REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
AUGUST 21, 2007
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
John Barham from
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously
by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place the
Regarding the Minutes of July 24, 2007, Commr. Renick requested a change on Page 8, Lines 18 and 19, to list which Commissioners actually spoke to other people prior to the meeting, rather than stating that each of them had done so, when not all of them did.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Minutes of July 24, 2007, as corrected.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk,
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Tab 2, Items 1 through 11, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) 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.
Proof of Publication of Unclaimed Moneys
Request to acknowledge receipt of proof of publication of unclaimed moneys and payment to the Board for those moneys advertised less claims and publication costs.
Before the Public Service Commission
to acknowledge receipt of Before the Public Service Commission – In re:
Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in Alachua, Brevard,
Highlands, Lake, Lee,
Docket No. 060368, Order No. PSC-07-0598-PCO-WS, Issued July 25, 2007.
Order Denying Remaining Portion of OPC’s Motion To Compel Discovery and Requiring Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. To Provide Certain Discovery Responses By August 8, 2007.
Request to acknowledge receipt of copy of Report No. 2008-006, an Operational Audit of Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2006.
St. Johns River Water Management District Tentative Budget Submission
Request to acknowledge receipt of St. Johns River Water Management District Tentative Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008 Budget, as required by Section 373.536 of the Florida Statutes. (CD provided)
Ordinance from City of
to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance 577-M from the City of
Account at Wachovia
Request for approval to open delivery vs. payment account at Wachovia for the purchase of investments.
Meeting Schedule for Cascades at Groveland CDD
Request to acknowledge receipt of certified copy of Resolution 2007-07 identifying the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 meeting schedule for the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Tentative Budget Submission
Request to acknowledge receipt of Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Tentative Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, pursuant to Section 373.536(5), Florida Statutes.
Request to acknowledge receipt of Before the Florida Public Service Commission: - In re: Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in Alachua, Brevard, Highlands, Lake, Lee, Marion, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter, Volusia, and Washington Counties by Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.
Docket No. 060368-WS, Order No. PSC-07-0631-PCO-WS, Issued August 1, 2007.
Granting Intervention by Bill McCollum, Attorney General, State of
between Unum and State of
Request for approval to sign release and accept payment of request to participate in a settlement made between Unum and the state of New York Attorney General for incentive payments paid to brokers. In exchange for the payment of $556.58, the County agrees to sign a general release from any future claims against Unum in this matter.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 18 and Addendum No. 1-I, as follows:
Request for approval of the following Budget Change Requests:
1. Budget transfer – Request transfer of $84,000 from stormwater MSTU fund reserves to purchase property from David McQuilling that qualifies for the Forest Hills/Lake Mack flood buy out program. Purchase was approved by the BCC on 4/3/07. Stormwater Project #STR05007. After this transfer, there will be a remaining balance of $4,501,076.
2. Budget transfer – Request transfer of $92,500 from stormwater MSTU fund reserves to purchase property from Lois Fonseca and Pamela Linderman that qualifies for the Forest Hills/Lake Mack flood buy out program. Purchase was approved by the BCC on 3/20/07. Stormwater Project #STR05007. After this transfer, there will be a remaining balance of $4,408,576.
3. Budget transfer – To correct the org used when budgeting a transfer out of the General Fund. Transfers Outs are budgeted in 9093001; however when this transfer was budgeted it was inadvertently put in 9092001. These 2 org codes have different functions and therefore the transfer needs to be moved to the correct org code in order to provide proper reporting. Accounting correction only. Zero net effect on the General Fund.
4. Budget transfer – Request transfer of $626,136.00 to redistribute additional funding requested by the Sheriff at mid-year for law enforcement salary increases. Funding was added to the Law Enforcement Salary line only and needs to be distributed among Corrections, Bailiffs and School Resource Deputies. Funding was included in the Mid-Year Budget Amendment and is being redistributed among the Sheriff Transfer lines. Zero net effect on the General Fund.
5. Budget transfer – Request transfer funds of $32,000 from Reserve for Operations to Other Professional Services. Due to the change in staffing at the Medical Examiner’s Office, outside physicians have been brought in to provide services resulting in increased expenses. The additional funding should cover expenses through the end of the fiscal year. Funding is available in Reserve for Operations.
Request to release two mortgages (recorded in ORB 3328, Page 1073 and ORB 3356,
Page 1113) to
Addendum 1-I. Request to accept the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation Mini-Grant in order to implement the Phase I Project – Outreach & Awareness Campaign which will be implemented by the Lake County Community Health Workers Program, execute contract and approve Resolution No. 2007-120 accepting unanticipated revenue.
for approval of Resolution No.
2007-117, replacing Resolution No.
1994-20 regarding the Pollution Recovery Fund; changing the name to
Environmental Recovery Fund; providing for additional monies to be deposited
into the Fund to be used to enhance
Request for approval for Execution and Release of Fine, Property Owner: James L. & Toni M. Richardson, Code Case No. 2005110021 – Commission District 3.
for approval of amended Interlocal Agreement between
acceptance of Quit-Claim Deed by Mt. Plymouth Enterprises to
Request for approval to 1) declare the items on the attached list surplus to County needs, (2) authorize the removal of all of the items on the attached list from the County's official fixed asset inventory system records, and (3) authorize the Procurement Services Director to sign vehicle titles.
for approval of and execution of the Hazards Analysis Agreement between the
Request for approval of Resolution No. 2007-118 renaming
Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2007-119 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition 1117, Arthur O. Neaf and Mary Neaf, to vacate rights of way in the Plat of Groveland Farms - Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to accept the final plat for Wolfbranch Meadows and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Wolfbranch Meadows plat. Wolfbranch Meadows consists of 39 lots and is located in Section 19, Township 19 South, Range 28 East. Commission District 4.
accept a performance and payment bond in the amount of $3,591,436.92 as surety
for a Developer's Agreement between
Request for authorization to accept the final plat for Garden City Phase 1-D and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Garden City Phase 1-D plat. Garden City Phase 1-D consists of 26 lots and is located in Section 8, Township 22 South, Range 25 East. Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to accept the final plat for Hidden Forest at Silver Creek and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Hidden Forest at Silver Creek final plat, accept a letter of credit for performance in the amount of $65,439.00, and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Sosa Related Investment, Inc. Hidden Forest at Silver Creek consists of 135 lots and is located in Section 25, Township 24 South, Range 26 East. Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to accept the final plat for The Retreat at Silver Creek and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on The Retreat at Silver Creek final plat, accept a letter of credit for performance in the amount of $47,905.00, and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Ultimate Developers LLC. The Retreat at Silver Creek consists of 90 lots and is located in Section 25, Township 24 South, Range 26 East. Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to accept the final plat for Serenity at Silver Creek and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on Serenity at Silver Creek final plat, accept a letter of credit for performance in the amount of $60,357.00, and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and RR Tropical Investment Group Inc. Serenity at Silver Creek consists of 140 lots and is located in Section 25, Township 24 South, Range 26 East. Commission District 2.
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
for approval of Amendment to Lease Agreement between
for approval of Amendment to Lease Agreement between
for approval of the
Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, stated that this
was the request to approve the final plat for Plymouth Creek Estates in
Commission District 4 in the
Commr. Renick commented that she did not think the current Comprehensive Plan was particularly strong in that area and was concerned that they had a sensitive area environmentally. She asked what the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had thought about the situation.
Mr. Wood responded that the Health Department would be involved in permitting the septic tanks, and they indicated that they had no way of restricting that, since it was offsite.
Commr. Renick stated that she could see risk in this situation, and asked if there was some kind of monitoring that they could put into place for assurances that they were not making some mistakes that would cause them problems later on.
Mr. Wood stated that he was not aware of any policy or land development regulation regarding that that they could enforce in that area.
Commr. Stewart stated that she would not be able to approve this, because even though it met staff’s interpretation of the Comp Plan, she felt that the Comp Plan was not strong enough in this area. She also commented that in the future Comp Plan and LDR’s, this needed to be addressed to get some stricter guidelines in place. She also thought there should be monitoring of the sinkhole.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was comfortable moving forward with this, after talking with staff and engineers, and that they were doing what they could do within the laws that existed.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that she would work with staff to find out if there was something they could do regarding monitoring and come back to the Board with that.
Mr. Rulon Munns, the owner of the property, stated that their drawings showed that the effected area was 2.5 acres with two full lots, one without a house on it, and that the sinkhole that was of concern was a relic sinkhole, did not flow into the aquifer, and had sand that filtered it.
Mr. Wood further explained that it did not appear that that sinkhole had a direct connection to the Florida Aquifer and that it did have a sand bottom.
Mr. Munns continued to explain that they were told that the likelihood of that affecting the aquifer was remote or nonexistent. He suggested that there was plenty of room on the partial lot to the north to put a septic tank outside of the effected area, with a deed restriction put in stating that no septic tank would be put anywhere outside of the north 40 feet of that lot. He also pointed out that they could do the same thing on the south lot, which had about 50 feet if they did a straight line from the widest area. He explained that they could address the problem by doing those things without changing the plat and that the development agreement could contain the condition of the deed restriction, which would be recorded in the public records.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved the plat for Plymouth Creek Estates and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Plymouth Creek Estates final plat, accept a letter of credit for performance in the amount of $1,252,735.00 and execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Plymouth MB, LLC, with the restriction that in the Development Order it have the restrictions of the setbacks for the septic tanks.
Commr. Renick and Commr. Stewart voted “no.”
MATCHING FUNDS FOR MID-FLORIDA HOMELESS COALITION GRANT
Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that Tab 22 was a request
Commr. Stivender asked if the individual running the homeless shelter in Mascotte would get the funding if she used this program.
Mr. Smith responded that that shelter was doing long-term residential services, and the other shelters were temporary, transitional types of shelters.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request to provide $6,000 in matching funds to support a grant award from HUD to the Mid-Florida Homeless Coalition in the amount of $78,143 to support the continued operation of a four-county HMIS, authorize the Chairman to sign a letter of support and commitment for $6,000, and approval of the related budget transfer in the amount of $6,000 from the Welfare Hospital Services (HCRA) Account.
SHELTER PLUS CARE AGREEMENT FOR FY 2006
Mr. Fletcher Smith stated that they were requesting that the Board approve their acceptance of the Shelter Plus Care Agreement, and that HUD was providing Lake County with 8 to 10 additional Section 8 vouchers that were to be used by people who were in a transitional phase moving from in-patient residential substance abuse or mental health treatment to more independent living. He related that the patients at Lifestream would be using these vouchers, that it was a five-year program, and that they would be able to use $372,420 over that period.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 23, the FY 2006 Shelter Plus Care Agreement, authorizing the Chairman to sign it, and directing the Lake County Housing Agency to implement the program covered under the Agreement.
Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that Tab 24 was a request by
adjoining property owners to put a barricade up on a more rural road in a lower
density area, where additional traffic has been created due to growth in the
Clermont area. He stated that Johns Lake
Road and Hancock Road were in the vicinity, and many years ago there were very
large tracts of land and some five acre tracts that were developed in that
area, with the sand mind to the south.
He explained that since then, a subdivision was built near there, with
Renick commented that this was not a County-maintained road, and the Harrell
family and the owners of the five acre tracts had been trying to stop the
cut-through traffic. She commented that
it was just a tiny road, and when it rained and got muddy, traffic was actually
cutting through some of those properties to get out. She also noted that it was always the
intention that the development use
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the placing of barricades on C. W. Harrell Road, North of Sunburst Lane in the Clermont area – Commission District 2.
PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY ANNUAL PLAN FOR FY 2007
Commr. Cadwell announced that Ms. Mickie Mahoney, a resident member of the Public Housing Agency, would sit with the Board and vote on the action they were going to take today on this item.
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Service Director, stated
that Tab 26 was their request to have the Board approve, so they could submit
to HUD, their annual Public Housing Authority plan. He explained that it documented and detailed
what they did and how they operated their program in
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to addressed the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0, the Board approved the Public Housing Agency annual plan for fiscal year 2007 and reports covering fiscal year 2007 and authorized the Chairman to sign and certify for submission.
ORDINANCE CLARIFYING CITATION ISSUANCE BY CODE ENFORCEMENT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE OPTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ISSUE CITATIONS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS; AMENDING SECTION 1-6, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED GENERAL PENALTY; AMENDING SECTION 8-4, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE; AMENDING SECTION 8-11, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ALTERNATE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE CITATIONS; AMENDING SECTION 8-13, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED PENALTIES, TO PROVIDE THIRTY DAYS TO PAY OR CONTEST A CITATION; AMENDING SECTION 8-14, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED VIOLATION PROCEDURE, TO PROVIDE THIRTY DAYS TO AMEND OR CONTEST THE CITATION; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the ordinance made some very minor changes in preparation for Code Enforcement to start using the citation procedures.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-40, amending sections of the Lake County Code for clarification regarding citation issuance by Code Enforcement officers for Code violations.
2008-2012 ROAD IMPACT FEE TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, noted that there was a 40 percent drop
in revenue over the last two years, and that they had collected $13 million
dollars this year compared with $19 million two years ago. He explained that this budget reflected that
revenue and the current fees. He also
explained that the sales tax was being primarily used for resurfacing roads and
paying back the impact fees that they borrowed, and most of the gas tax
currently went for paying salaries, maintenance, and maintenance
equipment. He went through the
highlights of a few projects using impact fees, such as a realignment of the
intersection in Altoona where County Road 42 crossed State Road 19 by 2009; the
CR 44A intersection with Estes Road by 2008; CR 44 starting at the Haines Creek
Bridge east toward Eustis for 2008; Bates Avenue by Eustis Middle School; and
Woodlea Road in Tavares past the Agricultural Center and the ball fields for
2009. Other projects that were currently
being planned were CR 466 from Sumter County to US Hwy 27/441 and Lemon Street,
which they were working on acquiring the right of way to start construction in
2008; Lake Ella Road from April Hill Blvd. to US Hwy 27/441 in Leesburg, which
has been one thing that has been holding up the finishing of the bridge
replacement at Picciola Road; the Dewey Robbins Road intersection with US Hwy
27, which was moving forward; Steve’s Road in Clermont from US 27 to Citrus
Tower Boulevard Phase II, which had an agreement to move forward with that with
the developer; the first phase of Hartwood Marsh Road in Clermont past Hancock
Road; Hooks Street in Clermont; the intersections of Lakeshore with Harder Road
and Oswalt Road in Clermont; and Max Hooks Road from SR 50 to C-565A. He also mentioned that they were being a true
partner with Groveland in putting an alignment together to create a north-south
state road to eliminate the jog in town on Crittenden Street from SR 50/SR 33
to SR 19. He explained that by bypassing
that area in downtown Groveland using
Stivender went through some projects that utilized sales tax. He mentioned that this would be the last year
paying back from sales tax over to impact fees, and they increased the number
on resurfacing, so they had to cut back on a couple of other things to do
that. He stated that Keene Road, which was
approved last week, would be under construction this fall; and the first curve
on CR 455 near Howie-in-the-Hills, which was south of Astatula, was a safety
issue on the Scenic Byway that headed toward Montverde. He also pointed out that CR 448 from CR 561
to the bridge, south of
Mr. Stivender stated that staff was ready to put out a $1.3 million resurfacing program, and they wanted to combine that with the additional sales tax for next year of $2.5 million and put a $3.8 million resurfacing program out county wide. He reminded the Board that prices had tripled, so they were not getting as many miles as they would like out of resurfacing. He opined that with that amount they could make a good impact to get the life expectancy of other roads to the point where they did not have to be resurfaced. He concluded by stating there was $43 million total worth of work scheduled for 2008.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 28, the 2008-2012 Road Impact Fee Transportation Construction Program, the 2008-2012 Transportation Trust Fund Construction Program, and the 2008-2012 Renewal Sales Tax Capital Projects – Road Transportation Construction Program.
APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Ms. Lily Kliot to serve as
TO THE LAKE
Stivender stated that she was currently the liaison to the newly-created Lake
County Arts and Cultural Alliance, but the Board needed to vote for whether
they still wanted her to do it. She read
the recommendations for the members representing the municipalities, and
pointed out that the Town of
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following appointments of members to the newly created Lake County Arts and Cultural Alliance: Mr. Keith Mullins representing the City of Clermont; Ms. Kace Montgomery representing the City of Eustis; Ms. Amy Griffin representing the City of Leesburg; Mr. Joe Teri representing the City of Minneola; Ms. Judy Smathers representing the City of Mount Dora; Vice Mayor Nancy Clutts representing the City of Tavares; and Ms. Judy Tice representing the Town of Astatula.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the reappointment of Commr. Stivender as the Commission liaison to the Lake County Arts and Cultural Alliance.
LEACHATE DISPOSAL CLEANUP ISSUE
Commr. Hill asked how many total litigants were involved.
Minkoff responded that thirty were noticed, and that it appeared that
Mr. Minkoff responded that everyone would be jointly and severally liable for the whole thing, but that EPA encouraged everyone who sent the waste there to get together to clean up the site and equitably divide the cost, which was the purpose of the committee.
motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Commr. Stivender commented that she thought they should wait, since they had just moved Ms. Mollie Cunningham as principal to that school. She thought that what happened there got blown out of proportion last year, and she talked to some of the teachers, who indicated that they did not have as much of a problem as it was made out to be. She thought waiting until October would give them a month and a half to see how the new principal was handling the situation.
Commr. Stewart agreed, and stated that there could be no problems in the future.
The Board directed Ms. Hall to contact the School Board to tell them the Board would readdress that issue in October.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CONSTITUTION WEEK
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2007-121, recognizing September 16 through 22, 2007 as Constitution Week.
Stivender showed the Board the signs that they originally approved for
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Taylor, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board regarding the relocation of
County Road 46A as part of the Expressway Project to clarify some issues he
believed there was some confusion on. He opined that a road with a 100-foot,
150-foot, or whatever the minimum buffer would be through his property would be
the best option, as opposed to the road running through conservation land or
using a larger buffer on his land for the road.
He asked that the Board send a letter to DOT (Department of
Transportation) or direct Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, to
send a letter on behalf of the Board that clarified what Lake County’s desires
were with respect to CR 46A. He also
mentioned that Heathrow already had some buffering in the form of
Stewart commented that different alternatives were explored for that road which
were not acceptable to either the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
or the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the route along the western
portion of Mr. Taylor’s property was the only one that was feasible. She also noted that DOT did a noise survey, which found that with the
landscaped berm being put in, the buffer they currently had on Heathrow Country
Estates, and the road that was already in place, that sound would not be a
problem for the residents there. She
also mentioned that DOT told her that if they go any further east, they were
going to expect
Commr. Hill commented that she was not comfortable making a decision regarding this issue without notice to residents of Heathrow or others who might be affected by this.
Commr. Renick commented that the Heathrow residents were adamant about asking that the route go through the conservation land at a previous meeting.
Commr. Stivender thought that the Heathrow residents should hear where the Board stands on this issue at a BCC Meeting next week.
The Board decided to put this issue on the Agenda for next week’s BCC Meeting.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 5:05 p.m.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Commr. Cadwell explained that there were groups who had contacted him to ask that a spokesman for their group be given some time to speak, and after the Board had some discussion, they would have those groups speak first, and then have individuals speak after that. He stated that he would have some dialogue with the Board first about a proposal he had made.
Commr. Stivender stated that she liked the idea of the seven member task force and the fact that it would wait until the Economic Development Strategic Plan was done, but her concern was that it did not have a deadline date.
Commr. Cadwell stated that even though the Strategic Plan was going to be done in six months, he did not mean that the study of the impact fees should be done in six months also. He also clarified that he did not want to postpone the fee today; he wanted to vote the fee down and look at other revenue sources to fund transportation by taking a business approach with business people in a timely manner. He commented that instead of working from impact fees back to other solutions, they needed to look at other solutions and see how they fit against impact fees.
Commr. Stivender stated that she would go along with Commr. Cadwell’s proposal as he explained it.
Commr. Cadwell further explained that
the seven-member makeup of the committee would include a member chosen by each
Commissioner, who did not have to be in their district, and two members
recommended by the Industrial Development Authority (IDA). He also related that they would advertise and
let individual citizens apply for it and create the committee by
resolution. Also, he mentioned that the
economic development strategy consultant that they hired to assist a group of
citizens with that would be glad to look at the economic effects of impact fees
on any kind of strategy that they would create, and the Lake Sumter
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was looking at alternative revenues
for transportation. He stated that all
these groups would be looking at this issue at the same time, but this
particular group would just be looking at different ways to fund transportation
Commr. Stewart commented that she was
a proponent of impact fees and felt that the citizens of
Commr. Cadwell stated that his
concern with that proposal was that the committee’s study might not show a need
for the 35 percent increase. He
commented that the Board could increase impact fees at any time. He also was concerned that they were currently
in a different situation than they had ever been in
Commr. Hill stated that she thought Commr. Cadwell’s proposal had a lot of merit, and after he clarified his position on a few questions, she was in agreement with it, except for creating another committee. She thought they could possibly use the nine-member economic development steering committee to address the economic impacts.
Commr. Cadwell stated that all the groups would be utilizing each other’s information, but he wanted a separate group that was focused on funding the infrastructure for transportation.
Commr. Renick opined that she thought all of them found the amount recommended in the study to be staggering, but that she did not find fault with the methodology of the study itself. She commented that the Impact Fee Committee was made up of excellent representation and were charged with exploring alternative funding sources, and they would like to have someone report to them. She stated that she had thought the Board would try and find the perfect amount of impact fees after hearing everyone’s thoughts during the public hearing and not just turn the fees down completely. She thought that they could put the impact fees in place that were proposed in 2002 or look at what was recommended in terms of phasing and put some type of impact fee in place so that they did not fall further and further behind with road construction costs. She also believed in looking at alternate funding. She stated that they were trying to balance the cost of construction without putting the impact fees so high that businesses would run to an adjoining county. She also related that she was very uncomfortable with waiting over six months for a study to be done before impact fees were put in place.
Commr. Cadwell commented that in the past he had supported impact fees, but he was concerned that under the current climate, increasing any of those fees did not make sense to him.
Commr. Stewart agreed that they needed to wait as long as they could before they increased fees to give the economy a chance to recover, because the businesses were the backbone of the County. She believed, however, the gas tax and sales tax would not pay for the roads that they needed, and they would have to consider impact fees. She believed they needed to set a specific amount that night so that there was no uncertainty for businesses.
Commr. Cadwell stated that currently the County’s growth was primarily in commercial, which was what paid the bills and was the better tax base.
Commr. Renick commented that the commercial builders she had heard from, such as Darden, did not ask them to vote for no increase, but only for a more reasonable increase.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY IN 22-4 OF THE CODE; ADOPTING the "Lake County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report," dated May 14, 2007, prepared by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc.; AMENDING SECTION 22-37 entitled IMPOSITION for the purposes of ADOPTing A NEW TRANSPORTATION FEE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE BASED ON THE PRODUCER PRICE INDEX; CORRECTING REFERENCES IN CHAPTER 22 OF THE CODE; REVISING THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE IMPACT FEE DISTRICTS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22-42, LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING A SEVERANCE CLAUSE;providing for inclusion in the code; and PROVIDING for AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Angie Thompson, Impact Fee Coordinator, added that the effective dates would need to be revised in the ordinance if it were adopted, because it would need to be at least 90 days from that day. She specified that December 1 would be the earliest, but it could be later at the Board’s discretion.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
T. J. Fish, Executive Director, of the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), stated that the MPO was formed a few years ago for regional
transportation planning and was responsible for conducting planning exercises
that lead to cost feasible plans, and the Board’s decision on impact fees or
any other funding source directly impacted planning efforts of the MPO. He specified that in 2004, the MPO was
created and immediately put together a 2025 transportation plan that looked at
needs for the next 20 years and how they were going to fund them, which was
adopted in 2006 by the MPO governing board, using impact fees as a major source
for transportation. He pointed out that
the five additional pennies allowed by Florida Statute were not implemented by
Nancy Clutts, President, Lake County League of Cities, and Vice Mayor of the
Mr. Ralph Bowers, City Manager of Fruitland Park, personally endorsed Commr. Cadwell’s plan to create a task force, and commented that it was usually beneficial to have a broad range of viewpoints included in an important decision and that haste was not in anyone’s interest for this watershed issue. He also reiterated the League of Cities’ request asking that the municipalities be included as stakeholders. He pointed out that commercial development did not necessarily generate trips, because if businesses such as grocery stores were located closer to residents of the County, it would be a positive impact, because the distance traveled on the County’s roads by those residents would be less, reducing trip time and miles.
Mr. Jay Evans, Interim City Manager of Leesburg, stated that the proposal did not acknowledge the profound adverse economic impacts such fees would impose upon the County and that he wholeheartedly supported Commr. Cadwell’s proposal for a task force and a go-slow approach. He mentioned that the proposed impact fee schedule would preclude the City from looking at any other impact fees.
Jeff Krull, Mayor of the City of
Mr. Fred Johnson, member of the Town Council of Howie-in-the Hills, stated that the Board needed to look at the extra money that the County has taken in during the last few years due to an increase in tax revenue to determine how that was being spent and if any of it could be spent on roads. He commented that they needed long-term solutions to short-term and long-term problems.
Mr. Rick Joyce, a member of the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), opined that there was no economic development plan for the County, and he thought that a discussion of impact fees should be part and parcel of an entire economic development plan. He related that the IDA made a unanimous decision to recommend to the Board that this decision be delayed or deferred until such time as that plan was completed. He opined that this was a “sick” county in comparison to that of other counties, and that businesses see a sign in our County that said, “closed for business.” He suggested that this was not the time to look at impact fees or any fees or taxes to keep pace with everyone else, because we would fall behind if we did so.
Mr. George Wolf, President, Hawthorne Residents Cooperative Association in Leesburg, a retirement community of nearly 1200 manufactured homes, stated that they owned their own water utility, fire truck, and first emergency responders and maintained their own roads, all without expense to the County government. He pointed out that they brought no impact to the school system and brought economic benefit to the area with their purchasing power. He also mentioned that they owned a realty office which marketed new homes in the area, and that they were currently seeking rezoning of a portion of their land for a commercial enterprise, but the new impact fees would have the effect of stopping the project, and he did not think any developer would take a chance on a commercial enterprise with those rates. He asked the Commissioners, on behalf of their retirement community, to find a better way.
Mr. Jim Bible, President, Home Builders Association of Lake County, stated that they had reviewed in detail the study prepared by Tindale-Oliver, and they wanted to discuss the four significant assumptions used by them to calculate the highest impact fees in the State of Florida, which were road construction costs, reconstruction costs, trip lengths, and state road costs. He stated that the report recommended using a cost of $4.1 million per lane mile, but that they calculated a cost of $1.34 million per lane mile. He opined that new development should only pay for the road capacity it needed and that reconstructing a road typically included structural improvements such as drainage improvements, sidewalks, and landscaping, which did not create road capacity and which benefited and should be paid by everyone. He also pointed out that the Tindale-Oliver study surmised that the trip lengths in Lake County were 33 percent longer than the State average, using a small, faulty data base, and that they should not have included state road costs in their analysis, since very little impact fee revenue has gone to state roads. He concluded by stating that if they adjusted the impact fee for those four assumptions, the numbers would be reduced to about a 37 percent increase.
Bill Dees, Co-Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the greater
Lake County Association of Realtors, commented that there were a lot of people
who wanted to leave
Don Magruder, Chairman of Citizens for Better Government and Chairman of
Florida Building Materials Association, stated that they were opposed to any
increases in impact fees and thought that discussion should be about lowering
them. He related that since the last fee
increase in 2004, permits in
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 6:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that they would recess until 6:40 p.m.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE (CON’D)
Brian Martin of Fishkind and Associates, Inc., speaking on behalf of the
Business Council of 100, stated that his involvement in this stemmed from a
study they did for them regarding the economic impacts of the proposed impact
fees and mentioned that there has not been a lot of research done in this
area. He explained that they looked at
data such as impact fees, control of population, employment, and things of that
nature in 40 counties in the State of
Robert Johnson, President of the Chamber Alliance, which represented the eight
Chambers of Commerce and the 3500 businesses that were members of those Chambers,
stated that the Chamber Alliance had attempted to objectively review the impact
fee report and various studies from outside business groups to formulate their
own opinion. He commented that they were
very concerned that the trip length that was indicated was considerably longer
than the statewide average, and the surrounding counties had a trip length that
was 28 percent less than what was proposed in Lake County. He also pointed out that trip length was one
of the major elements of how the fees were developed and that surrounding
counties were able to build roads for up to a $1.5 million less than the study
purported. He believed that the County
had to better fund maintenance of their roads and that it was not fair to
expect new growth to pay to replace or repair those roads. He presented data showing that
Commr. Cadwell stated that individuals who wanted to speak in favor of increased impact fees would speak next.
Mr. Bill Calhoun, known as the “Sweet Tomato” in the Daily Commercial, commented that he understood about loss of jobs and income for the County if the impact fees studies proved to be correct, but did not believe that the Commissioners should have postponed the issue to be studied. He stated that most people would prefer to drive on good roads, but our roads were in terrible condition throughout the County and that all the construction had put heavy equipment on the roads. He was concerned that if the roads were not taken care of now, the lack of satisfactory roads would push the businesses out of the County.
Ms. Elizabeth Kapoor, a resident of Clermont, stated that the housing market was in a crisis and that the builders and developers were undercutting the people that were trying to sell their houses. She opined that this was not due to impact fees, however. She commented that the developers have owned the County for the last ten years and resented any suggestion that they would have to pay their way and anything that threatened to cut into their profits. She was also not impressed with the Home Builders study, and stated that the County had grown too fast with little thought in the last decade, with the result of polluted lakes, loss of countryside, and decreasing wildlife.
Rob Kelly, President of the Citizens Coalition and a member of the Local
Planning Agency, stated that the reason for the situation the County was
currently in was partially because of land use decisions the County had made in
the past in approving numerous subdivisions and not adhering to a comprehensive
plan. He named the many committees such
as the MPO, the Impact Fee Committee, and the Citizens Coalition that were in
favor of increasing impact fees. He also
opined that the proposed alternative of shifting costs to the general public
through gas or sales tax was not acceptable, because it would greatly increase
the burden of high gas prices and create more of a hardship for retirees on
fixed incomes and families in
Jim Rotella, Mayor of the City of
Vicky Zaneis, a resident of unincorporated
Jeanne Etter, a resident of
Commr. Cadwell stated that individuals who wanted to speak against increased impact fees would speak next.
Robert Wilson, a resident of Eustis, stated that he did not see how the
County’s economic base could tolerate any more fees and taxes. He commented that people had contacted him
about renting some property he owned, and that many people could not afford
more than $600 per month, which would only cover his expenses of taxes and
insurance. He stated that property taxes
have more than doubled since 2003, and that the extra money needed to be given
back to the public. He also opined that
it has gotten to a point where people can not afford to live in
Katherine Sutherland, owner of Collina Kid’s Academy in Clermont, stated that
when she opened her business in 2006, she paid $63,000 in impact fees. She explained that since she has a waiting
list of about 114 children to get into her day care facility, she would like to
build another facility in the County, but she was concerned that she would have
to pay new impact fees of $310,000 and a total of $500,000 with the city
fees. She noted that if she built in
Dr. Ed Schlein, from Leesburg, commented that he thought Commr. Cadwell’s proposal was a good start, albeit a small one, to achieving responsibility and balance. He showed a graph comparing the year 2000 with 2007, and pointed out that the County budget in 2000 was a little over 207 million, but it was over $454 million in 2007. He further specified that during that time the population went from 210,000 to 287,000. He opined that 57 percent in the budget to accommodate population growth and inflation would have been keeping up, but the budget was up 119 percent. He noted that this meant that the County was spending $130 million more than it would be if they just exercised responsibility and balance. He opined that the Board should start prioritizing projects better.
Ms. Rebecca Ballash, a resident of Eustis, read an e-mail response from Commr. Stewart from August 13, stating that she did not support the impact fee increases, since she felt that they would damage the businesses greatly, which she believed were the backbone of the County. She asked Commr. Stewart what had changed between the time of the e-mail and that day.
Commr. Stewart responded that she would not be voting for the drastic impact fee increases that were proposed in the ordinance, but that she also told her in the e-mails that she was a proponent of impact fees. Commr. Stewart also mentioned that she thought that 35 percent was a more realistic fee and that the drastic increase in impact fees would destroy our economy.
Louis Bremer, CEO of Leesburg Regional Medical Center, stated that it was his
opinion that if the proposed impact fees were adopted, it would have a
disastrous impact. He related that there
was currently a shortage of doctors within
Larry Williams, who owned a diagnostic imaging business with offices in
Leesburg and Eustis, stated that he was presently in the process of trying to
develop two new facilities which would put substantial amounts of money on the
tax roll for
Gerry Suarez, of unincorporated Eustis and Senior Vice President of Thomas
Mortgage and Financial Services, opined that the real estate situation would be
getting worse in the short term and that many sub-prime loans were going to
reset to a higher monthly payment, which would be triggering a wave of foreclosures
Ms. Carol Saviak, Executive Director of Coalition for Property Rights, provided the Board with a letter which talked about why impact fees were poor public policy. The first reason listed in the letter was that they impacted a very narrow base of the citizenry rather than spreading it across a much broader base. She also was concerned that the impact fees were set at different rates for different land uses. She concluded that the people affected by this were Americans who were working hard every day trying to build the American dream, and that property rights, land use, and property taxation made those dreams possible.
Mr. Alan Parrow, President and CEO of Pringle Development, stated that at least three studies that the Commission has been aware of had suggested that impact fees were not a reasonable way to raise funds for infrastructure improvement. He also commented that most scholars who were not in the employ of government would suggest that it was not the best way to raise funds, but that it was the most politically expedient way to do so. He noted that they laid off 70 of their 210 employees already, and that it would behoove them to go with Commr. Cadwell’s suggestion that they did not raise impact fees and that they study other alternatives.
Kathy Judkins, Deputy Director of Community Affairs for Sumter Electric
Cooperative (SECO), which served 53,000 member customers and their families in
Mr. Bill Pierce, a resident of Umatilla, stated that he had built two houses in the last three years, and he was concerned about waste in government and suggested that they take a look at the monies they currently had and forget about the impact fees.
John Santilipo, a resident of unincorporated
Alice Dickey, who has lived in
Mr. Jim Jenherllng stated that last week he received paperwork in the mail cancelling a contract on some of his property for $2 million, because they were uncertain as to what the Commission was going to do. He believed the Board should make a definite decision that night or the uncertainty of the situation would drive business away.
Dan Robuck, a 23-year old lifelong resident of Leesburg, stated that he came
Ms. Theresa Tucker, a CPA who has been in the accounting and finance area for over 25 years and who currently works for Romack Lumber, stated that she understood that the Fair Share Rule required that impact fees could only be charged for the portion of the public capital facilities that were attributable to new development, but the County was trying to roll in costs of renovation of the old roads. She also related that pursuant to Statute 163.318013(a), the calculation of the impact fee was required to be based on the most recent and localized data. She urged the Board to not consider even a 35 percent increase and to consider a rollback, because she felt that the data for 2007 would be significantly different than it was in 2005.
Catherine Hanson, a former Lake County Commissioner, stated that she was
extremely concerned at this point about the economy. She stated that while on the Commission, she promoted
affordable housing, smart growth, mixed use development, and light
industry. She related that she supported
reasonable impact fees in the past and was on the Board that approved the first
school impact fees for
Dan Robuck stated that he thought the economy was worse now than it has ever
Jeffrey Kerina, the senior partner in
Robert Grego, stated that he had probably been involved in about $50 million in
land deals in commercial development in south Lake County over the last five or
six years. He stated that the fees would
put their rental rates in Clermont at approximately $40 per square foot for a
small space, and he did not know any retailer that would pay that much. He further related that without the retailers
there would not be jobs or the tax base.
He predicted that with these fees, the commercial generation in
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Cadwell stated that after hearing all the testimony that night, he still felt
that his proposal was a common sense, level-headed approach to the issue. He commented that if they adopted the fees
that were proposed,
Commr. Stivender stated that most of the e-mails she had received were from citizens stating that the increase in the impact fee would trickle down to them, and she had responded to as many as she could to let them know that she did not support the increase.
Commr. Stivender made a motion to vote down the proposed ordinance and form a task force for citizens to look at funding options for the County’s transportation needs and bring back the ideas to the Commission once the task force had researched and worked with all effected industries as well as the Economic Strategic Plan Committee and the Impact Fee Committee, which was seconded by Commr. Stewart.
Commr. Renick wanted to separate the motion, because she was not in favor of the full amount that was proposed but was not in favor of the long time that they were considering to put together a task force. She commented that her supporters felt that the proposed fees were way too high of an increase.
Commr. Stewart commented that if they did not separate the motions, she would withdraw her second.
Commr. Stivender withdrew her original motion.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted down the ordinance proposing the impact fee increases.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board moved to form a task force of citizens to look at the funding options for transportation needs and to bring those ideas back to the County Commission after the task force has researched and worked with all the effected industries as well as the Economic Development Committee and the Impact Fee Committee and to direct the County Attorney to bring back a resolution.
Commr. Renick and Commr. Stewart voted “no.”
Commr. Cadwell told Mr. Minkoff that they needed to give that committee a little direction in the resolution in regard to how they wanted them to operate separately from the other things going on.
Commr. Renick stated that the reason she voted against the motion was the uncertainty of the fuzzy time frame and that she believed they had to have some increase in the impact fee in place.
Commr. Stivender commented that turning the proposed increase down would give businesses a comfort level to move forward with bringing commercial development in.
ORDINANCE AMENDING IMPACT FEE GENERAL PROVISIONS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED IMPACT FEES; AMENDING APPLICABILITY OF PARK IMPACT FEES; DELETING UNNECESSARY AND UNUSED DEFINITIONS; CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS; INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE IMPACT FEE COMMITTEE; ADDING LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THE TIME THAT IMPACT FEES WILL BE DETERMINED; PROVIDING FOR RECAPTURE OF WAIVED IMPACT FEES UPON SALE TO A NON-QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL; AUTHORIZING DEFERRAL OF IMPACT FEES FOR LOW OR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING IN CERTAIN INSTANCES; AUTHORIZING PREPAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES; MODIFYING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REFUND OF IMPACT FEES; MODIFYING PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM IMPACT FEES; AMENDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE FEES;AMENDING THE APPEALS PROVISIONS; MAKING CLARIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF COLLECTING AND ACCOUNTING FOR IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERANCE CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE.
Commr. Stivender asked if this would come back when they did the resolution for the task force.
Commr. Cadwell responded that this ordinance could stand on its own without any increase, because it was regarding how they were doing business, but there would not be any funding to fund the affordable housing language in there that he had pushed for, and he thought they needed to have the discussion on that ordinance at the same time they got through with the other business.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Gerry Suarez stated that he understood that this ordinance did not limit the prepayment of impact fees, and he wanted the Board to consider the impacts that would have. He commented that a future business owner negotiating a land deal in the County wanted to know during the entire negotiating process what his costs were going to end up being.
Commr. Hill commented that she agreed with Mr. Suarez that there were a lot of components with this and that it did reenact the prepayment. She also wanted to include the language that was in the transportation ordinance in this ordinance regarding the housing definition for active adult and discuss the other amendments.
Commr. Cadwell thought that if they gave clear direction that night that they were not looking at raising impact fees in the near future, that the prepayment issue would not be a big issue, and there would be some parts of the ordinance that would not be relevant because they did not do anything with the impact fees. He asked Mr. Minkoff if there were any portions that they would need to take out if it were passed.
Mr. Minkoff responded that there would be some changes that would be somewhat significant that were not in there, but most of the changes were administrative type changes. He also explained that prepayments were revised and added back in, but the dates would probably have to be changed, depending on what the committee did with the study.
Commr. Renick asked if they should postpone this since they were not going forward with the impact fee, to take a second look at it.
Commr. Stewart also commented that she would like to look at it a little more.
Mr. Grant Watson, from Williams, Smith & Summers, on behalf of Pringle Development, stated that he understood that the Commissioners had all been supplied with some information regarding some proposed changes of the language in the refund portion of the impact fee ordinance, and he was concerned that the ordinance currently only addressed refunds for impact fees that were improperly calculated and those that were paid twice. He stated that it ignored the situation where an impact fee was improperly collected. He also was concerned that currently refunds were limited to the record owner of the property, and they would like to see a real party in interest standard developed that recognized the party that actually paid the impact fee would be entitled to a refund of that impact fee.
Mr. Jim Bible, President, Home Builders Association, suggested that they table that, clean up some items, and bring it back. He mentioned that they had previously submitted a list of items also that they were concerned about, including fees.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff if there was a time frame that they needed to reenact this.
Mr. Minkoff answered that they could readvertise it at any time and bring it back.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to postpone the ordinance amending Chapter 22, Lake County Code, Impact Fees, amending general provisions.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – VICE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
LETTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING
Hill stated that she would not be able to go to the Public Service Commission
Commr. Cadwell clarified that it pertained to the Covanta plant.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to put that item on the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board gave approval for the Chairman and Commr. Hill, on behalf of the Solid Waste Committee, to sign the letter to be submitted to the Public Service Commission.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK