A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
The Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Reverend Karen Burris,
Commr. Cadwell introduced Ms. Carolyn Dillon, Lake County Water Authority
member who is doing an internship for
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to add an item under his business which would not require a vote but is information for the Board. He stated that Daryl Smith, Director of Environmental Utilities is going to update the Board on the changes to solid waste services.
Commr. Conner stated that he would like to discuss under his business a letter received from Mr. Brad King, State Attorney.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried
unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Request for approval of the following:
Budget transfer - General Fund, Department of Facilities
Development and Management, Facilities Management Division. Transfer
$71,816 from Repair and Maintenance (Facilities) to Repair and Maintenance
(Jail and Sheriff Facilities). Additional funds of $71,816 are needed to
replace the hot water boiler for the
2. Resolution No. 2009-135 to amend the Hurricane Housing Recovery Program Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 in the amount of $19 deposited into interest income and provide appropriations for the disbursement for allowable grant expenditures.
Request for approval of Sheriff’s request to retain emergency protective
measures reimbursement from the State of
Request for approval to fill Assistant Public Defender position.
Request for approval of the amendment to the CDBG Cooperation agreement
with the City of
Request for approval to award under Request for Proposals (RFP) 09-0220 to one additional CBO (Homes in Partnership) to support the County’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1).
Request for approval and signature of Proclamation No. 2009-136 for Fire Prevention Week 2009: October 4, 2009 through October 10, 2009.
Request for authorization to release two maintenance bonds in the amounts of $229,617.35 and $38,596.57 posted for Sawgrass Bay Phase 1A. Sawgrass Bay Phase 1A consists of 49 lots and is located in Section 14, Township 24 South, Range 26 East.
Request for authorization to release a maintenance bond in the amount of
$111,042.02 posted for Sawgrass Bay Phase 1B.
Request for authorization to release a maintenance bond in the amount of $326,791.84 posted for Whitemarsh. Whitemarsh consists of 105 lots and is located in Section 1, Township 21 South, Range 24 East.
Request for authorization to award #5970 Getford Road Regional Stormwater Pond Project No. 2009-06, to Aagaard-McNary Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,446,286.94, and encumber and expend funds in the amount of $1,446,286.94 from the Stormwater Management Fund.
Commr. Conner stated that he would vote in favor of the draft Furlough Policy if he was reassured that the workshops in preparation for next year were going to take place. He expressed his concern with the furlough days that this is a temporary solution to the County’s need to permanently downsize. He commented that the furlough days have more of an adverse effect on the lower paid employees versus the higher paid employees. He referenced a memorandum that he wrote in May that outlined other alternatives in the budget.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he has had multiple meetings with the
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the draft Furlough Policy under Tab 3.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried
unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Request for approval of the Management Employees Policy.
Ms. Susan Irby, Employee Services, stated that this Agenda item is a request for approval of the County’s Property, Liability, Workers’ Compensation and Risk Insurance Program. She noted that the broker for this coverage is Arthur J. Gallagher. She reported that Risk Management Services addressed the Board a few weeks ago to discuss the contract for the broker. She stated that the County has the option of proceeding with broker compensation of 8 percent or flat fee, depending on which is the best option for the County. She recommended the flat fee of $80,000 because there would be a savings compared to the 8 percent. She reported that the County was able to renew all of the types of coverage with some enhancements. She stated that the County would save $60,000 based on the minor changes and the decision to select the flat fee brokerage charge.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 13 authorizing the Director of Procurement Services to sign the appropriate forms necessary to bind the insurance coverage details submitted for the County’s Property, Liability, Workers’ Compensation and Risk Insurance.
budget transfer for covanta agreement
Mr. Daryl Smith, Director of Environmental Utilities, requested the Board approve the transfer of $440,000 to the Covanta account due to funding shortfalls. He reported that the funding shortfalls were primarily related to receiving less than anticipated from the Debt Service Reserve and associated interest. He stated that there were also expenditures for chemicals.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 14 authorizing the budget transfer of $440,000 to the Covanta account.
budget transfer for solid waste collection services
Mr. Daryl Smith, Director of Environmental Utilities, requested that the Board approve the transfer of $50,000 into the account for Collection Services. He stated that the shortfall was a result of the increase in the actual Refuse Rate Index which was higher than the estimated index used to prepare the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 15 authorizing the budget transfer of $50,000 to the Collection Services account.
great southern construction, inc. (GSX, Inc.) lease
Mr. Barnett Schwartzman, Director of Procurement, requested the Board approve the lease for two wheel loaders for Environmental Utilities. He stated that this is an operating lease which includes maintenance and all costs except for fuel, lubricants and damage caused by the County. He noted that this lease was obtained through a competitive sealed bid in which the County received four offers. He recommended that the lease be awarded to the lowest responsive offer, which is Great Southern Construction, Inc. He mentioned a lease versus purchase analysis was submitted and supports the recommendation to lease the equipment. He noted that the lease option also eliminates the maintenance risk. He commented that one of the wheel loaders is for a solid tire option at a cost of an additional $850 per month. He opined that the solid tire option is a good decision because this specific machine will be used in a heavy environment where pneumatic tires would pop. He mentioned that a financial analysis of the solid tire option is included in the lease versus purchase analysis.
Commr. Conner commended staff for doing an outstanding job on the bidding of this equipment and providing the supporting documentation.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request to award the contract for the two wheel loaders to Great Southern Construction, Inc.
VACATION PETITION NO. 1151 – frank kriz –pdg/inland tuscany village venture, llc
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, stated that Vacation Petition No. 1151, Tuscany Village, was for vacating portions of right-of-way along Hammock Ridge Road. He referenced the submitted map, noting that the red section is part of a deceleration lane which was part of the master plan. He commented that all of the right-of-way was donated for Hammock Ridge and is no longer necessary due to the building of Sam’s Club. He stated that a Dedication is included in this Vacation Petition for the extension of a right-of-way to access the Sam’s Club.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the applicant or the applicant’s representative were present. He asked if there were anyone present in opposition to this petition.
There being no one who wished to comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1151, PDG/Inland Tuscany Village Venture, LLC., to vacate a portion of right-of-way along Hammock Ridge Road and approved the execution of Resolution No. 2009-137.
vacation petition no. 1149 – hoyte s. and martha r. whitley and james a. trapp – plat of royal trails
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, stated that Vacation Petition No. 1149, Hoyte S. and Martha R. Whitley and James A. Trapp, to vacate Lots 10, 11 and 123 was associated with the rear utility and drainage easements for the Plat of Royal Trails Unit No. 1, located in Section 6, Township 18S, Range 29E in East Lake County, north of S.R. 44. He referenced the submitted map with the area of proposed vacation. He recommended vacating all of the easements and lots at the request of the property owner.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Martha Whitley, applicant, stated that she built her home in 1994. She reported that there was an adjacent piece of property that belonged to Lake County Board of Public Instruction. She commented that any property not owned by Royal Trails is considered an outparcel, which she purchased in November 2005. She stated that during the title search, they were given a legal description which belonged to another piece of property owned by the Lake County Board of Public Instruction, which was donated to them by Marion and Sara Driggers on December 17, 1892. She noted that this was part of the original Homestead given to Marion A. Driggers from the General Land Office of the United States of America. She reported that this property has not been deeded to anyone other than the Lake County Board of Public Instruction, until she purchased it. She stated that Royal Palm Beach Colony did not own all of the lots she purchased. She commented that this piece of property is located between the two lots she already owns. She stated that a small piece of this property was part of the lot next to hers which she had to sign a Quit Claim Deed in order for them to have a clear Title. She reported that after research she was provided the proper legal description of the adjoining property. She commented that she has been paying Homeowner Association Fees for 15 years on property that is not really in Royal Trails. She stated that she petitioned the Lake County Board of Directors to allow them to join all of their property as one parcel, with one legal description and to exclude them from Royal Trails Subdivision because a majority of their property are outparcels. She mentioned that her husband is 81 years old and she will be next month and they would like to resolve this matter so their heirs do not have to deal with this matter after they are gone.
Commr. Cadwell reported that the Board would hear the opposition and reserve the right of Ms. Whitley to respond to any questions or comments.
Mr. Derek Schroth, Royal Trails Homeowners Association Representative asked if the applicant included the newspaper advertisement for the vacation in their petition.
Ms. Patti Harker, Roadway Department, responded that the County prepares the notices and advertisements and advertised this matter for two consecutive weeks.
Mr. Schroth stated that the Association has two primary arguments. He provided a history of this matter outlining a previous lawsuit filed by the petitioner against the Association in an effort to remove the restrictions. He explained that after 30 years the restrictions have to be revitalized under the Marketable Record Title Act, otherwise the restrictions are wiped out. He reported that the Association followed the Statute for revitalization of the restrictions and the Department of Community Affairs upheld it, but the Whitleys filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of the revitalization. He reported that the Judge dismissed the case and the petitioner was ordered to pay the attorney fees. He stated that the petitioners filed this petition with the County because the restrictions state that only property in the plat of the subdivision are subject to the restrictions and required to pay homeowners association fees. He commented that if the Board approves this petition, then the lots owned by the Whitleys would not be part of Royal Trails and would no longer be subject to assessments or enforcement of the restrictions. He reported that the association consists of 1,147 lots and was first developed in the early 1970s by Royal Colony Club. He expressed that the Association fears that if the Whitleys are permitted to be removed from the subdivision then other homeowners will attempt it as well, and the Association fears that this will encourage more litigation. He remarked that he has no objection to the vacation of the easements. He stated that in regards to enforcement if the restrictions do not empower the Association and there are violations on this property, the Association will ask the Code Enforcement to enforce certain issues. He requested that the Board deny the petition request.
Commr. Cadwell asked the County Attorney to explain the repercussions of the petition.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he is not certain that taking the Whitley’s property out of the Plat would remove the restrictive covenants from the lots. He stated that he has not researched this topic before and opined that he is fairly certain it will lead to litigation. He commented that there is a question of whether those covenants will still apply to this property. He stated that either party could include the County on the litigation. He reported that he has never had someone try to vacate only a few lots in a subdivision in order to be excluded from the covenants.
Commr. Cadwell asked the applicant to come before the Board. He asked the applicant for the reasons why they would like to have their property vacated.
Ms. Whitley stated that she would like to clear up all of the legal aspects of their lots since there are outparcels going through part of her property. She remarked that she would like all of her property to be under one deed, with one legal description instead of having four different pieces of property. She commented that in regards to the prior litigation with the Association, she explained that the Association had an agreement to renew the restrictions and held a vote which did not pass. She explained that the Association had another election and added those votes to the previous vote in order to pass the vote, by using two different ballots. She reported that she did file suit against the Association and that the Judge did not rule against the Whitleys but instead they withdrew because it had already gone to the State and was approved. She stated that her attorney did not feel that the Whitleys should spend their money to fight that matter any further.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hill asked the County Attorney if the County has the authority to grant the unity of title for the legal description or if that was a legal matter.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he is not aware if it is possible to have one legal description. He explained the title and deed process, stating that it is common for a deed to include several parcels. He commented that there is no advantage to having only one legal description.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not think the County should be a party of a disagreement between the Homeowners association and a resident.
Mr. Stivender agreed with Mr. Minkoff’s statement about the legal description. He stated that a new legal description can be written but the old description would have to be referenced to establish a chain of title.
Commr. Cadwell asked the County Attorney if there were any issues with vacating the easements.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there does not appear to be any dispute on the easements, and it would clear up the issue of the house being located on the easements.
Commr. Cadwell opined that he has no problem with vacating the easements but does not want to be a part of the dispute with the Homeowners Association. He commented that the Homeowners Association in an area like Royal Trails is a valuable tool to the County with issues such as Code Enforcement.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution No. 2009-138 as amended to vacate the easements.
judicial center presentation
Mr. Jim Bannon, Director of Capital Construction, stated that the County’s architects will be presenting further options for the judicial center expansion. He mentioned that after the presentation by the architects he would present the Board with an outline of the costs.
Mr. Bob Egleston, Project Manager for Heery, explained that at the last Board meeting the Board directed them to review different options for the judicial center expansion. He reported that there are two different options being presented to the Board with cost data associated with each design. He referenced the submitted information which was also displayed on the monitor for Option A. He noted the changes of the current design which included a reduction of square footage, and the expansion of the north wing with the entrance remaining on Main Street. He explained that both options are retaining all of the eight existing courtrooms. He stated that departmental space will be added to the ground floor of the new addition. He reported that the second floor will retain the existing chambers with new chambers for the addition. He stated that on the third floor the new addition includes four new courtrooms, and he proposed the placement of the public defender into that floor of the existing building and relocating some of the clerk’s staff into the new addition. He noted that the fourth floor has two courtrooms with additional departmental space, and the fifth floor would be allocated for departmental space and would allow for future growth. He commented this design is built with the foresight of future expansion. He reported that Option B is a parallel bar option with less square footage than Option A, with six new courtrooms on the other side of the existing gallery, which is expanded for additional waiting space. He noted that the second floor would retain the existing chambers and add new chambers. He commented that the public defender would be located on the third floor of the existing building with departmental space. He stated that the back of the building would face the parking lot and downtown. He recommended Option A because it offers more square footage and there is an existing permit with the Building Department.
Commr. Cadwell confirmed that Option A maintains the integrity of Main Street which is important to the City.
Mr. Bannon discussed the price options as outlined in the submitted report and displayed on the monitor.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, mentioned that she could review the sources of funding for the expansion. She stated that the original budget set by the Board was for $47 million, and the total cost of the expansion could meet the original budget if the Board decides to choose some deductions as presented by Mr. Bannon. She reported that the funding for this project was allocated as follows: $36 million in bonds, $3.5 million in cost savings from PPI, $6 million from Fiscal Year 2010 General Fund; $500,000 from Christopher Ford Commerce Park and $3.1 million from the renewal sales tax, for a grand total of $49.5 million. She explained to the Board that if they chose to deduct for the change to the basic envelope repair and not deducting for the relocation of the public defender and shelled courts, then the project will take a few years to build and the Board has the option of using cash of $3 million from infrastructure sales tax during both years of 2011 and 2012.
Commr. Cadwell opined that not moving the public defender should not be an option because the public defender needs that space and should be located in the judicial center. He commented that the architects and staff have done a good job of presenting options, working with the existing building constraints and staying within the budget set forth. He opined that he is excited about Option A. He suggested amortizing the additional $6 million over more time than the two years, and acknowledged that the County would have to finance something to do that.
Commr. Renick stated that she thought the budget was supposed to be $42 million which would indicate that these options are significantly over budget.
Commr. Hill noted that the staff and architects were directed that the budget was to remain at $47 million or thereabout.
Commr. Renick commented that the original motion was for $47 million and that the follow up discussion put $5 million back into the General Fund.
Commr. Conner asked for clarification when the renovation would be started with Option A.
Mr. Bannon responded that groundbreaking would start in April 2010. He confirmed that April 2010 is the soonest it could be done because the architects have to complete a revised set of construction documents for the smaller design.
Commr. Conner opined that the $3.5 million of cost savings in Phase I is note worthy, and the County and PPI should be commended for that savings. He stated that he feels the Board has accomplished a great deal as the County has not borrowed $40. He commented that he is comfortable with the current proposal.
Commr. Stewart concurred that the County can have a nice judicial center with minimal risk.
Ms. Hall asked for clarification that the Board is selecting Option A with the deduction for change to the basic envelope repair at $55 million.
Commr. Conner commended the architects and staff for handling this matter very well. He opined that the County Manager has done a good job presenting the funding options to the Board. He noted that he is not opposed to using some of the sales tax infrastructure funds toward this project. He asked if the Board could discuss the need for six new courtrooms and whether it was an option to shell the courtrooms and chambers that are not currently needed. He opined that there needs to be some discussion with the architect, contractor and building users to determine how many courtrooms are needed.
Commr. Hill commented that based on the shareholder’s meetings and the study that was done initially; all six new courtrooms are needed. She stated that the more courtrooms and chambers that are shelled now, the higher that cost becomes later.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board can still approve the project today and request that the architects and staff return to address the request for an analysis of the number of courtrooms needed.
Commr. Conner commented that if there is a need for a total of 14 courtrooms today, then that answers his question. He expressed his concern that two years from when the building is complete there will be empty courtrooms that could have been used for office space. He stated that he would like to have the experts provide an analysis to the Board.
Commr. Hill stated that with the footprint of the building being smaller that space will be utilized by the Clerk and the State Attorney. She opined that it will be revisited as the years go by and maybe things will change, but if they made them courtrooms now then there would be an opportunity to expand this building later.
Commr. Conner asked on behalf of Commr. Renick, what it would take to get this project down to the $42 to $47 million range.
Mr. Egleston responded that the square footage would have to be reduced. He commented that it is a significant difference in budget.
Commr. Conner asked what the estimated square footage would be with the reduced budget.
Mr. Egleston stated that it would be a $10 million reduction and could result in a reduction of 40,000 to 50,000 square feet.
Commr. Conner confirmed that Option A proposes an additional 152,000 square feet. He clarified that the existing building is 120,000 square feet.
Commr. Renick opined that Option A is perfect and clarified that her reservations were solely related to the amount of money that would remain in the General Fund.
Commr. Hill stated that there needs to be clarification that the $6 million noted is from the $11 million in the General Fund minus the $5 million. She noted that a balance would still remain in the General Fund.
Commr. Conner clarified that the Board had allocated $11 million out of the current Fiscal Year General Fund for this project, and then later during the Budget workshops for Fiscal Year 2010 that amount was reduced from $11 million to $6 million. He asked the County Manager if the funding outlined today was different than previously determined by the Board.
Ms. Hall confirmed that the funding outlined earlier remained as directed by the Board during the Budget workshops.
Commr. Renick stated that she is going to continue to have concerns.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Conner, carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Option A with the funding recommendation of the County Manager.
Commr. Renick voted “no.”
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Director of Planning and Community Design, Department of Growth Management, reported that this meeting has been properly.
CONSENT REZONING AGENDA
The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding the Consent Agenda.
There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, as follows:
Tab 1 – Ordinance No. 2009-49
Grand Highway Baptist Church
Rev. Joel Shackelford
Rezoning Case No. PH #12-09-2
Request approval to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Community Facility District (CFD) to allow a religious place of worship, religious classrooms and a multipurpose building.
Tab 2 – Ordinance No. 2009-50
Sandra Didion and John W. Didion et al
Sandra Didion and Lake County
Rezoning Case No. PH #10-09-03
Request for approval to rezone a 9.4-acre property from Agriculture (A) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Agricultural Residential (AR) to facilitate a future lot split. Lake County Planning and Community Design is a co-applicant to the request to correct a scrivener’s error caused by a previous rezoning ordinance.
Tab 4 – Ordinance No. 2009-51 and 2009-52
Woodlands Lutheran Church of Lake Co., Inc. & Brian and Debra Kneser/John Arrington
Rezoning Case No. PH #55-08-3
Request for approval to amend CFD Ordinance #1995-55 to remove approximately 10.13-acres from an existing 176-acre Community Facility District (CFD) to establish a new 10.13-acre CFD district for existing sanctuary, youth center, educational school, and parsonage uses.
Tab 5 – Ordinance No. 2009-53
Lee Hess, Inc. (K. Owii)/George Mansour
Auto Pass, LLC.
Rezoning Case No. CUP 3 09/9/2-1
Request for approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Community Commercial (C-2) Zoning District to allow vehicular sales and vehicular rentals.
REGULAR REZONING AGENDA
REZONING CASE NO. MSP # 09/7/2-5 – dan cordle/steven j. Richey, esq. professional dirt services HOLDINGS
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was contacted this morning by the applicant and some newly raised opposition who are requesting a 30 day postponement. Commr. Cadwell asked staff if they were opposed to the request for postponement.
Mr. Sheahan replied that he did not have a problem with that request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the postponement of Tab 7 for thirty days.
rezoning case no. ph #70-08-5 – steven b. deluca/fred morrison, p.a./mclin & burnsed – all star sports camp
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, stated that the property is located on the north side of CR 42 approximately 3 miles East of Paisley and is categorized as Rural Future Land Use. He reported that the applicant will be utilizing an on-site water system and septic tanks. He stated that the property does contain a partial flood zone. He displayed on the monitor a map of the surrounding area, indicating the surrounding properties, roads and property in question. He reported that this is a request to rezone a 40-acre parcel from Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to permit a sports camp/athletic training facility and agricultural uses on the property. He stated that this rezoning will allow the owner to obtain the necessary permits to correct some code violations that exist on the property. He commented that the property was originally developed as a nursery and has been converted into a cattle ranch and a sports camp training facility consisting of a dormitory for student housing, athletic training buildings, a football field and staff housing. He reported that this request is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) as demonstrated in the following analysis. He stated that based on the staff’s findings, it is their recommendation for the Board to approve the rezoning the property from Agriculture to CFD. He noted that the Zoning Board recommended approval by a vote of 6-0 at the September 2, 2009 Hearing.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 3, Case No. PH # 70-08-5, by Steven B. DeLuca and Ordinance No. 2009-54.
recess and reassembly
rezoning case no. ph # 09-09-4 – sorrento commons, llc – chris roper, akerman-senterfitt – the village commons
Commr. Hill disclosed that she spoke to the applicant and the opposition and has received information from the community.
Commr. Conner disclosed that he has spoken with Paul Bryant, Planning and Zoning Board member, about this issue.
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Growth Management, with a total of 21 years of Planning and Zoning experience in Lake County, stated that the property is located in the Sorrento area in the Southeastern corner of the intersection of SR 46 and Hunter Avenue. He noted that it is in the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node - Non-Wekiva and also the Neighborhood Activity Center for Commercial Location Criteria. He reported that there are not any utility services in that area and the applicant is proposing an on-site sub-regional water and sewer facility. He stated that it is outside the flood zone. He commented that the applicant is requesting the amendment of Ordinance 20-88 to permit a Mixed Use Commercial Center with neighborhood Commercial C-1 uses and limited Community Commercial C-2 uses for the subject property not to exceed a maximum of 50,000 square foot of leasable building area. He stated that the subject property is currently zoned Planned Commercial (CP) and it was zoned for a corporate office of a car storage and service center for a car fleet leasing company. He reported that a potion of this site was previously considered by the Board in February 2008 as Public Hearing No. 35-07-4 for 215,325 square foot of gross leasable area, with the request being denied by the Board 5-0 due to inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He stated that the Future Land Use Map limits the development at the subject location to that permitted within the neighborhood activity center. He explained that potential development within this center must comply with Commercial Location Criteria contained in Policy 1-38.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this project exceeds the leasable building area allocated for this intersection, is noted in Subsection B of the analysis provided to the Board. He presented Exhibit 2 which is portions of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to criteria to direct commercial development, because there have been arguments pertaining to how staff does the analysis for the various activity centers. He stated that the submitted information for the regional activity centers and community activity centers specify specific square footage allowances. He mentioned that in the neighborhood activity center section of the Comp Plan, Section C states that for the allocated commercial uses, it specifically allows combined commercial allocations from 10 to 50,000 square foot. He reported that it is the staff’s interpretation that it is a conglomerate of the 50,000 square foot for that neighborhood activity center. He explained that building could be done on different commercial properties until a total of 50,000 square foot was met for that intersection. He presented the Future Land Use Map as Exhibit 3 and the Research Maps of the 21 Neighborhood Activity Centers as Exhibit 4. He stated that he confirmed the square footage of each of the intersections based on the amount appraised by the Property Appraiser. He explained the location of each intersection and outlined the amount of available square footage for building. He addressed some questions that were presented regarding the Wekiva policies, stating that the Wekiva policies were not included because it is currently under appeal so they do not apply to this rezoning. He reported that the requested uses are allowed consistent with the Land Use Regulations (LDRs), but the requested allocation size exceeds the commercial square footage allocation at the proposed intersection.
Mr. Hartenstein stated that the Transportation Division of Public Works reported that this project would have significant impacts on other roadway segments and major intersections, causing at a minimum two other intersections to fail. He noted that if the rezoning request is approved, the applicant will be required to pay a proportionate share of the costs to improve the other intersections. He commented that the applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Deferral for Concurrency, and if approved the applicant will be required to insure that development meets concurrency. He reported that the proportionate share of the full cost of improvements for the two intersections and the southern extension of Hunter Avenue would not be adequate, so additional funding would be required. He reported that the application is consistent with Policy 1-7.1, the availability of Public Facilities. He noted that the applicant has stated that an interim on-site facility for sewage treatment and potable water would be provided at the time of construction. He commented that commitment to the interim utility service will be required prior to the approval of any development order for construction. He stated that the project is inconsistent with the Comp Plan and the LDRs as specified in the staff report and the findings of fact; therefore staff recommends denial of this request. He noted that staff has drafted the proposed Ordinance for the Board’s review in the event that the Board determines this request to be consistent with the commercial location criteria contained in the Comp Plan. He commented that staff took into consideration that the recommendations of the Mount Plymouth Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee. He reported that staff received a total of 55 letters supporting the project and 51 letters opposing the project, and a total of nine petitions with 255 signatures supporting the project and 939 signatures opposing it. He disclosed that based on information provided on the petitions, there were a total of 43 signatures supporting the project and 173 signatures opposing the project, that were from people who do not live in the community of the proposed project. He reported that the Zoning Board with a vote of 5-1 recommended approval to amend the CP Ordinance on the September 2, 2009 meeting.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecilia Bonifay, Attorney with Ackerman-Senterfitt, representing Sorrento Commons, LLC, stated that the applicant has brought three witnesses. She submitted a District Court of Appeal case of the City of Apopka versus Orange County, which outlined that this is not a balloting exercise. She reported that the information presented regarding the analysis of the neighborhood activity centers was not previously provided to her. She stated that she wanted to address the two issues raised by staff that the applicant’s request is not consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that there is not enough square footage left for building, and their mention of the lack of facilities in their denial. She commented that staff made the comment that the proportionate share will not be sufficient to cover the cost of the improvements and noted that staff has not presented an estimate of the cost for the improvements to the intersections or how those costs are assessed.
Commr. Cadwell accepted Mr. Beliveau as an expert witness.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Environmental, Inc., stated that he professionally disagrees on the distribution of the 50,000 square feet at the intersection of an arterial and a collector. He agreed with staff that this intersection is located in an Urban Compact Node, Non-Wekiva, and falls within two categories of the Comprehensive Plan for commercial location criteria. He displayed on the monitor the Road Classifications Map, and stated that Lake County Public Works classified Hunter Avenue as a collector road. He explained that according to the County’s Comp Plan Policy 1-38.1, at the intersection of an arterial and collector there are two qualifications, a community activity center which allows from 50,000 to 500,000 square feet or a neighborhood activity center which allows for a combined total of 10,000 to 50,000 square feet. He reported that his research resulted no other cases that follow this interpretation. He submitted documentation to the Board providing examples of cases from previous years where the Board approved similar types of requests.
Ms. Bonifay clarified that there was not previous discussion by the Board or staff regarding the procedures to calculate the combined total square footage.
Mr. Beliveau mentioned that another benefit of approving this development would be the reduced greenhouse emissions due to a reduction of vehicle miles traveled. He reported that the reduction of one trip, as a result of this development, reduces the amount of miles traveled by 4 million miles per year.
Ms. Bonifay argued that based on the presentation by Mr. Hartenstein of the County’s neighborhood activity centers, two conclusions could be made, that staff has done a good job of consistently applying their interpretation or that the square footage requirements were not exceeded because there is not a demand for commercial businesses in those areas due to low population.
Mr. Beliveau confirmed that ten of the neighborhood activity centers are located in the Wekiva River Basin or Ocala National Forest, which are sparsely populated areas of the County.
Ms. Bonifay clarified with Mr. Beliveau, that during his involvement with the County’s Comprehensive Plan in 1991, the red dots to indicate commercial land use were placed on the Future Land Use Map, and that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) appealed this plan because there were not any special land uses for the Green Swamp. She explained that the DCA insisted that the County adopt the Commercial Location Criteria language into the Comp Plan.
Mr. Beliveau stated that the zoning of the County was never modified to reflect the Comprehensive Plan, but the language in the Comp Plan supersedes the red dots on the Future Land Use Map. He opined that the application for the development of Sorrento Commons is consistent with the criteria of the community and neighborhood activity centers.
Mr. Lou Fabrizio, Sorrento Commons, stated that the staff report characterizes the market area differently than the market study provided. He presented an aerial image depicting the market and trade area for the proposed location. He commented that the residents of this community are currently commuting to Mount Dora, Sanford and Apopka for their daily shopping needs. He reported that the Miller-Sellen Small Area Study defined the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area as the hub of unincorporated Lake County located outside of Mount Dora and Eustis. He noted that the current population of the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area is approximately 21,000 and is projected to increase. He commented that the proposed shopping center would be proximate to the population it will serve as defined in the County’s Comp Plan, and stated that there are approximately 1600 households within one and a quarter mile radius to justify the need for a neighborhood activity center. He opined that it would be a benefit to locate goods and services within close proximity of these households and would eliminate the impact on the arterial and collector roads.
Mr. Fabrizio stated that the Village Commons would provide an increased commercial tax base for Lake County by approximately 700 percent totaling well over $100,000, and would have a positive impact on surrounding property values. He reported that another benefit of the shopping center would be increased sales tax revenue of approximately $80,000 for the County which is currently being collected by other counties. He quoted concepts from the TIPS Strategy Plan which was adopted by the County in February 2008. He reported on the demographics for the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area. He noted that this development would create approximately 125 permanent jobs for local residents. He stated that the Village Commons will locate everyday goods and services at the core of the area’s current and planned populations and will substantially reduce trip lengths, limit traffic on arterial roads, provide land and capital for the realignment of CR 437, create the cornerstone for development of a market square, increase the tax base, and create jobs. He opined that the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area needs the Village Commons and that it aligns with the County’s economic development plan.
Commr. Stewart asked if this project has been presented to the Publix Location Committee or another grocery store chain.
Mr. Fabrizio responded that he has a good relationship with Publix, but until the zoning has been approved it will not be formally presented to that committee. He noted that he has had received favorable feedback from Publix as a result of their discussions dating back as far as 2000. He commented that it is his desire to secure a grocery tenant because he feels that will meet the needs of that community.
Commr. Stewart clarified with Mr. Fabrizio that he does not have a commitment from any grocery store. She asked for the projected completion date of the project, if approved.
Mr. Fabrizio explained the construction of the site would begin in 18 months to two years without any obstacles.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she placed on the record a Memorandum of Law which includes the case cited by Mr. Beliveau, but also additional cases that demonstrate where the County has granted 50,000 square foot limits to individual projects which in turn exceed the 50,000 square foot cap in a neighborhood activity center.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jeanne Etter, a Mount Plymouth resident, opined that there are not any concrete plans for this project, and without a solid commercial commitment, this project should not be approved. She expressed concern that this development will harm the local small businesses, which support the community, and would eliminate the sense of community that exists in this area. She reported that Miller-Sellen was met with disapproval when they presented a commercial center to the community back in February 2001. She asked the Board to deny this request until more definitive plans and commitments are guaranteed.
Mr. Charles T. West, a Mount Plymouth resident and SR 46 business owner, expressed his concerns that the approval of this development will lead to the need for the widening of SR 46. He reported that he received information from Mr. Fabrizio outlining the locations of six Publix stores which were serviced by a two lane road. He commented that there is no room to widen SR 46 without eliminating or impairing most of the local businesses. He asked the Board to consider the implications of approving this development.
Mr. Rob Kelly, Local Planning Agency (LPA) member, commented that Ms. Bonifay’s analysis of the red dots on the Future Land Use Map was based on speculation. He remarked that the comment about the reduction of trips should not justify inappropriate development in a rural area. He stated that development in a rural area must be scaled appropriately to maintain the character of the community. He opined that it is going to hurt the County if rural areas are expanded with out of scale development.
Ms. Pamela Jennelle, a Eustis resident and employee of a Sorrento business, commented that Mount Plymouth and Sorrento have been part of an urban compact node since 1989, and that the proposed development would be located at the center of the current and future population. She reported that there is a competing site located at CR 44A and CR 437, but the allowable densities at that site are far less, and opined that allowing the development to be built there would result in urban sprawl. She requested the Board approve this rezoning request.
Mr. Nakul Patel, owner of the Mount Plymouth IGA, stated that a large percentage of the community does not support this project and opined that they prefer the quiet friendly country setting offered in Mount Plymouth and Sorrento.
Mr. Bert McDonald, a Mount Plymouth landowner, provided the Board with a history of the Sorrento and Mount Plymouth area from 1929 when his ancestors moved to the area. He requested that the Board deny this request until a time when there is an infrastructure to support growth and development.
Ms. Susan Brooks, Mount Plymouth resident, opined that this shopping center would benefit the entire community of the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area. She stated that she does shop at the Mount Plymouth Grocery IGA at least four or five times a week but the majority of her shopping is done elsewhere. She reported that a majority of the thru traffic on SR 46 will be eliminated with the completion of the 429 toll road, based on a County traffic study. She noted that the petition posted in Mount Plymouth Grocery contained misleading information regarding the project, including the size of the project and the expansion of SR 46 to six lanes. She asked the Board to take all of this information into consideration and approve this application.
Ms. Priscilla Drugge, a Sorrento resident, informed the Board that she has had discussions with Mr. Renee from Publix about this proposed location and that he had no interest in any location that was not a four or six lane highway. She stated Mr. Fabrizio has commented that this is only the beginning and if approved today, he would continue to request more. She noted that as a rural resident, shopping trips are planned because it is not convenient to make multiple trips; therefore it is a misnomer that the project is going to save the environment due to a reduction in trips. She opined that the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area needs economic incentives for eco-tourism based business. She requested that the Board deny this request.
Mr. Bob Walsh, a Sorrento resident, stated that his 25-acre Thoroughbred and Arabian horse farm borders one side of the proposed location for this shopping center. He reported that he had previously appeared before the Board regarding the subdivision that surrounds his property. He commented that he attended a number of the community advisory committee meetings and that the committee wants a town center with little shops and not an anchor tenant. He opined that the success of the town center is dependant on the anchor tenant, and that the last thing he wants is a vacant town center. He noted that the residents of Mount Plymouth and Sorrento appear to want a town center, and opined that the County should assist this developer to make it successful.
Mr. Eugene Hately, a Mount Plymouth resident, commented that the traffic problems are going to be a result of the new school being built in the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area. He informed the Board of the scare tactics used to obtain signatures for the petitions against the project. He opined that this is a viable project and asked the Board to approve this request.
recess and reassembly
At 11:52 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
Ms. Katherine Croson, Sorrento resident, opined that the community needs this development with an anchor store to help the community grow and asked the Board to approve this request.
Mr. Trevor Hall, Real Estate Broker representing Sorrento landowners, commented that he agreed with Mr. Walsh that this area needs economic viability. He stated that the Board is not voting on the development, but instead the request to rezone the area commercial, and opined that this location is ideal for commercial.
Mr. Dean Fritchen, commercial real estate agent, opined that this development is one of the most positive productive things that could happen for central Florida.
Ms. Leslie Garvis, a Sorrento resident, commented that she specifically moved to the Sorrento area because a large percentage was zoned commercial, she owns a horse farm, and is opposed to any development at the proposed location. She stated that the IGA Supermarket and nearby Publix in Mount Dora services the community. She opined that it is not necessary to have an anchor store to make the shopping center successful.
Mr. Sonntag, Sorrento resident and business owner, commented that the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area needs the business and jobs that this shopping center will create. He stated that property values in the area have decreased and that SR 46 will need to be expanded once the Expressway exit is completed.
Ms. Peggy Belflower, Lake County resident and Local Planning Agency member, reported that this project was presented to the Board in February 2008 and was found to be inconsistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comp Plan. She opined that the application presented today is still inconsistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs, and that is why staff recommended denial. She commented that Mr. Fabrizio presented to the Zoning Board that the long term intent for this project is for a 100,000 square foot building. She requested that the Board deny this application on the grounds that it does not adhere to the County’s development policies.
Mr. Dave Croson, Sorrento resident and business owner, commented that this town center would provide additional shopping options to the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area. He stated that the residents of this area need jobs, and this shopping center would create many new jobs. He asked that the Board respect the decision by the Zoning Board to approve the rezoning of this property.
Mr. William H. Morris, Sorrento resident, opined that this project is not going to jeopardize any of the existing businesses in the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area, and the area needs a full service supermarket and the jobs it would create.
Mr. Tim Bailey, Mount Plymouth resident and Chairman of the Framework Study with Miller-Sellen, commented that as a member of the Mount Plymouth Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee (MPSPAC), they voted in favor of this project because it is what the residents of the area want. He stated that some individuals are concerned about whether or not there is going to be a Publix store, but the reality is that if Publix does not commit to this location, then the center will not be built. He asked that the Board support the local residents and all of the research that has been done for this project, and approve the rezoning application.
Mr. Rick Hartenstein commented on some of the statements made by the applicant’s witness regarding the implementation of the language in the Comp Plan, and some of the examples provided.
Ms Cecilia Bonifay rebutted the comments made by staff. She summarized the information presented by Mr. Beliveau, and addressed some of the comments made by the public. She described her involvement in the negotiations with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding the 1993 adopted Comprehensive Plan. She opined that this project meets the Comprehensive Plan and requested that the Board support the project and approve this application.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Stewart commented that it is clearly defined in the Comp Plan that the proposed area is not a community activity center, and that the interpretation of this policy has been established by three different Growth Management staff members for three separate independent Commissions and found this area to be a neighborhood activity center. She noted that the Comp Plan defines the process of calculating the square footage in a neighborhood activity center, and acknowledged that a previous Board allowed the square footage requirement to be exceeded on two occasions. She stated that the Mount Plymouth Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee (MPSPAC) did not approve or support this project but only accepted the plan into their record. She commented that the conceptual plan is lacking the walkability factor and a meeting space for the public. She reported that the County does not have the money to pay for the realignment of CR 437 which is not on the County’s five year capital improvement plan, and the proportionate share that Mr. Fabrizio would be required to pay would not be significant contribution when compared to the total cost of the project. She provided an example of the shopping center located at the corner of CR 561 and CR 48, which was designed to have a grocery store anchor, but grocery tenants keep going out of business at that location and opined that she does not want this same scenario to happen in the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area. She stated that the MPSPAC and the Local Planning Agency (LPA) is working on creating a main street district with a walkable market square. She commented that she wants the businesses to be successful and provide great job opportunities, a sense of community, and an attractive walkable market square for the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area, and stated that the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area is going to change, but the Board is going to control and guide that change according to the Comp Plan.
Commr. Stewart expressed concern that many of the area residents will be disappointed if a Publix store does not locate there because a lot of the correspondence she has received specifically references Publix, and there has not been any commitment from Publix or any other grocery chain. She opined that if the Board rules against the policies in the Comprehensive Plan for this development, then it can not rightfully deny any other requests that go against the Comp Plan or else the County could be faced with a lawsuit. She stated that this development as proposed will have a tremendous impact on SR 46 and would cause two intersections to fail. She reported that she has had discussions with Mr. Fabrizio on numerous occasions and informed him that she will support him when he provides a plan that follows polices in the Comprehensive Plan, is designed as a walkable community with a meeting space for the public and meets the desires of the community. She stated that she looks forward to working with Mr. Fabrizio in the future, but she can not recommend approval of the project at this time. She requested the Board deny this application for rezoning.
Commr. Renick stated that she is uncomfortable with the proposed shopping center and one that is not on central utilities. She commented that she found it interesting when she read the minutes from 2005 when this matter was previously presented to the Board, because some of the same concerns were addressed at that time and unanimously denied by the Board.
Commr. Conner opined that both sides of the argument had valid points; however the Board has a legal obligation to ensure that their decision is consistent with the Comp Plan. He stated that if there are zoning classifications or land uses inconsistent with the Comp Plan, then an amendment needs to be done to the Comp Plan before the Board can approve land use changes. He agreed that Lake County needs more commercial development and the resulting tax base and jobs it would create. He commented that he felt strongly that the rural nature of the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area should be maintained. He noted that he wants to support a project that is consistent with the Comp Plan and fits in with that community. He mentioned that he would like the Board to review commercial zoning in the Comp Plan to ensure that there is ample commercial zoning throughout the County.
Commr. Hill commented that the proposed plan has been reduced since the previous application. She noted that one of the development drivers for this area is the school that is under construction which is going to cause traffic problems. She opined that she is not sure how to proceed, but that some decisions need to be made because that area is already changing with the construction of the school and park.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board denied Tab 6, Case No. PH #09-09-4, by Sorrento Commons, LLC, Request for approval to amend Planned Commercial (CP) Ord #20-88 on 17.71 acres to permit Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and limited Community Commercial (C-2) used to allow five commercial buildings totaling 50,000 square feet.
Commr. Hill voted “no.”
recess & REASSEMBLY
At 1:04 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2:00 p.m.
reports – county attorney
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reported that the County is in a quiet period of the Union negotiations with the Fire Union and suggested that the Board should not discuss this matter with the County Manager, the County Attorney or any other County employee or make public comment. He noted that the public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 20, 2009. He stated that any questions on the process should be directed to Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – VICE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
Commr. Hill requested an additional item be added to the Legislative Package, noting that the County Attorney has worked on the language. She stated that the item had been added and the completed packages would be delivered to the Legislative Delegation on the 30th. She commented that Mr. Gregg Welstead, Conservation and Compliance Director, would attend the meeting because there are several water issues included in the package.
cagan’s crossing impact fees
Commr. Hill reported that Mr. Deese, the attorney for Cagan’s Crossing, requested a 90-day extension on the upcoming timeframe for their impact fees. She stated that she was trying to schedule a joint meeting with the School Board regarding the impact fees.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CONNER – DISTRICT 3
Commr. Conner referred to a letter sent to the Board by the State Attorney regarding his immediate need for space. He confirmed with Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manger that this was going to be addressed as quickly as possible
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
solid waste program
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Daryl Smith, Director of Environmental Utilities to discuss upcoming changes in the Solid Waste Program.
Mr. Daryl Smith reported that Waste Management will be taking over solid waste collection services on Monday, September 28, 2009. He noted that Waste Management has notified customers of this change, and reported that the County will have extended customer service hours for the first few collection days by the new provider.
Lane Constraint Policy
Mr. T.J Fish, Executive Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), presented the Lane Constraint Policy Map and the Urban, Transitioning and Rural Area Map. He noted that the information presented today would be presented to the MPO Governing Board for adoption. He commented that the MPO was specific in the selection of the technical advisory committee, and also submitted this information to a citizen advisory committee and the bicycle/pedestrian advisory committees. He displayed on the monitor the Proposed Maximum Lane Constrained Corridors and outlined the proposed changes to the Lane Constraint Policy. He suggested constraining SR 40 and SR 19 to two lanes based on the PD&E Study. He reported that the land use east of Eustis to the St. John’s River does not warrant road widening and therefore recommend constraining SR 44 to two lanes. He commented that CR 437 and Wolfbranch Road were designated as a scenic byway and is constrained to two lanes. He stated that all of the area east of Eustis and Mount Dora would be constrained to two lanes as a rural or transitional character road. He reported that due to plans for an industrial area CR 561 has been constrained to four lanes with the exception of the portion at CR 561A; which has been maximized at two lanes. He noted that the City of Howey-in-the-Hills requested that the MPO support the constraint of SR 19 to two lanes. He commented that the broad based policy restricted any six lane roads; however there are a few areas where six lanes may be needed such as the Turnpike Interchange in Minneola, Hartwood Marsh Road and CR 470.
Urban, Transitioning and Rural Areas Map
Mr. Fish commented that the Urban, Transitioning, and Rural Areas Map is a planning map that establishes urban, rural and transitioning roads based on the 2000 Census data. He explained that this map applies the same characteristics used for State roads to the county road network and clarifies the definition of transitioning. He requested that the County adopt this map as the official map that designates the transitioning areas instead of using the one mile outside of corporate limits determination. He noted that a change had been made to the packet regarding the change from rural to transitioning for Wolfbranch Road and CR 437. He explained that by definition rural is less than 500 persons per square mile and urban is more than 1,000 persons per square mile, and the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento area is neither of those and therefore classified as transitioning. He reported that by including transitioning as a classification, there is flexibility to build a more suburban approach to allow for building and drainage as appropriate in areas that are not urban yet and not purely rural anymore. He emphasized that this has nothing to do with land uses, and it outlines the roadway network and the effects of the population and traffic.
Commr. Renick noted that the transitioning term refers to the type of road and does not necessarily mean that the area is going to become urban. She mentioned Highway 27 as an example of a transitioning road in a rural area because of the nature of the road and the surrounding urban cities.
Future Land Use Map Corrections
Ms. Amye King, Director of Growth Management, stated that the next item on the Agenda is the Future Land Use Map minor corrections as directed by the Board or proposed by staff. She commented that the area outlined in blue in the inset is the proposed infill/redevelopment area that was presented to the Board by the Department of Economic Growth and Redevelopment. She noted that the parcels within the redevelopment area that are proposed by the Local Planning Agency (LPA) as Urban Low Density and Urban Medium Density on the map have been changed to Urban High Density as shown on the inset; and the proposed Minor Commercial Corridor on CR 19A has been changed to a Major Commercial Corridor per the direction received from the Board.
Ms. Anita Greiner, Chief Planner for Planning and Community Design, Department of Growth Management, displayed on the monitor the Proposed Future Land Use Map. She commented that the first inset is of the Astor Commercial Corridor, and staff recommends extending the Minor Commercial Corridor in Astor West, along SR 40, to encompass the existing commercial businesses west of Veteran’s Way. She reported that the second inset is of the Lake Yale area which has water service from the City of Eustis that extends to Apiary Road along CR 452, and staff recommends changing the Future Land Use to Urban Low Density. She stated that the third inset is of an enclave in the City of Leesburg which staff is recommending be changed to Urban Low Density to encourage infill. She noted that the fourth inset is an area surrounded by Little Lake Harris, Lake Harris and the City of Howey-in-the-Hills, and the staff recommends changing the future land use to Urban Low Density based on existing land use, existing density and logical future development patterns. She commented that staff proposes adding a red star to the map representing a Rural Support Intersection near the Yalaha Bakery area, which is currently designated as a Neighborhood Activity Center for the fifth inset. She reported that staff proposed that the lines of the Major Commercial Corridor along the Turnpike be moved to exclude the land designated as Rural future land use north and east of the Turnpike, and the properties designated as Rural future land use that are south and east of the city limits of Minneola, in an effort to close the gap in the Major Commercial Corridor represented in the sixth inset. She stated that the seventh inset is for the area east of Lake Louisa and west of Lake Louisa Road within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. She reported that this area was originally designated as Ridge future land use and was later changed to Rural Conservation. She commented that this area was again changed at a later date to Traditional with current zoning as Urban Residential District (R6). She noted that staff recommends changing the future land use to Ridge which allows for four dwellings per acre and matches the current zoning for that area. She reported that the properties north and south of the subject properties, are currently designated as Public Resource Lands and staff recommends designating them as conservation, and that the LPA did consider this change but they felt it was more appropriate to leave it as Green Swamp Rural.
Commr. Renick clarified with Ms. Greiner that the research was done on the history of the designations for the Lake Louisa area and that there was a scrivener’s error that was discovered by staff and corrected to the current designation of transitional.
At the request of staff, the Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Steve Mellich, Mellich-Blenden Engineering, Inc., representing the owners of the Jones parcel in Sorrento, reported that during the September 18, 2008 Local Planning Agency (LPA) meeting a motion was made, known as MAP Motion 10 with a sixteen minute discussion regarding a request of the Mount Plymouth Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee (MPSPAC) to change the land use for the 85-acre Jones parcel located at the northeast corner of CR 437 and Harbeck Lane. He opined that the Minutes of the September 10, 2008 meeting clearly depict that the MPSPAC changed the zoning district and removed this parcel as well as three others from the market square, Main Street District and reclassified it as Low Density Residential. He commented that based on the minutes provided there are multiple references to an email between the acting Chairman of the MPSPAC and a member of the LPA stating that it was the intent of MPSPAC to change the future land use. He stated that he submitted a letter from one of the MPSPAC members that provides that the MPSPAC did not discuss, that nor was it their intention to reduce the land use. He requested that the Board revert the map back to its condition on September 8, 2008, which includes the Jones parcel and others in the Main Street District and provides the desired future land use category and residential density.
Commr. Stewart recused herself from this discussion.
Commr. Cadwell directed staff to research this matter and to present those findings to the Board at a future workshop. He informed Mr. Mellich that he would be notified when this matter would come before the Board.
Ms. Jeanne Etter, a Mount Plymouth resident, commented on the information presented by Mr. Mellich, stating that she was the MPSPAC secretary at the time of the questioned incident. She reported that she was asked to investigate this issue and her findings were that there were never any discussions or actions taken by MPSPAC to change the density of the Jones parcel.
Ms. Etter commented that a member of the LPA added language to the policies defining the Market Square District at the December 18, 2008 meeting; however no one could agree when the matter was presented for a vote. She expressed her concerns regarding this matter.
Ms. Peggy Belflower, Lake County resident and Local Planning Agency member, reported that she was a member of the LPA at the time of the two referenced meetings. She stated that she was an integral part of the discussion and possibly made the motion on the September 18, 2008 meeting that changed the land use. She reported that the discussion was regarding the changes made by the MPSPAC and that no recommendation on land use was made from the MPSPAC. She explained that the MPSPAC removed the Jones property from the Market Square District, and as a result the LPA reduced the land use. She stated that the MPSPAC did not make any recommendations regarding the text amendment at the December 18, 2008 meeting.
Mr. Bill Ray, representing a property owner on CR 561 in South Lake County, commented that he submitted information and maps to the Board and requested that the Board allow him to work with staff to resolve the question of land use on his client’s property located on CR 561 in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern.
Commr. Renick stated that she would like to meet with staff regarding these two issues.
Commr. Cadwell directed staff to research these issues.
Mr. Rob Kelly, Local Planning Agency (LPA) member, stated that one person can not change policies of the LPA; instead a large group of people consisting of the current LPA members and seven previous members wrote the plan. He reported that the matter presented by Mr. Ray has been presented to the LPA approximately three different times, and after a lot consideration each time the LPA determined that the property should maintain the current land use.
Commr. Renick commented that the question is whether or not the LPA’s decision was influenced by the recommendation of the MPSPAC regarding the Jones property.
Mr. Kelly stated that he was not referring to the Jones property but to the policies for the sizes of buildings in the Mount Plymouth Sorrento area. He reported that there was a lot of discussion regarding the level of detail that should be included in the plan. He noted that if the plan does not include enough detail, then the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) can be changed to accommodate something that may be inappropriate for the given area. He opined that the specific square footage amounts should be included in the plan in an effort to maintain the character of a given area and that without a certain level of detail there is a lot of room for interpretations.
Ms. Nadine Foley, LPA member, clarified with Ms. Greiner that one of the proposed changes presented earlier was for the area north of Howey-in-the-Hills because the LPA had a lot of discussion regarding an area south of Howey.
Mr. Robert Walsh, a Sorrento resident and Main Street Stakeholders member, thanked the commissioners for the professional manner in which they handled the meeting today regarding the Sorrento Commons matter. He reported that the Main Street Stakeholders was formed to create a forum for public comment for all individuals. He stated that the Stakeholders have reviewed and had many discussions on the proposed Comp Plan and in March 2009 an email was sent recommending changes to the Comp Plan. He noted that he would like to formally present the recommended changes to the Board as outlined in the March 2009 email. He commented that the Stakeholders recommend removing or amending the elements that would render many of the existing Main Street buildings as non-conforming, are economically or psychically unfeasible, would result in rigid policy that would not fit the community of tomorrow, and would necessitate a lengthy and costly amendment process.
Mr. Jim Panico, representing various property and business owners of the Mount Plymouth and Sorrento area, stated that he agreed with the letter submitted by the Main Street Stakeholders and urged the Board to review each recommendation in the letter. He reported that the feedback he has received is that the proposed Comp Plan amendment is too rigid and should be used more for guidance. He opined that Comp Plans are living documents that change day to day depending upon the current circumstances and those issues should be presented to the Board or their subordinate boards and committees.
Ms. Amye King, Director of Growth Management, confirmed with the Board that the public comments regarding maps presented today would be addressed at the October 27, 2009 meeting.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that Commr. Stewart did not have a legal conflict regarding the earlier mention of her recusal and explained that her son is related to the property owner by marriage.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Director of Planning and Community Design, Department of Growth Management, reported that approximately two years ago the Board directed staff to hire a consultant to perform a fiscal impact analysis of the County’s Comprehensive Plan in anticipation of meeting the requirements of Florida Statute, Chapter 163. He noted that the approval of Senate Bill 360 provided additional time for the completion of this analysis; however the County contracted with Wilson Miller and Florida Economic Advisors.
Ms. Marcie Stenmark, Wilson Miller, stated that Wilson Miller and Florida Economic Advisors reviewed the draft Comprehensive Plan and performed a fiscal impact and policy cost analysis. She noted that the Lake County Planning Horizon 2030 Comprehensive Plan will replace the existing adopted Comp Plan, and it is required by Florida Statutes that the capital improvement element be found to be financially feasible.
Mr. Chris Jones, Florida Economic Advisors, presented an overview of the major study findings. He reported that the Fiscal Impact Analysis was a two fold approach that addressed the County’s Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets in regards to future growth and the future needs for anticipated revenue expenditures. He noted that the revenue and cost estimate projections were generated by County staff, local municipalities and the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research, and these projections were used to generate the residential development and valuation projections. He stated that the long range employment projections were obtained from Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., a national economic data clearing house that does regional county level forecasts for all US counties. He commented that the County has a residential forecast and a non-residential forecast, with the understanding that there is anticipation of fairly aggressive future annexation. He compared the future operating and capital requirements versus the fiscal requirements. He reported that the population forecast is in five year increments, and annual estimates were prepared by taking a straight line approach between the five year intervals. He provided the estimates for the 2007 through 2030 horizon for the overall population, employment, residential and non-residential growth, and stated that these estimates were the baseline forecasts that created the revenue and expenditure forecasts in the model. He identified some of the major revenue sources that are statutorily available for capital improvements including the constitutional fuel tax, the one cent fuel tax, the one percent local government surtax, and impact fees totaling a gross of $706 million. He noted that he had discussions with the County’s Budget Department that indicated that approximately 40 percent of the $706 million is already committed based on the where the current revenues are being used and anticipated to be used in the future, leaving a balance of $423.8 million available for capital improvements.
Mr. Jones stated that they attempted to provide enough detail and that the Fiscal Impact Analysis is done on a year to year basis and outlines the estimates of the future major operating revenues that would be generated from the new growth only. He reported that the results show that the County will break even over the 22 year horizon. He stated that a comparison was done on the key operating revenues, such as ad valorem, major intergovernmental revenues from state stares revenues, half penny sales tax, and infrastructure sales tax revenue versus the major operating expenditures that these funds cover including public safety, growth management, and public works. He noted that the Fiscal Impact Analysis excluded any special funds where the revenues were generated from solely funded balances or unique types of transfer that could not be associated with the new growth. He reported that at the end of the 22 years there will be an estimated surplus of $7.5 million, and explained that the first five years would report an average deficit of approximately $211,000 each year; years six through fifteen would report an average of surplus of $500,000; and the last years from 16 to 22 reporting an annual surplus of $1.5 to $3 million. He noted that it is anticipated that the County will increase the non-residential development, which will subsidize residential development. He commented that the County will benefit from the future annexations of the local governments by not having the financial responsibility. He stated that Wilson Miller estimated the major capital improvement needs over the same time period of 2008 through 2030 to be $267 million, and the projections by Florida Economic Advisors report that the net or adjusted gross number of available revenue for capital facilities is $424 million. He noted that based on the projections, it appears that the operating budget based on growth trends will at least balance and likely generate fiscal surplus over time. He opined that Lake County’s growth plan is one of the better financially feasible programs he has recently worked on and thanked the staff for their assistance in this process.
Ms. Marcie Stenmark, Wilson Miller, stated that they performed a Policy Cost Analysis to estimate the total cost of implementation of every goal, objective and policy in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. She reported that the currently adopted Comp Plan has 11 elements while the proposed Comp Plan only has 10 elements and more goals, objectives and policies. She noted that the implementation could be done by County staff and involves updating the Land Development Regulations, with estimated consultant fees for an Agricultural Lands Retention Study, County Fee Study, Groundwater Resources Mapping, and a Transportation Study totaling $195,000 and other capital costs totaling $30,000 for gateway signs and features.
Ms. King reported that the October 6, 2009 meeting will include the Mining discussion related to comments 184 thru 186; the October 13, 2009 meeting will include a presentation by the Economic Development Counsel over Landscape Irrigation Policies with staff’s requested changes, a policy amendment for agricultural industrial uses as required by House Bill 7053 and policy amendment to include mediation process for intergovernmental coordination conflicts; and the October 27, 2009 meeting will include any unresolved comments and options for the Board’s review and the overview of the Future Land Use Map with the three specifics mentioned earlier today.
At 3:22 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 5:05 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners reconvened on Tuesday, September 22, 2009, at 5:05 p.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; Jimmy Conner; Elaine Renick; and Linda Stewart. Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that tonight was the last of two Public Hearings for the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Budget which are required by Florida Statute. She reported that the purpose of the meeting is to adopt the final budget for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 including the final millage rates and their change from the rollback millage rates. She defined the rollback millage rate by State Statute as the rate when applied to next year’s tax base excluding new construction will generate the same revenue as was raised in the previous year. She noted that typically these rates would be lower than the current millage rate, but because the tax base was reduced by $1.8 billion related to the economy with the unprecedented foreclosures, next year’s rollback rate is higher than the current millage rate. She explained that the Budget Director will discuss the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 tentative millage rates which were adopted by the Board at the first Public Hearing on September 15, 2009, as well as adjustments to the tentative Budget that the Board will be considering tonight. She stated that following the Budget Director’s presentation, there will be public participation and in closing the Board will adopt the final millage rate by resolution, discuss and approve any necessary changes to the Budget and adopt by resolution the total Budget by fund. She reported that the Ad-Valorem tax revenues are reduced by nine percent because of the lower tax base affected by the recessionary economy. She noted that the tentative Budget eliminates 76 full time and 17 part time positions as well as reflects reductions in nearly all programs. She stated that the current Budget for next year proposes the continuation of the current hiring freeze; mandates the furlough program; provides adequate maintenance of the County’s facilities, equipment and infrastructure; funds currently approved projects such as the Downtown Tavares Government Center Expansion at a reduced level; sets Public Safety, Economic Development, and Parks and Trails as high priorities; and provides for 12 new positions for Fire Rescue, one position in Parks and Trails, and six part time positions for the recycling program. She thanked the Constitutional Officers and senior staff for their cooperation during the entire Budget process and applauded all County staff for their willing assistance to search for efficiencies, to expand their work effort and to offer their total support as the County makes adjustments to the way it provide services in the future. She expressed gratitude to the Board for providing direction and to the Budget Department for their tremendous work ethic and expertise.
tentative millage rates
Mr. Doug Krueger, Budget Director, stated that under Florida Statutes 129.200, one of the first things that was required to be done was to identify the millage rates and the change from those millage rates to the rollback rates. He specified that the proposed Lake County General Fund Millage is 4.6511 mills per $1,000 of taxable value, which is equal to the current rate, but was a 10.6 percent reduction from the rollback of 5.2029 mills; the proposed Lake County ambulance millage is .4651 mills, which is also equal to the current rate and a 10.6 percent reduction from the rollback rate of .5203 mills; the proposed Public Lands Debt Service millage is .1101 mills, the same as the current rate; the proposed Stormwater, Road and Parks MSTU is .4984, representing an 11.05 percent reduction from the rollback rate of .5603 mills; and the Fire Rescue MSTU millage of .3222 mills was an 11.19 percent reduction from the rollback rates of .3628 mills. He noted that the recommended Budget which was originally presented to the Board on July 15, 2009 and includes the Board approved changes from the first public hearing on September 15, 2009 has been provided to the Board. He reported that there are some additional adjustments that staff would like to present for the Board’s consideration. He explained that due to some recent Medicaid Nursing Home bills, staff increased the next year’s budget by $76,500 for a total budget of $592,500; and the budget for Medicaid Hospital bills was increased by $200,000 for a total budget of $2,060,000. He stated that an increase of $150,000 was made to the budget for inmate medical care for a total budget of $1,750,000. He reported that adjustments were made to the Community Services Department to provide funding for the Director position; and there was an adjustment of $554,000 for the Recycling Program that was approved at the September 1, 2009 meeting. He requested the Board approve the adjustments totaling $576,326.00. He notified the Board of some upcoming Budget requests, which were a request for the preliminary purchase order rollover from Fiscal Year 2008/2009 to 2009/2010 on October 6, 2009; a request for the re-budgeting of projects that were budgeted in the current year and will be carried over until next Fiscal Year on October 20, 2009; and then a request for clean up associated with the current Fiscal Year end closing and the final purchase orders that were rolled over on November 17, 2009.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Roy Hunter, Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce, asked the Board to consider keeping the instructional DVDs in the Libraries and commented on the need for the instructional DVDs. He expressed gratitude to the Board for considering this matter.
Ms. Nona Hill, past President of Leesburg Friends of the Library, requested that the Board reconsider their mandate to prohibit branch libraries from purchasing DVDs and CDs. She commented that the libraries are used more during bad economic times. She stated that having these items in the library make it possible for lower income families to enjoy these luxuries.
Ms. Jane Sewell, Lake County Library Advisory Board Member, requested the Board reconsider restrictions on the purchasing of DVDs for libraries. She expressed her thanks to the Board for reconsidering this matter.
Mr. Bud Beucher, Tourist Development Council (TDC) Member and Central Florida Sports Commission Board Member, reported that the TDC voted unanimously to ask the Commissioners to reconsider the 13 percent decrease in funding which amounts to approximately $15,000 to $16,000, to the Sports Commission. He explained that anyone that stays in short-term housing is taxed an additional 4 percent which is designated to the TDC, and they fund the Sports Commission. He opined that the TDC funding should be allocated more to the Sports Commission instead of the Historic Museum.
Ms. Jamie Hanja, President of the Historical Society, thanked the Board for the $20,000 funding for this year. She stated that there was a misunderstanding at the last public hearing that if the curator salary was not funded, then the museum would have to close, but that was not true. She related that the Society was established in 1955, and since then volunteers have been collecting artifacts from that time forward, and they have housed them in two separate locations before the current location. She pointed out that volunteers took care of those artifacts before the current museum curator was hired in 1997. She opined that the artifacts were in good hands with the Historical Society then, and they were more than capable of operating the museum and continuing to protect the artifacts.
Ms. Brenda Smith, a resident of Tavares, commented that she and many others desired to have a permanent place for the museum. She pointed out that the Sheriff has told everyone all week long that he did not want the first floor of the historic courthouse, and she noted that the Sheriff wanted a display put in the museum. She commented that the Historical Society could run the museum with volunteers, although it would be nice to have a curator. She wanted the Board to note in the Minutes that the museum would stay on the first floor of the courthouse forever.
Ms. Elizabeth Joan Owen, a member of the Historical Society, stated that they are all amateurs, but Dr. Kamp was good with children and was educated beyond the normal classroom experiences in how to maintain the artifacts, preserve the papers, organize everything, and make sure the paintings were in the right place.
Ms. Charlene King, a long-time resident of Tavares and a member of the Historical Society, stated that she appreciated the County’s consideration of this issue and keeping the history of the museum alive. She commented that she loved the museum and did not want to see anything happen to it, and she gave some historical anecdotes about herself and other residents of Lake County.
Ms. Harryette Duncan, a resident of Yalaha and a member of the Historical Society, thanked the Board for giving them an extension of six months and for considering keeping the museum on the first floor of the historic courthouse. She pleaded for keeping the curator, and noted that when they moved in with the grant to the new location with all of the state-of-the-art displays and exhibit places, they deemed it necessary to have a nationwide search for a qualified curator. She urged the Commissioners to visit the museum and give the curator the opportunity to give them a tour as they were making decisions regarding the museum. She commented that she was an amateur and did not have the skills to take care of what they had at the present time. She asked their consideration to keep Dr. Kamp as the qualified curator, archivist, and director.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hill expressed concern that there has been a considerable reduction in collections under Tourist Development, and she did not know how that would affect them budget-wise.
Mr. Krueger stated that this year’s adopted budget was $2 million for the Tourist Development fund, and they would probably collect about $1.8 million. He added that they also had sufficient reserves in that fund to increase it to $15,000 or $16,000 if the Board wished to do so.
Mr. Greg Mihalic, Tourist Development Director, explained that the Sports Commission was the only vendor contract they had, and they reduced their 2009-10 fiscal year projected contract by ten percent, which was about a $10,800 reduction from what they would have received. He confirmed that they did have money in their reserves as well as in their budget to pay for the increased amount.
Commr. Cadwell stated that even though he was not in favor of a three percent increase, he would like to put the ten percent back to continue to fund the Sports Commission at the present level.
Commr. Stewart commented on how much money sports bring into the County and that it was very worthwhile and provided a lot of benefits.
Mr. Mihalic related that the TDC asked by unanimous vote that the ten percent be restored to the Sports Commission in their contract. He also stated that the TDC would accept the Board action, but thought that the historic museum should be funded out of the general fund.
Commr. Renick reconsidered the funding of the museum by Tourist Development. She opined that she is not in favor of restoring the budget for the Sports Commission, and that the tourist dollars should not be allocated to the historic museum.
Commr. Hill commented about the DVD funding for the libraries. She suggested that the DVDs that are for instructional use or the ones that correlate with books should be maintained.
Commr. Renick explained that when this issue was first discussed two years ago, it had nothing to do with instructional videos but with the spending of the budget on new releases. She commented that she was looking for ways to reduce the budget. She stated that the goal is to save tax payer’s dollars and opined that it is a matter of prioritizing and that it does not deprive children.
Commr. Conner reiterated that the discussion of the DVDs is only regarding the spending of the budget on new releases.
Commr. Stewart commented that the Agreement from 1987 signed by the Board of County Commissioners gives the responsibility of the museum curator to the Historical Society. She noted that the Historical Society has done a good job handling that responsibility and should continue doing so. She opined that the budget cuts need to be done, and a good way to save money would be to downsize and eliminate the museum curator position as it is not a necessity.
Commr. Renick supported the elimination of the curator position and noted that the Sheriff has no objection to leaving the museum where it is currently located.
Commr. Cadwell opined that the Board needs a transition plan and a long range plan on the operation of the museum. He commented that he would like the Board to consider moving the different artifacts around to other public buildings in the County such as Cooper Memorial Library and Cagan’s Crossing.
Ms. Wendy Breeden, Public Resources Director, stated that she has had discussions with Greg Mihalic, Tourist Development Director; regarding the Board’s decision. She reported that Mr. Mihalic has some part time staff, and some of the library staff will be available to assist in keeping the museum open during business hours. She noted that the County does have a large portion of artifacts that are not on display that could be displayed at other locations like Cooper Memorial and Cagan’s Crossing, which both have display units available.
resolution no. 2009-139 – countywide levy and debt service for environmentally sensitive lands
Mr. Doug Krueger, Budget Director, reported that Resolution No. 2009-139 adopting a final millage rate of 4.6511 mills is hereby levied on all property within Lake County, Florida to be used for the Lake County Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 and shall be effective October 1, 2009; and additionally a final millage rate of .1101 mills is hereby levied on all property within Lake County, Florida to be used for Lake County Voter approved Debt Service for Environmentally Sensitive Lands for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 and shall be effective October 1, 2009. He commented that the countywide millage rate of 4.6511 does not exceed the rollback rate of 5.2029 mills and that rate is 10.61 percent less than the rollback rate.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the final millage rate of 4.6511 for the Lake County Countywide Levy and the Lake County Voter Approved Debt Service for Environmentally Sensitive Lands for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 of .1101 mills.
resolution no. 2009-140 – ambulance and emergency services
Mr. Krueger reported that Resolution 2009-140 adopting the final millage rate of .4651 mills is hereby levied on all property within Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 and shall be effective October 1, 2009. He stated that the millage rate of .4651 does not exceed the rollback rate of .5203 and that rate is 10.61 percent less than the rollback rate.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the final millage rate of .4651 mills for the Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit for Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services for Fiscal Year 2009/2010.
resolution no. 2009-141 – stormwater management, parks and roads
Mr. Krueger reported that Resolution No. 2009-141 adopting the final millage rate of .4984 mills is hereby levied on all property in Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for Stormwater Management, Parks and Roads for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 and shall be effective October 1, 2009. He stated that the millage rate of .4984 mills does not exceed the rollback rate of .5603 mills and that rate is 11.05 percent less than the rollback rate.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the final millage rate of .4984 mills for the Stormwater Management, Parks and Roads Municipal Service Taxing Unit for Fiscal Year 2009/2010.
resolution no. 2009-142 – fire rescue and emergency medicial services
Mr. Doug Krueger reported that Resolution No. 2009-142 adopting the final millage rate of .3222 mills is hereby levied on all property within the Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for Fire Protection No. Two also known as the Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services and is to be used for fire rescue and emergency medical services MSTU for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 and shall be effective October 1, 2009. He stated that the millage rate of .3222 mills does not exceed the rollback rate of .3628 mills and that rate is 11.19 percent less than the rollback rate.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the final millage rate of .3222 mills for the Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit for Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services for Fiscal Year 2009/2010.
2009/2010 Budget Adjustments
Museum Curator Position
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Tourist Development Council (TDC) recommendation to not fund the museum curator position with Tourist Development funds and to eliminate the museum curator position.
Florida Sports Commission
Commr. Conner reported that the TDC opined that the Florida Sports Commission has been effective in bringing events to Lake County and supports an increase in the funding to the Sports Commission.
Commr. Cadwell agreed with the TDC that when economic times are bad, money should be spent on the sales and marketing to increase business. He opined that the Sports Commission does a great job of bringing the events and people into Lake County and that the Board should continue to support it.
Commr. Renick opined that she is not in favor of increasing the budget for the Sports Commission.
Commr. Stewart commented that the Sports Commission brings a lot to Lake County.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart, and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the funding of the Florida Sports Commission at the same level as the previous Fiscal Year.
Commr. Renick voted no.
Commr. Hill asked for the Board to provide direction to the Library Advisory Board on the purchasing of DVDs.
Commr. Conner stated that the Board voted to prohibit the purchase of new releases.
Commr. Cadwell asked if a new instructional video is considered to be a new release, or if it is defined as only new commercial releases.
Commr. Renick stated that if a teacher requests a DVD that corresponds to a book they are teaching, it would be considered an instructional video. She commented that she would like to know who is included in the selection committee. She noted that $30,000 was allocated for videos and asked what percentage of that budget was for instructional videos.
Mr. Tom Merchant, Interim Library Services Director, reported that there is no amount or percentage budgeted for DVDs and the dollar amount provided to the Board was for the amount spent this year on DVDs. He stated the only direction staff needs is what materials the Board would like them to purchase.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption of the changes totaling $576,326 as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution No. 2009-143 adopting the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 totaling $416,239,886.00.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
NEIL KELLY, CLERK