A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 21, 2007

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Elaine Renick; Debbie Stivender; and Linda Stewart.  Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Niki Booth, Office Associate, County Manager’s Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Pastor John Barham from First United Methodist Church, in Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that she had one addendum on the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, which was to accept a Florida Healthy Kids Corporation Mini-Grant.  She stated that it was time sensitive, and they needed to get that executed this month.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he would like to add a discussion under his business involving a matter that they had with Environmental Services and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and he believed that it would take a vote.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place the County Attorney’s item on the Agenda.

MINUTES

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

Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance, stated that she had one change on Tab 2, Item 7, to change the recommendation from acknowledge receipt to approval of the request.

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

            Request 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, Marion, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter, Volusia, and Washington Counties by Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.

            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.

            Operational Audit of Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program

            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 Clermont

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance 577-M from the City of Clermont which annexes a vacant parcel of land lying in Section 6, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, into the City limits of Clermont.

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.

            Before the Florida Public Service Commission:

            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.

            Order Granting Intervention by Bill McCollum, Attorney General, State of Florida.

            Settlement between Unum and State of New York

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.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

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:

Budget

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.

Community Services

Request to release two mortgages (recorded in ORB 3328, Page 1073 and ORB 3356, Page 1113) to Lake County from Mary Perdue.

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.

Environmental Services

Request 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 Lake County's environmental resources; and providing for an effective date.

Growth Management

Request for approval for Execution and Release of Fine, Property Owner: James L. & Toni M. Richardson, Code Case No.  2005110021 – Commission District 3.

            Request for approval of amended Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the Town of Montverde removing the provision for payment of 15% of building and fire permit fees to the Town of Montverde.

Request for acceptance of Quit-Claim Deed by Mt. Plymouth Enterprises to Lake County for lands within the plat of Mt. Plymouth – Commission District 4.

Procurement

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.

Public Safety

Request for approval of and execution of the Hazards Analysis Agreement between the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management and Lake County, by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.

            Request for approval of Resolution No. 2007-118 renaming Tiny Morse Boulevard to Auto Plex Way – Commission District 2.

            Public Works

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.

Request to accept a performance and payment bond in the amount of $3,591,436.92 as surety for a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Groveland BFG Lakeshore, Ltd. regarding Hartle Road.

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.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 19 through 21 as follows:

Request for approval of Amendment to Lease Agreement between Lake County and Eagle R & R, Inc. – Commission District 3.

Request for approval of Amendment to Lease Agreement between Lake County and Amerirus, Inc. – Commission District 3.

Request for approval of the 7730 American Way Estoppel Certificate.

COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PUBLIC WORKS

FINAL PLAT FOR PLYMOUTH CREEK ESTATES

Mr. Fred 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 Sorrento area.  He related that there was a question regarding this plat with regard to a sinkhole adjacent to the property, and that staff and Mr. Walter Wood, Senior Geologist, Environmental Services Department, had met with the developer and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and felt that they could plat and still meet the intent of the Comp Plan, but with restrictions on some of the lots.  He further explained that there were four lots that were upslope of the sinkhole, meaning there was surface drainage going down towards the sinkhole.  He stated that with the restrictions that would be put into the CD Plus Program, when they applied for a building permit, it would state that the septic tank had to be outside that upslope area, which would meet the intent of the Comp Plan.

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.”

COMMUNITY SERVICES

MATCHING FUNDS FOR MID-FLORIDA HOMELESS COALITION GRANT

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that Tab 22 was a request to approve Lake County’s contribution of $6,000 to a HUD Mid-Florida Homeless Coalition HMIS (Homeless Management Information System) software grant.  He explained that the total grant was a little over $78,000 and that this was the second year they would be making the contribution.  He further explained that the HMIS software tied homeless shelters in the four- county region together to share information about the demographics of the people who were coming into their shelters, and the shelter in Lake County that shared information with the Coalition was the First Baptist Church shelter in Leesburg.  He related that they tracked family size and individuals who were receiving assistance through their shelters and other shelters to make sure there was no duplication of services.  He also pointed out that it was a requirement for the agencies that provided homeless services to have this software and manage this process to receive homeless shelter funding and grants through HUD.

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.

PUBLIC WORKS

BARRICADE PLACEMENT ON C.W. HARRELL ROAD

Mr. Jim 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 Sunburst Lane as a paved city street that came off of Hancock Road to the subdivision.  He related that Harrell Road was being used for cut-through traffic through the subdivision, which was creating problems for a road that was maintainable under low volumes of traffic.  He stated that their recommendation was to allow the church, the property owners to the south, and the subdivision to go out through Sunburst Lane; barricade the road which was more of a driveway for those four lots; and relocate the mail boxes to a different location that would make it more accessible to the property owners, which they had already worked out with the post office.

Commr. 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 Sunburst Lane, but that they had been using Harrell Road.

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 HEARINGS

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 Lake County in the Section 8 Voucher Program.  He mentioned that there were a number of different programs that HUD has, such as project based housing and tenant based housing, which is what Lake County participated in, where people with vouchers had a choice of where they wanted to live.  He stated that they had to have a lot of documents on file to prove to HUD that they complied with all the rules and regulations that HUD required as far as fair housing, non-discriminatory practices, the appeal process, and their waiting list procedures.

            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.

            PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCE CLARIFYING CITATION ISSUANCE BY CODE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading, by title only, as follows:

            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.

PUBLIC HEARING

2008-2012 ROAD IMPACT FEE TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Jim 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 Crittenden Street, they could align SR 33 south and SR 19 north at the east side of town and eliminate the bottlenecking downtown.

Mr. 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 Lake Dora, needed paved shoulders and had settled badly on the east bound lane because of truck traffic and needed to be overlaid.

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.

OTHER BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD

On a 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 Lady Lake’s Public Library’s member representative on the Lake County Library Advisory Board to complete an unexpired term ending February 28, 2008.

APPOINTMENTS TO THE LAKE COUNTY ARTS AND CULTURAL ALLIANCE

Commr. 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 Astatula was the rotating municipality, and it was set up like the Lake-Sumter MPO so that they all would have input.

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.

REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY

LEACHATE DISPOSAL CLEANUP ISSUE

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he had been contacted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding leachate disposal that they had sent to a firm in Jacksonville, and there was a meeting in Jacksonville that Ms. Kimberly Williams from his office, as well as Mr. Gary Debo and Mr. Mike Bowers from Environmental Services went to.  He explained that it was the responsibility of everyone who sent material to that company for disposal to clean up the site and that Nassau County had suggested that Lake County participate with them and the South Carolina Water and Gas Agency to jointly hire an attorney to look over this issue to make sure that everything was done correctly.  He asked for approval to hire an attorney from Tampa with Carlton Fields and authority to work with the committee of those who sent waste to that site on a plan to get it cleaned up.  He commented that they did not anticipate a lot of legal fees.

Commr. Hill asked how many total litigants were involved.

Mr. Minkoff responded that thirty were noticed, and that it appeared that Lake County, Nassau County, and South Carolina Water and Gas Agency made up about half of the volume that was sent to the plant.  He commented that Nassau County sent almost twice what Lake County did, and the estimate that he gave the Board of about $150,000 - $200,000 exposure was probably accurate at this point.

Commr. Hill asked if Lake County would be more responsible than some of the other parties.

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.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s request to hire an attorney from Tampa with Carlton Fields and authority to work with the committee of those who sent waste to that site on a plan to clean up the leachate disposal.

REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER FOR BEVERLY SHORES ELEMENTARY

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that she received a call from the Sheriff last week related to a vote by the School Board to include a school resource officer at Beverly Shores Elementary School and requesting direction as to funding of that position.  She mentioned that that position was not included in the Budget request, and thought that the Board might want to have a discussion about whether to include funding either now or perhaps starting in October for a school resource officer at that school.

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.

LAKE EXPRESS BUS STOP SIGNS

Commr. Stivender showed the Board the signs that they originally approved for Lake Express bus stops, and pointed out that the signs did not have the words “bus stop” on there.  She stated that at the Transportation Disadvantaged meeting yesterday, August 20, some individuals were concerned that people would not be able to figure out that the signs were indicating where the bus stops were located.  She asked the Board for consensus to add the words “bus stop” or “public bus stop” to the signage, since it was different than what was originally approved.  The Board gave consensus to add that to the signs.

CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

Mr. Scott 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 Estates Ridge Road, which was a parallel road.

Commr. 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 Lake County to help with financing of buying that extra land.

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.

PUBLIC HEARING

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 for Lake County.

Commr. Stewart commented that she was a proponent of impact fees and felt that the citizens of Lake County have had to pay their unfair share of the County’s out-of-control residential growth as they had to endure the deterioration of their quality of life.  She also commented that much of the development was from out of town developers, many who wrote to her opposing the impact fees.  She opined that impact fees helped take the burden of paying for growth off of the taxpayers.  She also stated that she was a proponent of the businesses in the County, and felt that they needed to encourage their businesses and promote their economic growth as they never had before, and if they had diversified their economy years ago, they would not be hurting so much today.  She also commented that the County must look to the future and make decisions that ensure that they plan adequately for the infrastructure necessary to support their businesses and diversify economic growth.  She stated that her proposal was to raise impact fees an average of 35 percent from what they currently were, which was what the government solution study prepared for the Lake County Builders Association recommended, with the increase not to take effect until the task force has finished their study.

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 Lake County, and he believed that the task force could come up with some solutions if they gave them some time.  He added that if their findings were to increase impact fees, they could do that at that time.

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, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading, by title only, as follows:

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.

            Mr. 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 Lake County and that very little sales tax and no property tax in Lake County went to road capacity.  He opined that the sticker shock of the figure given was due to the increased cost of building roads and the failure of the County to diversify the transportation funding options.  He also commented that he did not want to be a county known for the highest transportation impact fee in the state.

            Ms. Nancy Clutts, President, Lake County League of Cities, and Vice Mayor of the City of Tavares, stated that it was exciting to see so many people from so many different backgrounds coming together, unified for the purpose of improving the quality of life and finding a solution for Lake County.  She thanked the Board for the opportunity of the municipalities and others to come together to deliberate on a diversification of funding.  She related that the League of Cities in a unanimous vote asked that the Board to allow for enough time for each city to weigh in on the deliberation, and that there could be unintended consequences by passing the proposed fee structure as it was that day.

            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.

            Mr. Jeff Krull, Mayor of the City of Mascotte, suggested that the County Commission delay its vote on approval of such increases and that the impact to the economic health of the County and the cities be included in any consideration of increased fees.

            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.

            Mr. 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 Lake County, because they could not afford to live here.  He suggested that they look at the County budget and seriously address the County’s expenditures, and related that even though expenditures have been increasing, revenues for the County have increased even more.   He told the County Commissioners to give the citizens their money back rather than keeping and investing it and have the County Manager direct the heads of the departments to prioritize the expenditures and eliminate the bottom five.

            Mr. 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 Lake County had steadily declined, and permit activity was now 75 percent down.  He opined that the reason for the decline was that Lake County has priced itself out of the market and was no longer competitive in attracting businesses of the future and the highly educated skilled workers to create them.

            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)

            Mr. 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 Florida in order to gauge the impact on annual construction activity that an impact fee increase might have.  He presented data that showed that across all land uses, an increase in impact fees was certainly going to depress construction activity, and every land use was affected individually, with local retail being greatly affected.  They also found that this impact fee increase would essentially put a moratorium on industrial development.  Mr. Martin stated that the study showed a $12 million one year loss in other tax revenue in 2008 if the impact fees were passed.  He also stated that the creation of 960 jobs, annual economic output of about $77 million, and $27 million in employee wages would not occur for the County if the impact fees were put in place that otherwise would occur.

            Mr. 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 Lake County’s fees were currently consistent with the surrounding counties, but the proposed fees would preclude any new businesses from locating in the County, which would increase the length of trips of residents traveling further for those services.  The group’s recommendations were to not implement changes to the transportation impact fee program until the fees were based on a sound and accurate study and to phase in increases to provide adequate lead time for those construction projects that had already been planned but for which their application for a permit had not been submitted yet.  His third suggestion was that prior to implementing changes to the impact fee program, the economic development visioning process the County had started should be used to define strategies to ensure that the transportation impact fee program did not adversely impact the County’s ability to attract quality businesses, which was a major concern of the IDA as well.  His fourth recommendation was that a blue ribbon panel be established to create long-term transportation funding strategies for the next 20 to 30 years that were fairly funded for both maintenance and roadway construction.  He concluded by saying that the Board should think like a business.

            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.

            Mr. 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 Lake County.  He encouraged the Board to ensure road costs were covered in the short term with some type of fee increase and at the same time, begin creating a plan for a long-term solution to the issue.

            Mr. Jim Rotella, Mayor of the City of Eustis, stated that the City of Eustis has strived to do slow, smart growth and he was not opposed to growth.  He commented that he agreed with Commr. Stewart that residential growth needed to pay for itself, and noted that the roads would be way over capacity by 2025, and that the County faced a real crisis down the road.  He stated that a lot of this was based on the County trying to catch up.  He also was concerned that the County did not have enough economic development to balance the tax rolls and also believed that the County should seek some diversity in revenue sources and not become totally reliant on impact fees.  He also believed that the County had longer trips than most counties, because 36 percent of residents commuted outside the County for jobs, and more businesses would shorten those trips and take impact off the roads.  He commented that there was not a rush to adopt an impact fee structure, because the residential industry has been hit hard by economic forces beyond any impact fee, but that the Board should come up with a way to bring more balance and economic development and jobs here.

            Ms. Vicky Zaneis, a resident of unincorporated Lady Lake, opined that the County desperately needed higher impact fees and that they helped fuel the economy and bring jobs.  She also commented that without impact fees, they would not have had the growth that they have had over the past years and that they were a good economic tool.  She thought they needed to get the commercial development more balanced with the residential, and that industry and commerce would bring higher paying jobs.  She commented that people wanted a quality of life and not gridlocked roads and lines of portables next to the schools.  She also added that it was fine to explore other options to pay for things within the County, but she thought that it would be overly optimistic to think that would go very far.

            Ms. Jeanne Etter, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, stated that the Board was between a rock and a hard place with this issue, because increasing them would make it harder to bring businesses to the area, but if they did not have adequate roads, the businesses would not come either.  She was concerned that the longer they delayed this, the longer they would be delaying economic growth, if businesses were not sure that Lake County would have adequate roads to drive on, adequate schools for the children to go to, and recreational facilities that would draw businesses to the area.  She was nervous about the cost of alternate sources showing up on her tax bill.  She also thought that an increase in the gas and the sales tax would hurt residents.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that individuals who wanted to speak against increased impact fees would speak next.

            Mr. 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 Lake County.

            Ms. 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 Orange County five miles to the east, her impact fees would only be $100,000.  She also related that the increased costs would be passed along to her customers.

            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.

            Mr. 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 Lake County, and that in studies relative to their own long-range planning, they had identified a need for approximately 125 doctors over the next five years.  He commented that Florida was one of the most difficult states in which to recruit a doctor, and he would hate to see Lake County become the most difficult county in which to recruit doctors.  He stated that doctors could not afford those fees after seeing their income cut severely in the last few years because of such factors as cuts in Medicare reimbursement.  He also related that physicians can not pass on the impact fees to the 13 percent of patients with private insurance and that doctors and hospitals would not be able to handle those fees.  It was his opinion that they needed a long-term solution that was not dependent on impact fees, encouraged business to locate here, and created jobs.

            Mr. 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 Lake County and was very concerned about the outcome of what was decided that night.  He mentioned that a 6,000 square foot medical building, which now would have a range of about $40,000 to $50,000 in impact fees would go to over $200,000, which would kill both of the projects that they currently planned.  He related that the medical industry was faced with a 42 percent decrease in revenues from Medicare this year.  He also commented that the worst thing they could do if they were concerned about economic development was to increase a tax or any kind of fee.  He noted that even a 35 percent increase would drive his businesses away.

            Mr. 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 in Lake County in the next twelve months.  He commented that the County would not be seeing a lot of growth in the near future, and that they would not be losing a whole lot of fees by not implementing the impact fees right now.  He recommended that the County Commission vote against increasing any impact fees while their local economy suffers this recession.  He stated that they needed to find the room in the budget from the windfall taxes that had previously been taken in and to spend that money responsibly.  He stated that smart growth that was nurtured and encouraged and that would give them all the quality of life and prosperity that they were looking for was what they all needed to be working towards.  He also commented that the business community should be encouraged to help the County Commission with suggestions and options to apply solutions to budgeting and planning dilemmas.

            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.

            Ms. Kathy Judkins, Deputy Director of Community Affairs for Sumter Electric Cooperative (SECO), which served 53,000 member customers and their families in Lake County, stated that they had a number of planned projects for the County to ensure that their customers continued to receive reliable electric service.  She pointed out that if approved, the proposed transportation impact fees would constitute a serious burden for SECO’s rate payers and could cause them to rethink their future plans.  They did not believe that passage of the transportation impact fees was in the best interest of their co-op and its customers and that the fees would have a chilling effect upon the local economy in Lake County through a decline in commercial and economic development and loss of jobs, and they hoped the Board would reject an increase in these fees at this time.

            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.

            Mr. John Santilipo, a resident of unincorporated Lake County, who owned rental property in the County, stated that he had been losing his tenants who had been losing their jobs in the construction business.  He mentioned that he builds affordable housing in the County for teachers, nurses, and a navy recruiter, for less than $162,500.  He assisted most of those people in getting government funding to help them with down payment assistance.  He stated that if they raised the impact fees, all those people would not be able to afford to live in their own home.  He asked the Board to shelve the impact fees completely and find an alternative source to support the problems that they had.

            Ms. Alice Dickey, who has lived in Lake County for 14 years, wanted to see the County continue to improve, grow, and prosper, but she did not feel that increasing the impact fees would do that.  She stated that she had a degree in finance and understood monetary issues, and she was concerned that only 12 percent of the County’s revenues were coming from business, because she believed that for a healthy economy, they needed 50 percent from business and 50 percent from residential.  She opined that if the increases were passed, it would drive away businesses further.  She had also heard from many people who wanted to start a business that Lake County was not business friendly and they were not going to invest money here.  She hoped the Board would take a look at the huge increase in revenues that they had received over the past few years and find out why those were being mismanaged.

            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.

            Mr. Dan Robuck, a 23-year old lifelong resident of Leesburg, stated that he came back to Lake County after attending college because of a family business, but that he otherwise would not have returned because there were not any jobs for young professionals.  He had friends who would also like to return to the area but could not find jobs.  He did not think raising the impact fee even 35 percent would help to bring jobs to the County.

            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.

            Ms. 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 Lake County.  She commented that the fees that were presented to the Board that night were beyond reason at a time when many people were losing their jobs and their homes, small businesses were closing, and large businesses were laying off employees.  She opined that if the recommended impact fees were approved in the current economy, the expected increase in revenues for roads would not happen, building would slow to a trickle, and the County would also lose property taxes that new buildings would have generated.  She urged the Commissioners to vote no to the proposed impact fees.  She added that she supported the idea of the economic plan, and that it had been 17 years since the County had a plan that had become part of their Comprehensive Plan.

            Mr. Dan Robuck stated that he thought the economy was worse now than it has ever been in Lake County and that this was not the time to be enacting impact fees.  He agreed that Commr. Cadwell had a good idea to vote it down, and he thought that they needed to keep affordable housing for younger people and first time home owners.  He commented that residential building would not make a comeback until at least 2009, but commercial was on hold in Lake County and would come back under the right conditions, as it has in other areas.  He urged the Board to think of the working man and to vote “no.”

            Dr. Jeffrey Kerina, the senior partner in Tri-County Orthopaedic Center, stated that physicians were facing lower reimbursement from Medicare, which made up 85 to 90 percent of many medical practices, as well as large student loan debt if they were recent graduates.  He noted that for eight years, he was the only spine surgeon in Lake, Sumter, and south Marion Counties, and that it has become harder and harder to recruit physicians into Lake County, and now it was worse than it has ever been. He pointed out that these fees would make it even harder to recruit the physicians to the area and would even drive some doctors already practicing in the County to leave.  He disagreed that building a medical office would generate extra trips, because that would probably not be the only trip that the patients make.  Also, he pointed out that if he built an extra office, it would be closer to the segment of the population that they were servicing, which would shorten the trips.

            Mr. 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 Lake County would just cease.

            There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

            Commr. 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, Lake County would be the poster child for the legislature to take the power to impose impact fees away from the local governments.  He noted that he had always supported impact fees as a tool to utilize to help pay for a portion of the needs of the County.  He commented, though, that this was not the time to raise impact fees, and he hoped the Board would vote down the ordinance and direct the County Attorney to create a resolution forming the transportation funding task force.

            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.

            PUBLIC HEARING

            ORDINANCE AMENDING IMPACT FEE GENERAL PROVISIONS

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading, by title only, as follows:

            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

            Commr. Hill stated that she would not be able to go to the Public Service Commission meeting in Tallahassee this week but that someone from staff would be attending that meeting.  She explained that they had a packet and a letter prepared to submit for the record, which the staff member would present at that time.  She asked for approval for her, on behalf of the Solid Waste Committee, and the Chairman to be able to sign that letter and send it with staff.

            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.

            ADJOURNMENT

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

ATTEST:

 

__________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK