A
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
MARCH
11, 2008
The Lake County Board of
WATER
ISSUES
PRESENTATION
REGARDING FGUA
Mr.
Randy Morris from Government Services Group (GSG) recapped recent events and
stated that initial discussions regarding the Florida Governmental Utility
Authority (FGUA) began late 2006 and early 2007 with staff, and the BCC
reaffirmed their utility policy at that time.
He mentioned that a minor issue began to arise with the South Umatilla
water utility, which brought them back in the picture with the FGUA to be
looked at by the Board and the staff, and they made a presentation to the BCC
in November 2007 and had met with staff and Commissioners.
Mr.
Kevin Grace from GSG explained that the FGUA was a governmental entity created
by inter-local agreement by several local governments whose purpose it was to
acquire, manage, and operate utilities on behalf of those member
governments. He noted that the member
governments served on the FGUA Board of Directors and provided governance
oversights to approve budgets, set rates, and those types of things. He also related that the FGUA had no
employees and contracted out the management to their firm, Government Services
Group, and Severn Trent. He gave their
assessment of the impacts of the County’s current utility policies, including the
fact that developers had to go to the cities for most utility service,
resulting in a fairly aggressive annexation by the cities as a requirement to
get utility service, and the fact that many areas were not served by utility
systems and utilized well and septic.
They were suggesting that the FGUA be the County’s authority partner to
provide those services in the unincorporated area. He commented that due to the private wells
and septic systems that were proliferating in the County, there would be a long-term
detrimental effect on the environment with potential contamination of ground
water supplies and drawdown of the aquifer levels. He emphasized that the FGUA would not come in
and serve areas in which the County did not want to have central services
provided. He also mentioned that the FGUA
could assume operational responsibility of the South Umatilla system, although
some initial capital funding would probably have to come from the County to
stabilize that system.
Mr.
Grace gave some reasons why the County should join the FGUA, including that
there was no financial commitment or pledge on the part of the County, to
establish an unincorporated utility agency to work closely with the County, to
reduce the proliferation of wells and septic tanks, to lessen the pressure to
annex into cities, and to assist the County in water supply planning
efforts. He named the next steps the
Board should take if they were interested in going forward with this, including
entering into the standard FGUA inter-local agreement and appointing a staff
member to the Board of Directors. He
concluded by stating that this would be a good tool to serve a number of
communities well and would be a good fit for where the County was today.
Commr.
Cadwell inquired that in this interlocal agreement, if there was a plant that
they decided a city should run, would that affect them at any point in the
process.
Mr.
Morris answered that it would not affect them, and they would have the same
options available to them as before. He also mentioned that each one of the
cities would have a unique set of factors that they would be looking at, since
some of the cities have more capacity than others and some of the cities may or
may not want to deal with certain parts of the County based on the economics of
that system or serving that group.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that there was currently a large amount of water coming out
of wells in the County that was unmonitored, and there would be discussion
about some conservation initiatives later.
Commr.
Renick opined that it would be a monumental move on the County’s part to get
into the utility business.
Commr.
Stewart asked what the first steps would be if they decided to do this.
Mr.
Grace answered that they would talk to the private utilities and that they
already had initial discussions with a couple of them, and he assured the Board
that there was some interest on some of the private utilities’ part. He related that they would see if they could
negotiate some acquisitions and essentially begin putting a utility together.
Mr.
Morris pointed out that the unincorporated County residents who were being
supplied utility services from a municipality may be charged 25 to 50 percent
higher rates than residents in the city paid.
He explained that the Umatilla system currently had a flat rate for
unlimited use, and clearly there needed to be some type of rate structure
instituted that was affordable to the users.
Mr.
Grace noted that each system in the FGUA operated as an enterprise fund, and
the FGUA had no revenue other than what was generated by the system, with no
intermingling of funds. He hoped to work
with them on a plan to deal with the responsibility of improving the Umatilla
plant, and he assumed that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and those
kinds of monies could be used for some initial improvements before being phased
into a larger FGUA utility system.
Commr.
Renick was concerned that the densities of the area would have to be higher in
order to be profitable for their company.
Mr.
Grace assured the Board that their company would work with the County on where
they wanted service provided and that they would have no control over densities
or land use. He also noted that the FGUA
was a not-for-profit entity.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that the way the law was currently set up, if they did not do
something, the annexations would continue to grow. He saw it more as a tool that they could use
to finally control that, because utilities have always been the one thing they
had no control over.
Mr.
Morris pointed out that the County currently did not have a seat at the table
with the St. Johns River Water Management District or an ability to influence
policies with the cities when it came to having groundwater being taken out of
the aquifer on an ever-growing basis. He
also commented that this would not pit them against the cities, but would allow
them to work with and negotiate with the cities.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the next step, if they did anything, would only be to tell
them to bring back a proposal for them to look at. He commented that was what they might need to
see before they made a decision about this.
Mr.
Grace thought that the next step should be to join the FGUA, and then they
could put together a plan that they would not go forward with unless the Board
agreed with what that strategic plan was, which would hopefully include moving
forward fairly shortly on some private acquisitions. He reminded the Board that if the Board
changed its mind and did not want to move forward, they could withdraw.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the Board wanted to be sure that any action they took would
not result in an increase in the amount of homes.
Mr.
Grace responded that there would be more assurance of that by working with the
FGUA as their partner, and he suggested that the Board compare their concept
with where the County was today.
Commr.
Renick stated that at first, she was concerned that this would somehow fuel
growth instead of control it, but she could now see the positive sides of this.
She thought it could be part of the whole service boundary agreement process,
and she would like more detail.
Ms.
Hall stated that if there was a motion to join the FGUA, she would work with
them to bring back an interlocal agreement, and subsequent to that, they would
be working on a plan.
On
a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 4-0, the Board moved to bring back the interlocal agreement for them
to look at in regard to joining the FGUA.
DISCUSSION
OF COUNTY-WIDE WATER CONSERVATION INITIATIVES
Mr.
Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, stated that he had provided the Board
with a memo that outlined some of his thoughts on water conservation. He related that he and Ms. Hall had been
talking with the individual city managers at their monthly luncheons about this
subject and had gone over this proposal with them. He thought all of the cities basically
supported the idea of conservation, since it was essential for them as well as
the County, but they might need to work through some of the details. He reported that yesterday he attended a St.
Johns Water Management District Board workshop on water conservation, in which
they talked about their water conservation programs, and there were also
presentations by other agencies and government entities about topics such as
water distribution efficiency, technology enhancements for water efficiency,
re-use and supplemental use of stormwater, conservation ordinances, and Audubon
concerns and proposals. He commented
that a county-wide landscape ordinance would be one of the things that would be
crucial to making sure water conservation actually occurred and in a way that
was nonpunitive and gave residents an aesthetically-pleasing landscape. He explained that there were proposals in it
that limited the number of square footage or percentage of lots that were high
water, medium water, and low water usage, such as one that the City of Oviedo
adopted, which was a growing trend, and commented that it really made sense. He opined that it would not be appropriate in
some places to require low water use plants, but the right plant in the right
place was the key to that. He reported
that their landscape ordinance did incorporate a lot of those ideas, and they
would be in the process of fixing that ordinance. He also reported that lately they have been
requiring irrigation systems to be located where they made sense, and they were
encouraging drip irrigation and bubblers in irrigation systems. One of his proposals was to do away with high
water use turf grasses as much as possible, but he thought that a requirement
to replace that type of existing grass by 2020 was unreasonable, especially if
it was being maintained properly with fewer than three-quarters of an inch of water
per week. He stated that he has heard
suggestions that they require temporary irrigation systems to get new
landscaping established which could then be removed entirely and that small
plants or trees could be established much quicker than larger ones. He also noted that they needed to get people
educated as to what constituted good irrigation and how to adjust their
systems.
Commr.
Stewart commented that since the County was facing critical shortages of water,
which was a natural resource we could not live without, everyone would have to
make sacrifices.
Mr.
Welstead reported that
Commr.
Stewart pointed out that the summer was also the rainy season in
Commr.
Renick opined that what people would end up paying for water from alternative
water sources would be enough disincentive to overcome the concern over some dead
sod.
Commr.
Cadwell expressed some concerns over the proposal to fine residents who still
had high water turf grass by 2020.
Commr.
Hill commented that a lot of the proposals had common sense, but some of it
looked like it could be a bureaucratic mess and was concerned about the
enforcement of it. She also thought that
if water was more expensive, people would waste less of it.
Mr.
Welstead responded that there was a break-even point with what was called
conservation rate structure and that people would pay whatever it took to a
certain point that they were financially comfortable with, but after that they
would conserve.
Commr.
Renick stated that she did not think the County would have the money to do the
incentives that were mentioned in the proposal.
She also opined that they would have to commit to some type of
enforcement, which she did not think would be a problem if they changed some
Code Enforcement schedules around to cover some evening hours, and she thought
that fines would get people’s attention.
Mr.
Welstead reported that a number of the municipalities and counties that had
fines issued a warning for the first instance, and then instituted fines of
$50, then $100, and increased it by $50 or $100, depending on the area for each
instance where there was a violation of the policy. He mentioned that the City of
Commr.
Cadwell commented that he liked the suggestion of requiring a water budget for
all new commercial development.
Mr.
Welstead explained that when a commercial or residential development was built,
someone would design the irrigation system and figure out how much water they
should be using based on the plants that were there, which is how much they
would be allocated. He stated that if
they exceeded that water budget a lot, someone would come out to work with them
to figure out what the issue was, and this was a method for tracking what they
were using as compared to what was appropriate for their usage. He also explained dual water systems, where
irrigation would be a separate water source that would only be turned on at
certain times. He talked about
inter-local agreements with municipalities to monitor outside their boundaries,
giving them the ability to go into areas where they provided utilities to
monitor irrigation. He related that one
of the concerns that a couple of the cities had was with the use of reclaimed
water, and that currently there was no restriction on reclaimed water and its
usage. He stated that one of the other
ideas that was brought up previously and at the
Mr. Welstead pointed out on a map the structures that were served by the municipal utilities, private utilities, and private wells, which he estimated at between 50,000 to 65,000, and he commented that one of the biggest issues they were facing was that the well usage was completely unregulated and unmonitored and was taking water away from the available water to the County and the region. He pointed out that they could not currently do anything about that, because Statute allowed anyone to put in a private drinking well. He mentioned that wells were handled differently in each municipality, including requiring the well to be capped or allowing the well to be used for irrigation so that the use would not be added to their Consumptive Use Permit (CUP). One of his ideas was for the County and the cities to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Department of Health or Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to require the Department of Health to adhere to the County’s standards when issuing permits for wells or septic tanks.
Commr. Renick clarified that they
were talking about structures in developments that were on smaller parcels and
not five-acre properties.
Commr.
Cadwell suggested that Mr. Welstead go to the Water Alliance to show them some
issues that were brought up and that would be put in ordinance form.
Mr.
Welstead commented that his idea was to have an ordinance that everyone could
live with and that everyone would have the same baseline ordinance.
Commr.
Renick was concerned that if they did that, the ordinance would not be strong
enough.
Mr.
Welstead assured the Board that the ordinance would be strict. He also talked about education of citizens by
working with the School Board to institute water conservation education
programs such as the St. Johns River Water Management District’s “The Great
Water Odyssey,” for grades 3 through 5, which was already
Commr.
Cadwell commented that this looked like the direction the Board sent the staff
in, and they needed to start getting the ordinance in program form and move in
that direction.
Ms.
Hall commented that presenting this to the Water Alliance would be a good idea
and that they had been working with the cities.
She stated that they would continue to work with the city managers, who
have all been very receptive.
Mr.
Welstead stated that he would refine this, present this to the Water Alliance, and
start fleshing out some sort of a program for the Board.
RECESS
AND REASSEMBLY
At
10:30, the Chairman announced that there would be a ten-minute recess.
PRESENTATION OF FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE
STUDY
Mr. Doug Krueger, Budget Director,
stated that the study of fire assessment fees was performed by the Government
Services Group (GSG) out of Tallahassee to assist them with developing
assessment fees for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and in response to some
litigation which occurred in the City of North Lauderdale, which determined
that emergency medical services costs could not be included as an assessable
cost in the fees. He explained that GSG
went through the process of developing the rate structure excluding those costs.
Ms. Camille Tharpe, Senior Vice
President of GSG, stated that one of the four data components of the
apportionate methodology was the service delivery and how they provided
service, since they were now providing fire rescue services and more than the
first responder services that they were providing the last time they did the
study. She also explained that they
would be looking at the Fire Department budget and had taken the liberty of
performing a Proforma budget for their review.
She suggested that the Commissioners concentrate more on the orders of
magnitude of the budget rather than on the individual line items. She also pointed out that they looked at the
call incident data, which needed to be updated because of the new services that
the County provided since the last time they were here, as well as the ad
valorem tax roll. They also worked on
the assessment roll that the County staff had been responsible for
maintaining. She pointed out that the
County was no longer a fire first responder, since they were providing more
than that level of service, and because of that change, they were required to
artificially isolate the costs of the
Ms. Tharpe related that they carried
it forward for four more years and did a five-year average budget, because in
future years the County may be restricted in their ability to increase rates,
fees, and assessments if certain things happened with the legislature. She gave one option of budgeting an
overfunding in the first year or two and carrying that forward to use for
subsequent years at the end of that five-year period and another option of a
scaled assessment with $17 yearly increases.
She stated that the next thing they looked at was the call incidents,
which was the first step in apportioning the costs to the properties, by
looking at the 2006 non-EMS call data. She reported that in her allocation,
they found that over 79 percent of the calls were from residential properties
and over 10 percent were from commercial properties, with the remaining calls
divided into categories of hotel/motel, industrial/warehouse, and
institutional. She specified that if
residential was generating almost 80 percent of the calls or the demand for
services, then residential property as a category would generate 80 percent of
the revenue, making it fair and reasonable, which was one of the criteria for a
legally sufficient methodology. She
stated that the next step would be to determine what each parcel of property
within those categories was going to pay and she showed the proposed rates that
would fund the 2008-09 Performa Budget for the different scenarios.
Ms. Tharpe mentioned that currently
the County provided an exemption for institutional tax exempt properties that
were non-government such as churches and not-for-profits, which was paid for
out of the general fund, because there was a valid public purpose to allow
those exemptions since they provided public services such as polling places,
social services, and after school programs.
She commented that they could maintain that same exemption policy or
could choose to start providing a partial exemption to them, which would be a
percentage of the rate. She stated that
the exemption of governmental property was a separate issue, because it would
be difficult to collect money from other government property.
Commr. Hill asked that if they had an
MSTU, would it be restricted or would it eliminate another revenue source or
fire assessment.
Ms. Tharpe answered that if they
wanted it to be 100 percent MSTU, the cities would have to consent to taxation,
and it would fall under Amendment 1. She
reported that
Commr. Cadwell commented that funding
public safety has been a priority for citizens.
He also thought that the best thing they did the last time they went
through this was to lay out a plan over an extended period of time so residents
knew ahead of time what the County’s long range plan was and what the dollars
were tied to.
Commr.
Renick was concerned that the fire services might shrink in the future due to
city annexations.
Ms.
Tharpe stated that they were assuming that those things would not happen,
because they wanted to project the revenue at the maximum if nothing changed,
and they had a CIP that had a series of stations that were going to be built or
renovated that they took into account.
She related that if an area was annexed, that could provide them with an
opportunity to reduce the budget, because they would lose those billing
units. However, she pointed out that
those properties that were in that area were no longer going to be paying the
assessment, so their rate may not change much.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that with the legislative budget cuts, there may be cities that
would want the County to take over that for them. He commented that consolidation of services
was the only way to provide anything cheaper.
Commr.
Hill commented that she would go with the five-year plan if they showed what
they would provide to the citizens for that increase.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that they had to have a plan and had to give staff some revenue
to look at to fund that service.
Commr.
Stewart commented that it was a necessity.
Commr.
Cadwell suggested that Ms. Hall go back to staff with looking at Scenario 3 as
the direction, but also to keep trying to trim that back further if they could.
Ms.
Hall responded that they could certainly do that, and asked that the Board
approve the study and then to direct staff that Scenario 3 would be the
preferred one, but with the caveat that they make certain to take every
opportunity to make reductions that were possible.
On
a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a vote of 4-0, the Board approved the GSG study.
On
a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried by a vote
of 3-1, the Board directed staff to move forward with Scenario 3, understanding
that they would keep working to reduce the amount of the increase before it
came back for a vote.
Commr.
Renick voted “no.”
PRESENTATION OF GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AND BUDGET
FOR
PHASE 1 OF DOWNTOWN TAVARES PROJECT
Mr. Jim Bannon, Facilities
Development and Management Director, stated that this presentation was
regarding Phase I of the downtown campus project budget, inclusive of the
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). He
reported that the Board previously approved the CM (Construction Management)
contract with PPI for initial services to bring the project to GMP pricing and
that Phase I GMP was now complete and included the parking garage,
Constitutional Officers building, and central energy plant. He mentioned that additional items were also
presented which made up the overall Phase I project budget on the handout he
distributed. He specified that the Phase
I project budget would be in the amount of $43,156,164.00, inclusive of the
Phase I GMP allowances and contingency, and the Phase I GMP amount would be $39,343,966.00,
which included an allowance of $250,000 to achieve LEED certification for the
Constitutional Officers building, and he noted that basic good design practices
has allowed that building to get very close to LEED. He stated that further backup documentation
would be presented to the Board in next couple of days that would refer to
Appendix M in the original contract with PPI referencing drawings and specs,
the construction schedule, the schedule of values for each building, unit costs
for the work that subcontractors were planning, and other qualifications and
assumptions. He emphasized that this
presentation was for informational purposes, and there would be additional
clarifications to complete with PPI before final presentation to the Board for
approval of the Phase I budget and addendum to PPI’s contract.
Ms. Hall informed the Board that they
initially wanted direction today to move forward with Phase I, but since the
document was not quite complete, they were planning on getting that out to the
Board in the next day or two and that her intention was to get the document on
the Agenda as an Addendum for next Tuesday, March 18. She reported that schedules and backup
information that was in Addendum M included those prices, and she wanted to make
sure that they were comfortable with the pricing. She commented that it did fit in with what
their initial estimates had been and she thought that they were on track with
the pricing and that the bond issue and the entire plan for the program was in
line with that. She was looking for the
Board to approve this as well as the documentation that they would be getting
to them.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Renick wanted to clarify that
they were going to locate the Sheriff in downtown Tavares, because the
Commr. Cadwell thought that they
definitely needed Phase I and that the
Ms. Hall explained that Phase II was
the
Commr. Cadwell directed Ms. Hall to
get them the information on Phase I as quickly as she could.
DISCUSSION
OF PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE
Mr. Welstead stated that he had
provided a handout with some concepts that might be used in an ordinance and
that it was based on what a number of local municipalities and counties in the
vicinity have done in regard to noise.
He related that he had included in the memo some ideas of what noises
were, since it sometimes was difficult to determine the definition of noise,
and a list of how loud things were. He
explained that as part of this process, Code Enforcement went out and did some noise
level sampling at various locations, which was included on page 3 of the memo,
and he pointed out that the biggest issue was traffic, which they did not have
an ability to control. He stated that
they have had numerous issues over the years, whether they were related to
industrial plants, commercial developments, or beeping from forklifts that were
backing up and have addressed these on numerous occasions. He also mentioned that a study that was done
between 1:45 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. when the cement plant was closed showed that
the dB readings were 51.9 to 52.2, which was fairly loud.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney,
introduced Ms. Lisa Schott, Owner of Quietly Making Noise, noting that she was
an expert on noise and handed out Ms. Schott’s resume, which showed that she
had primarily worked with industry with regard to noise issues. She clarified that her client, Arlington
Ridge Homeowners’ Association, hired Ms. Schott to assist them in coming up
with some baselines as to the existing noise and to assure that the Prestige
concrete plant would not cause a noise disturbance. She also noted that they had been very
involved in watching and monitoring what was happening with the proposed LDR
(Land Development Regulation) changes for heavy industrial uses, because those
changes significantly impacted the residents of Arlington Ridge, who were
surrounded by an existing industrial park or land that was zoned
industrial. She explained that they were
trying to come up with fair, concrete ways of mitigating noise that could be
used during the site plan review process to avoid ending up with a nuisance
situation. She pointed out that the
current ordinance made it necessary that a situation had to get to the point of
being a nuisance before there was any relief from a noise disturbance. She related that they were going to give a
quick demonstration of some different sounds and commented that what Mr.
Welstead put together was very consistent with the noise readings they took. She proposed that the County’s new ordinance
use measurements taken at the boundary of the receiving property and that the
levels deemed acceptable be consistent with what they found to already be the
case out there, which they thought would be fair throughout Lake County. She emphasized that she felt that having set
levels was pro-business, because it gave a level of predictability, but she
felt that the decibel readings of 70 to 75 allowed in the ordinance were too
high and recommended 50-55 instead. She
also mentioned that some very good instruments to measure decibel levels could
be obtained in the range of $150 up to $300.
Ms. Lisa Schott re-emphasized that
having an actual decibel limit was pro-business, and it was much easier for
businesses to deal with communities that had a noise ordinance with specific
decibel limits, because they could proactively incorporate things they needed
to into their designs without having to worry about being in violation because
someone subjectively perceived it to be a nuisance. She demonstrated the noise level of 75 dBA to
show that it was shockingly loud and absolutely the wrong direction to go for a
noise ordinance, and she also commented that taking noise readings was very
straight-forward and simple to do and showed how to do that. Next, she demonstrated the noise level of 55,
which they were suggesting for a daytime level and then 50, which they
recommended for a nighttime level. She
also reported that the average
Mr. Minkoff asked about the decibel
level of lawn mowers.
Ms. Schott answered that the decibel
level for a lawn mower was about 90.
Ms. Campione commented that the way
the ordinance was currently drafted, lawn equipment was exempted and that there
was a list of other things such as air conditioners that also would be
exempted.
Ms. Schott commented that exemptions
were commonly done.
Ms. Campione stated that they had
some additional suggestions they would like to make regarding the ordinance and
wording they would like the opportunity to propose.
Commr. Cadwell recommended that they
provide their comments and information to staff and reschedule this again to
come back before the Board.
Mr. Bob Merriam, a resident of
Arlington Ridge, Leesburg, stated that they have found that the industrial
plant has been able to work with them to comply with the 55 or less decibel
level, and he commented that so far the concrete plant has been a good
neighbor.
Both Commr. Renick and Commr. Stewart
commented that they thought that 75 decibels would be too high a level for the
ordinance.
Ms. Schott reported that as a rule of
thumb, an increase of ten decibels would sound twice as loud, and she felt that
going as high as 60 decibels in a noise ordinance was a bit too much.
Ms. Campione stated that she brought
information showing what several other counties were doing, including Lee,
Collier, Marion, Seminole, and Orange Counties, that she thought would be
helpful.
Mr. Merriam added that one of the
reasons for the lower dBA level at the concrete plant was that they required
berms, trees, and barrier walls, which also protected them against dust, odor,
and pollution.
Ms. Campione pointed out that if the
companies knew the level they had to meet, then they would design their site in
accordance with that.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commr. Hill brought up a concern she
had regarding impact fees on renovated historic buildings that were turned into
restaurants and businesses that did not fit into an impact fee category and
stated that she thought this would come up more and more as the cities wanted
to conserve those historic sites. She
brought up one example mentioned in an e-mail that was sent to the
Commissioners of a restaurant in Leesburg that was limited in their hours and
days, making it hard for the business to make enough money to cover the high
impact fee normally charged for a high-end restaurant, as well as to restore
the historic building, which was a lot more costly than building a new
restaurant. She thought they needed to
look at that as a category within the economic development ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell commented that she
paid the same impact fee as a large business, and she was only open a few hours
a day with a mixed use where there were people living upstairs running the little
café.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
stated that she would have the ability to come in and propose a traffic study
to find three similar type facilities to use or the Board could direct them to
get their consultant, Tindale-Oliver, to look at that and try to find three
sites to study what the impacts actually were.
Commr. Cadwell stated that there was
some commercial there, but it was not in the historic downtown. He commented that this would prohibit a small
proprietor from going into business.
Commr. Hill added that it would also
inhibit people from restoring those historic buildings. She mentioned that Tavares was looking at
restoring the whole downtown area and hopefully having restaurants coming in
also there, and she thought Clermont was in that situation too. She pointed out that this was a category that
was not really addressed in those restaurant categories.
Mr. Minkoff mentioned that the owners
could enter an agreement with the County to do the study after the fact
subsequent to opening if they needed to do that.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
__________________________________
WELTON CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
NEIL
KELLY, CLERK