A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
The Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Reverend Karen Burris,
introduction
Commr. Cadwell introduced Ms. Carolyn Dillon, Lake County Water Authority
member who is doing an internship for
AGENDA UPDATE
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
Budget
Request for approval of the following:
1.
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
Employee
Services
Request for approval to fill Assistant Public Defender position.
Growth
Management
Request for approval of the amendment to the CDBG Cooperation agreement
with the City of
Procurement
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).
Public
Safety
Request for approval and signature of Proclamation No. 2009-136 for Fire Prevention
Week 2009: October 4, 2009 through October 10, 2009.
Public
Works
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.
employee services
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.
environmental utilities
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.
procurement
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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
addendum
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.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING AGENDA
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Director of Planning and Community Design,
Department of Growth Management, reported that this meeting has been
properly.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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
At 9:56 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
take a ten minute recess.
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.
other business
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
legislative delegation
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.
workshop
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.
recess
At 3:22 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until
5:05 p.m.
reassembly
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.
introduction
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.
budget
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.
Library
Budget
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.
final budget
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.
ADJOURNMENT
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
ATTEST:
________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK