all of these issues. The main issue is the widening of the right-of-way to 60 feet on curb and gutter; allowing for rural areas to continue using swales but any of those urbanizing areas would basically be limited to curb and gutter in their roadway and storm water design. It was noted that the 60 feet is the City standard.
F. Sidewalks - There is a minor change. The current
G. Stormwater Spread Into Traveled Lanes for Local Streets and Collector Roadways - New streets and roadways shall be designed to allow for the spread of storm water at maximum volume to no more than one-half (1/2) of the traveled lane. The staff of both Public Works and the City agreed that this actually is a good standard.
15.02.06 Signage Standards –
The current County code does allow for scrolling, electronic changeable copy signs; the City code does not. The LPA elected to go with the City standard.
15.02.07 Lighting Standards. –
These are relatively new and are acceptable as presented here today. It does put some terms and conditions on parking lighting, street lighting, etc.
15.02.08 Landscaping. –
Two minor changes –
A. Parking Lot Trees: 60% of required canopy trees in parking lots shall be live oak trees (this is from the City standard, which differs slightly from the County standard).
B. Lawn Grass: Grass areas shall be planted in species normally grown as permanent lawns in the vicinity of the County. The County does not have any one specific kind of grass that they require for ground cover. This could limit the type of ground cover.
C. Palm trees and pine trees shall NOT count towards the minimum canopy tree requirement. Palms and pines do count for a percentage of the total canopy requirement under the County code.
15.02.09 Parking Requirements –
There were two changes that differed from the current County code, which is the ratio of one space per 250 square feet; the City code was one space per 200 square feet, as noted.
15.02.10 Grading Standards –
Public Works and Environmental Services have been working with these grading standards, and they have been included for applicability in the Clermont JPA.
Commr. Hanson stated that, under landscaping requirements, she would prefer that palm trees and pine trees count for some of the canopy tree requirement, which they actually do in the County, because they are going to find that, even though live oaks are great, they can tear up the sidewalks, and it may be preferable to have some of these other trees that do not have an immense root impact. With it being noted that this is the first reading of the ordinance, Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to bring this item before the City to see how they feel about it. Commr. Hanson stated that she has a problem with the 60 foot requirement for right-of-way; the County has a 50 foot requirement. She stated that the 60 feet should be required in some areas, but she did not believe it should be required when dealing with neighborhood roads and, even though she sees that the minimum lane width of 10 feet would be required, and she finds that to be acceptable, she is not sure the right-of-way needs to be 60 feet when looking at narrower roads versus wide roads for neighborhoods. She still feels that, even though this is an amendment, there is no provision for incentives for the conservation design, or cluster building, if utilities are available, or requirements for open space. Somewhere they need to allow that and say this is important as an alternative to the minimum setbacks and these requirements.
Mr. Richardson explained that early on in the process, County staff had a lengthy discussion about conservation design.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt that somewhere they need to have a statement that says that this is an option independent of a PUD; in some cases, you may still want a PUD but, in some cases, you may want to have just that zoning but with the requirements for open space and smaller lots.
C. Additional Right-of-Way Requirements – (Continued)
Richardson noted that currently, if
Commr. Cadwell addressed the landscaping requirements and stated that palm trees and pine trees still count in the landscaping requirements, and these are only affected under the section of canopy trees.
Mr. Richardson stated that it was his understanding that those trees would not count as a percentage of the overall landscaping but currently they do allow a certain percentage of those to count towards the minimum tree requirements but, in this case, they would not be counted towards the minimum tree requirements.
Mr. Darrin Gray, Assistant City Manager, City of
Mr. Gray addressed the canopy tree requirement and stated that the City wants the canopy type tree, not specifically live oak, but canopy trees. The landscape islands in the City meet their requirement of 300 square feet and that helps with not breaking up sidewalks, or pavements.
Commr. Pool stated that he is somewhat concerned about limiting the opportunity for a retailer to come to the area that may benefit the area, yet the City Council chose to approve the Super Target and the Super Wal-Mart and, since they set the precedent, in his opinion, as they go forward, he does not want to limit that opportunity.
Mr. Gray stated that the City Council has approved two “big boxes” per say. The City has a variance process, so they would like to take a second look at it. When Mr. Minkoff was talking about the Board of Adjustment, and how they look at variances, he was not aware of that; they thought that, if someone wanted to come in with over 100,000 square feet of a building, they could go through the variance process with the County.
Staff clarified that the Board of Adjustment was established to address hardships; not to go against policy.
Commr. Pool stated that he did not mind looking at it three times, but he did not want to deny it, if it is a good opportunity for good jobs, etc., and he wants to give them the leniency to negotiate in good faith with potential good retailers that want to come to the area. He wanted to make it clear that he thinks 100,000 square feet is a minimum size store, in many cases. He thinks that it is only fair that they be given that same opportunity in the County to duplicate what the City has approved. He noted that City has identified areas in their JPA that they will never annex but, to control or prohibit does not make sense, or make for fair play. He wants staff to go back and look at this again.
Mr. Gray stated that his experience with conservation design requirements has been through the City’s PUD process, and that was his understanding how they would deal with this concept. He noted that the City would be willing to look at some type of clustering, because they have a couple of communities in the City that have that and they do work well.
Mr. Richardson clarified that, when they were putting this together, they were dealing with just the straight zoning. In going through the process, if someone does come through the County has a PUD, they can, as almost any other part of the code, ask for a waiver and have that approved as part of their ordinance.
Commr. Hanson stated that this was a step backward in her opinion, because sometimes the most restrictive regulations do not get someone where they really want to be. She would like to see them go with the County standards on that one, at least.
Commr. Hanson noted that, under the utility section, it does not identify that the City will be the sole utility provider; it allows for other contractors to come in the JPA.
Mr. Gray explained that the City will have the first
right of refusal, or to say that they cannot serve them, before they can go to
another private utility. He pointed out
the 180 District area in the City on the map, which was everything except for
the area shaped like a “sword or spear” to the south. Their water area takes out some of the
southwest corner of the 180 District areas, which was their agreement with
Commr. Stivender referred back to additional right-of-way requirements and questioned whether this applies to anything that the County has already acquired, lots that may be undersized, or whether this is going to be under their new definition of “new development” or new lots created.
Mr. Richardson explained that, if this is something that has not yet developed, but some how the County has acquired the right-of-way, then it would apply.
Commr. Stivender pointed out that they are going to make some lots non-buildable, which is a concern, and she felt that the individual would be compensated for the loss of a lot, with Mr. Richardson technically agreeing.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the City was set on the minimum right-of-way, 60 feet and 66 feet, as noted, and Mr. Gray responded that they are set on that because that is a standard in their code and, if areas in the JPA do come into the City, they would like it to come in as one standard. Commr. Hanson stressed that she would still like them to look at the conservation design, and Mr. Gray noted that this is an area they can look at.
Mr. Richardson stated that this is the first reading of the ordinance, therefore, he wanted to know if some suggested language to allow for clustered design could be considered, such as, if they come in with a true cluster design providing a certain amount of open space, they could be granted an administrative waiver to reduce those minimum lot sizes, or to waive the minimum lot sizes and/or lot frontages.
Commr. Hanson stated that, at the very least, this should be considered but there ought to be an opportunity for an incentive to get people to do that and they have not even worked that out yet.
Commr. Cadwell stated that one incentive would be for the Board to vote no on some of the straight zoning cases, until they realize they need to come back as a PUD.
For the purposes of this section, in dealing with the minimum lots sizes and lot frontages, Mr. Richardson suggested some proposed language, as follows: residential subdivisions designed as a cluster subdivision with a minimum 30% open space may be granted an administrative waiver from the minimum lot size requirements and minimum lot frontages provided they are really doing true cluster development and providing common open space.
Commr. Hanson stated that this would be a start but it depends on the size of the lot, so there needs to be something developed that gives a little bit of guidance there. She referred to the tree canopy and noted that it would look much better to have narrow roads.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Allison Turnbull, Akerman Senterfitt,
Commr. Pool stated that he does not think that they want to deny opportunities for major retailers to come to the area and to provide for jobs and more ad valorem on the tax rolls. He does not think this is fair and he wants to make sure that what they do is fair and equitable to all.
Discussion occurred regarding the types of stores that are right now meeting the 100,000 square foot restriction or getting very close to it, with Mr. Gray noting that the Home Depot came through the City as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and it was under the 100,000 square feet and, as far as he knows, they have never turned down anyone that has asked for a variance.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the 100,000 square
foot restriction on retail establishments and stated that tied into that is the
criteria of the 15 foot versus 10 foot alteration to the terrain because, in
those very variances that they talked about on the 100,000 square foot
restriction, the City also gave variance to the topography requirement. He explained that you cannot build a 100,000
square foot building and not have, based on the South Lake topography, an
alteration of greater than 15 feet to a site, because you have to get involved
with American with Disability Act (ADA) requirements and such. So they granted variances to that which,
under this new provision, they need to have some flexibility, because it fits
into the same “big box” scenario. He
explained that there are thousands of acres of R-6 zoned property in South Lake
County; it does not require rezoning; it requires giving them an incentive to
do something other than straight “box” subdivisions and, in this particular
provision, they are going backwards in that regard by going back to minimums,
which they did away with years ago to give people an opportunity to embrace
some of the new concepts. It is not
because the Board would approve zoning; it is because zoning already exists and
there is no incentive to take that existing zoning and do it better than the
minimum and that is his concern. He
noted that this is true not only in the R-6, but in all of the zoning
classifications. They do have the
ability to have a PUD, which gives them the flexibility, and he feels that it
ought to reflect somewhere that they are going to reserve the house sizes, lot
sizes, and topography alteration standards as part of that process rather than
sending it to the Board of Adjustment. He explained that the City Commission grants
those variances; they do not send it to an independent board. In the past 18 months, the Board granted two PUDs,
and provided for lots that are smaller than these criteria, and they provided
for density to compensate for the loss of right-of-way, the expense and all, on
both of these projects, one being the Hartle Groves property. Under these scenarios, they need to reserve
the right to continue to do that. He
Mr. Richey stated that, since this is the first reading of the ordinance, he would urge the Board not to rush this through the process. They need to look at some affirmative criteria in this ordinance to give people the incentive to develop and cluster in their current zoning. He feels they should not do away with those minimum lot sizes or give people credit when they give the County right-of-way. There should be some affirmative duties and obligations by the City, as part of the Board committing to and upgrading County standards as part of this. Mr. Richey stated that he is also concerned about new development, because he has preliminary plats for two projects that absolutely do not meet this standard, and construction plans and permitting are underway. They need to establish a definition for “new development” and when this applies and “already existing development.” He has clients who, in reliance on their agreements with the County for right-of-way on two of those projects, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they do not need to change the rules at this point in time.
Mr. Minkoff explained that it is less of a problem because, if people have spent money, based on the old rules, and have gotten approvals, they would be vested under the County code and would not have to meet these new requirements. The key issue is what date they would use for applications coming in and he thinks that staff has talked about using the first advertisement date so that anything that comes in after that date would have to meet the standards. If the application was filed before that and money had been spent providing engineering plans, they would be vested and would not have to meet these standards.
Mr. Richey pointed out that he has preliminary plat approvals signed off by Lake County that do not meet these standards, and Mr. Minkoff noted that those would be vested.
Ms. Christine Harris, resident of
Commr. Hill called for further pubic comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hill stated that this is the first reading of the ordinance and, as noted, and it appears that the Board wants to go back and look at the changes that have been brought forth for discussion. She questioned whether these would be placed in the ordinance for the second reading.
Mr. Minkoff stated that staff is not able to make significant changes so, if they Board has significant changes they would like to make, they would need to have a first reading again.
The Board members agreed that there are many areas that they agree on but there are things that have been brought to the forefront that need to be addressed, and they need to impose a timeframe.
Commr. Cadwell felt that, since the City and elected officials have seen this, his idea would be to now take any suggested changes back to the elected body to see if there is support there; if there is not support, then there is no reason for staff to continue with their review. He suggested that perhaps Commr. Pool, being the District Commissioner, may want to attend that meeting when staff makes its presentation. He noted that there should at least be some explanation, or clarification, on Commr. Hanson’s idea that it actually prohibits them from doing things that they City may even want to do.
Mr. Gray suggested that they set up a workshop with their City Council and invite Commr. Pool and they can go over some of these issues, and then he could work with staff and see if they can get the ordinance back on the agenda for the first reading, as soon as possible.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, with the commercial size, the “big box” portion of it, they need to just have dialogue with them to find out what is a realistic number; if they are going to grant variances anyway, he suggested they just find a number that everybody thinks is reasonable and then they will both keep their variance process.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if more than one Commissioner plans on attending the workshop meeting, then staff will advertise and keep minutes.
After some discussion, the Board members felt that the process would be expedited if Commr. Pool was the only one to attend because he knows all of their concerns, as expressed today.
Mr. Richardson asked whether the Board wanted to at least address the date of applicability, which Mr. Richey expressed was a concern to him.
The Board noted that it will be the date that the Board adopts the ordinance.
Mr. Richardson noted that staff will still strongly encourage following those items that are clear. He further noted that there are currently two subdivisions that are designed to current County standards.
After further discussion and, in order to close the window and have a timeline, staff was given direction that anyone that comes in after today will be bound by the agreement that the Board will adopt.
PUBLIC HEARING: MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT AND RESOLUTION
Ms. Regina Frazier, Budget Director, addressed the Board
to present the mid-year budget amendment.
As noted, the adjustments total is about $31 million; the revised
Commr. Stivender pointed out that the money did go back into the Economic Development/Tourism line, which meant that the money did get paid back after all of these years, and the infrastructure sales tax did go back into the road program. She noted that staff did an excellent job.
Commr. Hanson stated that it is not applicable for mid-year but she would like the Board to consider, in next year’s budget, approval of a position for the Elder Affairs Council, if possible. She stated that they do have staff now, and Ms. Robbie Hollenbeck, Special Projects Coordinator, does a great job working with them, and the accomplishments have been significant, but she thinks it will probably be time they have a person in that position.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Christine Harris addressed the Board and stated that
one of the mainstays of
Commr. Hill called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Mid – Year Budget Amendment and Resolution 2005-52.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Travis Whigham stated that he would like the County to help with the following items, and he would like to get some answers on these within the next couple of weeks:
1) he would like some temporary maintenance done on Fonseca Lane, so that emergency and rescue vehicles can get to the residents (It was noted that Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, would look at the feasibility of a culvert);
2) he would like to see the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) go to the State and lobby for more school dollars to take care of the overcrowding in schools;
3) he would like to see the mobile health unit in his area of the County where people do not have the transportation, or ways of receiving medication attention (It was noted that the Board has approved this item, and it is in the budget, but it has not yet been purchased); and
4) he would like help in preparing his neighborhood for the next hurricane season; he has the sand but he needs the County to help him with bags and equipment; he also asked for permission to use the back lot of the community center to make a sand pile to have it ready to help with any future flooding (It was noted that Mr. Jim Stivender will look into his request).
REAPPOINTMENTS/PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following reappointment of individuals to upcoming vacant positions on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Hugh Davis, Basha Schlazer, Karen Ellis, Peggy O’Neil, and Bobby Gibson.
APPOINTMENTS/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Terry Miller as Lake Technical Center's representative on the Lake County Industrial Development Authority.
APPOINTMENTS/IMPACT FEE COMMITTEE
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Tommy Crosby as the Lake County Schools representative on the Lake County Impact Fee Committee.
APPOINTMENTS/CITIZENS’ COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of individuals to vacant positions on the Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children, as follows: Gerri Rivers (at-large) and Bill Calhoun (District 5); and reappointments – Debbie Thomas, Michael Matulia, Linda Lewis, and Pernell Mitchell.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved and authorized the execution of Proclamation 2005-53 designating the month of May as Civility Month.
CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the recommendation for Mr. Chuck Johnson to serve as the alternate Code Enforcement special master.
It was noted that there were a couple of individuals who had applied for the position, but these were the lowest bidders.
Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, reported that staff is trying to schedule a Budget Retreat in May, and hopefully one can be scheduled off sight on a day other than Tuesday.
Commr. Hanson pointed out that the Board has not talked about seeking another county manager.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Hanson commented that the Board may want to consider Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, as full time in this position and not go through all of that, and Commr. Cadwell felt that they should have that dialogue.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT #5
Commr. Cadwell brought forth a request from the Gator Club to waive the fees for them to have their scholarship fund raiser at the fairgrounds.
After some discussion, the Board members felt that, if this request was approved, it would be setting a precedent so, in order to be consistent with other requests, they chose not to approve the waiver, but to charge the same fee as in the past. They also directed staff to bring back the amount of revenue that is derived from non-profits, during budget discussions, so they can decide if they want to make any changes to their current policy.
REPORTS – COMMISSIOENR POOL – DISTRICT #2
Commr. Pool reported that the
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1 (CONT.)
Commr. Hill noted that Bike Week will be held this weekend (Friday through Sunday) in Leesburg.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT #4
Commr. Hanson noted that there will be a “green building” sustainability seminar on Friday, April 22, 2005, from 9 to 4, in the Magnolia Room, Lake-Sumter Community College (LSCC).
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3
DRAGON BOAT RACES
Commr. Stivender congratulated the employees who put together a Dragon Boat Team called the Dragonflies and won their category. There will be a presentation on May 3, 2005. She noted that they won an oar and were very thrilled with their accomplishment.
Commr. Stivender noted that, on May 3, 2005, she has two or three teams that won district or state competitions for their particular sports, and they will be acknowledged at this time. She wanted to make sure that the Board is having a meeting on May 10, 2005, so that a presentation can be made to a couple of other teams.
Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager, noted that, at this time, there were no other items scheduled for May 10, 2005, other than the presentations noted by Commr. Stivender.
After further discussion, it was noted that the Board will make other presentations to athletes at the May 10, 2005 meeting, and other items of business will be scheduled for that day, as they come forth.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1 (CONT.)
MARCH OF DIMES
Commr. Hill thanked staff for their work on the March of
Dimes. The walk is April 30, 2005, at
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK