A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
December 14, 2010
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Leslie Campione, Vice Chairman; Sean M. Parks; Jimmy Conner; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, Interim County Manager; Melanie Marsh, Acting County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Neil Kelly, Clerk of Court; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Courtney Vincent, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Reverend Karen Burris from the Morrison United Methodist Church gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
No changes or deletions were noted.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Austin Guirlinger, Manager of Central Management Company, addressed the board requesting the Board consider adjusting the school impact fee. He noted the Central Management Company built moderate sized apartment communities featuring predominantly one-bedroom units. He stated the reason for the request was because of the negative impact the fees were having on the ability of Central Management Company, the owner and developers of Arden Place Apartments in Lady Lake, to proceed with the development of the project.
Commr. Conner explained the Board did not set the school impact fee.
Commr. Hill added the Board had final approval of the school impact fee, but the School Board was the entity which performed the study and presented the Board with their recommendations.
Commr. Cadwell recommended Mr. Guirlinger go to the School Board and make his appeal to them.
Mr. Guirlinger stated he had attended a School Board meeting and was not given the opportunity to speak.
Commr. Conner mentioned the Board had discussed the issue of school impact fees at the December 13, 2010 Board Retreat, adding it was his understanding the School Board was conducting another School Impact Fee study to determine if the fee should change. He opined that because of the decline in property values, labor, and material costs it would be difficult for the School Board to legally justify the current Impact Fee and he anticipated the study would recommend the amount be decreased. He added he would try to get that information to Mr. Guirlinger.
Mr. Guirlinger thanked him and then noted he had handed out a binder of information to the Board. He estimated the Arden Place Apartments project would bring in approximately $3.5 million, enough to employ up to 100 people for a year, noting the benefit to the local economy. He added the current school impact fee advertized over 30 years was $34 per month to rent, stressing this was a large amount of money to people trying to rent market rate apartments. He said he would go to the School Board, and asked the Board to look at the information he had distributed.
Mr. Michael Cronin, a resident of Howey-In-The-Hills, addressed the Board requesting a moratorium be placed on pain clinics in Lake County. He reported seven to 11 people die per day from Oxycontin overdose in Florida, and stated he would like to see the Board take action regarding pain clinics. He mentioned Orange County, Satellite Beach and Tampa had already taken action.
Commr. Hill commented it had been discussed at the December 13, 2010 Board Retreat and added the Board and their legal staff were looking into it.
Mr. Cronin reported the top 50 doctors in the Country who prescribed Oxycontin were in Florida, with 45 of them located in Broward County. He noted Lake County ranked number five in the State for dispensing Oxycontin.
Commr. Hill thanked him for bringing up the issue and stated the Sheriff would be involved in this as well.
Commr. Conner commented he had spoken with Mr. Cronin previously over the phone. He mentioned the Board discussed the issue of pain clinics during the retreat and he also previously discussed it with the Sheriff. He opined with the surrounding counties banning the expansion of pain clinics the natural trend would be for them to move into Lake County and the Sheriff had expressed a desire for the County to be proactive in not allowing that to happen.
Mr. Cronin reported the State passed Bill 462 in April of 2009 that would require a database be created to keep track of prescription medication within the State, adding that it was suppose to be in effect in December but currently the State claimed to be unable to financially enforce it.
Commr. Conner commented the Board needed to ensure any action taken would not hinder the practice of legitimate doctors.
Commr. Hill stated the discussion on pain clinics would be postponed until the Board had the legal background for the issue.
Commr. Cadwell suggested the Board include the Lake County Medical Society in the discussion to ensure no action was taken that would be detrimental to legitimate doctors.
Commr. Conner and Commr. Campione agreed with Commr. Cadwell.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the Citizen Question and Comment Period.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk’s Office.
Announcement of Public Hearing
Request to acknowledge receipt of notice from the City of Mascotte announcing a Public Hearing to present the results of the County Road 33 (CR 33) Preliminary Engineering Study which will take place on Monday, December 6, 2010 as a part of the regular City Council meeting held at the Tedder-Thomas Memorial Civic Center, located at 121 N. Sunset Avenue, Mascotte, Florida 34753. The study pertains to the second of CR 33 from State Road 50 (CR 50) to Simon Brown Road.
Annual Financial Audit Report
Request to acknowledge receipt of one copy of the Annual Financial Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009 for the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District, pursuant to Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, and Section 189.418, Florida Statutes.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 2 through 3 as follows:
Request from Public Safety for approval of the Traffic Violation Agreements. Fiscal impact is $76,518 (estimated based on prior years’ payments).
Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2010-149 to Advertise Public Hearing, for the request to vacate ingress/egress easement, located in Section 26, Township 22S, Range 26E, in the Clermont area. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tab 4 as follows:
Request for approval of the six (6) partially executed Interlocal Agreements between Lake County, Lake-Sumter EMS and various Cities pertaining to Advanced Life Support (ALS) services. Authorization for the Chair to execute those agreements. Authorization for the County Manager to sign for distribution of MSTU funds as stipulated therein. Fiscal Impact $511,162.00.
vacation petition no. 1161 to vacate a drainage easement
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board regarding a petition to vacate a drainage easement located in section 13-19-25, in Leesburg. He described it as being in Commission District 1, just off of 473, north of 441, on the east side of the road. He noted it had been developed less than ten years ago into a subdivision and had been retrofitted. He explained as part of that, drainage easements and water retention areas had been put in on the site and the easement in question was for a pipe running along the property line. He stated the easement ran through the middle of the house, prompting the request to vacate. He displayed an aerial image of the property, stating they would be vacating everything in red, but the hashed out areas in blue and purple near the retention pond at the back of the house would be remaining, creating an additional right of way. He recommended approval of the easement for the pipe and the retention pond and vacating the easement where the house and yard were.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the original 30 feet easement was just for drainage.
Mr. Stivender responded yes, there was no ingress or egress; it was strictly for the purpose of draining.
Commr. Cadwell replied that at first look it had the appearance of being for lake access.
Mr. Stivender explained it had been constructed post plat and opined there had been a lot of haste in putting it together.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert Clark, a resident and member of the Homeowners’ Association of Fountain Lakes Development in Leesburg, addressed the Board asking where the new easement would be and how far it would be from the house.
Mr. Stivender replied the easement was along the property line, noting it was adjacent to the edge of the house because of a stormwater pipe currently underground in that location. He noted the County needed to retain an easement for the pipe itself and the easement ran out into the back yard where the retention pond was.
Mr. Clark asked how far the easement was from the house.
Mr. Stivender explained there was only about five or six feet between the edge of the property line and the house itself and that was where the pipe was located.
Mr. Clark asked if there was enough room to work on the pipe.
Mr. Stivender answered no, but it protected the integrity of the pipe and had an easement on it. He noted there would be difficulties repairing the pipe.
Mr. Clark expressed the HOA would have difficulties as well, opining the proposal was not a good idea unless they built an easement large enough to allow work on the pipe if there was a problem.
Mr. Stivender explained the house would have to be taken out, which would make it trickier, and they were trying to clear title for the house while preserving title to the easement and the pipe.
Mr. Clark objected to that because if the HOA had to work on the pipe they would need room to work on it, and if the County was not going to do it then it was up to them and so there must be a new easement that would be far enough away to allow them to work on the pipes.
Commr. Conner asked why could work be done on the pipes now and what was happening that would prevent them from being worked on in the future.
Mr. Stivender responded that no work had needed to be done on the pipe to this point because it was a new pipe.
Commr. Conner questioned if the County was taking away property in terms of access to the pipe.
Mr. Stivender replied it was private property with an easement on it, so no one had warranty to the property. He explained there was an easement to maintain the pipe, which was on the edge of the property, and they would retain the easement where the pipe was but vacate the easement where the house was so the owner would have clear title to it.
Commr. Conner asked how pipe access would be impacted.
Mr. Stivender responded access would be utilized by lining the pipe, not digging it up.
Commr. Conner asked how the residents would have less access to the pipe in the future.
Mr. Minkoff explained legally the County could require the house be moved to fix the pipe because the easement was created before the house was built, however Mr. Stivender was suggesting leaving the easement where the pipe was so it could be maintained either through lining or through hand work. He added it would allow for the house to be sold because currently the easement running through the house prevented it.
Commr. Conner asked how a house was built on an easement.
Commr. Campione explained it happened quite frequently.
Commr. Cadwell added the County vacated them all the time. He then asked Mr. Stivender how big the actual drainage pipe was.
Mr. Stivender answered it was a small pipe, either 24 or 18 inches.
Commr. Cadwell noted that even if it was next to the house and there was five feet, there was room there to work or line the pipe.
Commr. Parks suggested obtaining an agreement with the next-door neighbor for temporary access to allow the County to have equipment on their yard.
Mr. Clark commented the drawing the HOA was shown depicted the new proposed easement, and he asked where it was going to be located.
Mr. Stivender referred to the aerial image, saying it was part in blue, and describing it as five feet six inches wide and adding it was along the edge of the property.
Mr. Clark asked how the pipe would be worked on if there was no room for machinery.
Mr. Stivender responded he did not think he would be allowed to tear down the house to fix the pipe so Public Works would need to find a way to work within the right of way, noting since the site was a retrofit it would pose some challenges.
Commr. Cadwell agreed it was physically possible to work on the pipe with five feet of space.
Mr. Stivender mentioned there were many easements that were seven and a half feet wide and work was able to be completed within those dimensions. He stressed proposal would maintain the integrity of the easement on the pipe under a difficult situation.
Commr. Cadwell inquired who owned the roads in the development.
Mr. Stivender answered it was public rights of way.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the HOA or the County would be responsible if there was a problem with the drain.
Mr. Stivender clarified it was a County road, 3-5138.
Commr. Cadwell asked if it was part of the stormwater.
Mr. Stivender replied yes, so it would be up to the County to maintain it.
Commr. Campione specified it would be up to Public Works to deal with how to get in and do the work by hand while staying within the easement area; it would not be the responsibility of the HOA.
Mr. Clark asked if he could have that statement in writing.
Mr. Stivender stated they could clarify the position but he did not have the St. John’s Water Management District permit with him and per that the HOA may be responsible.
Mr. Clark remarked if the County would accept the responsibility he had no qualms.
Commr. Campione said she would agree, though it was possible the HOA had originally agreed to maintain stormwater improvements.
Commr. Hill asked if it could be made as part of the motion if accepted.
Mr. Minkoff responded if the Board approved it, he would be glad to put it in writing.
Mr. Clark asked if it would be part of the motion that the County would take responsibility for maintaining the pipe.
Commr. Hill said it was in her district and she approved the making of the motion.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and reserved comment to the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution No. 150, to vacate a drainage easement located in Section 13, Township 19S, Range 25E, in the Leesburg area including language stating the County would maintain the drainage easement.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
2011 legislative postitions
Mr. Minkoff addressed the Board regarding the Board’s 2011 Legislative Positions. He explained the list provided with the agenda was identical to what the Board approved the previous year with the exception of the elimination of ones that were no longer applicable. He mentioned it was for the Board to decide if they would keep those items listed or if they would add to them, it was not staff generated.
Commr. Campione expressed concern on the last three items which pertained to changes to the water management district enabling legislation. She discussed item number five and the lack of uniformity within the various municipalities regarding the implementation of more stringent water conservation restrictions when the elected body of a jurisdiction deemed those restrictions in the best interest of the community, noting there were instances with landscape and irrigation ordinances where the County wanted to be more restrictive but the water management district disagreed. She asked if there had been any input received from the cities.
Commr. Hill stated Mr. Gregg Welstead, Conservation and Compliance Director, was present and would be able to help answer questions. She added she thought they had input from all the cities.
Commr. Campione asked Mr. Welstead if the cities were asking the Board to support item five.
Mr. Welstead responded yes, to the best of his knowledge all of the cities had access to the information and had no negative comments. He noted all water management districts with the exception of St. John’s allowed local governments to impose more stringent requirements.
Commr. Campione asked if the legislature should dictate whether the local water management districts preempt or not.
Commr. Cadwell stated that was what they were asking. He mentioned the Congress of Regional Leaders was moving forward with a regional strategy which included all water management districts to have the same set of rules.
Commr. Campione remarked she felt better knowing the other water management districts were allowing local governments to enhance regulations beyond what the district required, adding she supported having uniform rules for the water management districts. She stressed that, in regards to the interface of conservation and consumptive use permitting, there should be financial incentive to taking additional water conservation measures.
Commr. Cadwell agreed and emphasized that people who were conserving water should not be penalized for doing the right thing.
Commr. Campione stated the Board was asking for the ability to treat the consumptive use permits differently if they deemed it was in the public’s interest not to support certain businesses such as water bottling plants. She commented doing so would put the County at an economic disadvantage because the plant could change location to a neighboring county while still drawing off the same water supply. She specified it was because of this disadvantage the County should receive benefits in return.
Mr. Welstead agreed.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Welstead to draw some generic language regarding not penalizing people who were taking measures to conserve water.
Commr. Campione added she knew the municipalities were having a difficult time going through the consumptive use permitting process and if they could receive the benefit of the Board adding those enhances conservation strategies; she thought that was what the Board needed to push for.
Commr. Hill asked to add the request the water management districts notify the Board of County Commissioners when someone requests a consumptive use permit. She asked if septic tanks were included in any of the environmental legislative positions.
Mr. Welstead answered that septic tanks were not.
Commr. Cadwell answered septic tanks were not under the guise of what they were talking about with the water restrictions.
Commr. Campione discussed the issue of water resource legislation with regard to the establishment of irrigation wells, noting a lot of people depended on irrigation wells and if the City did not offer an economical reuse alternative then the use of irrigation wells should not be penalized.
Commr. Cadwell agreed, but asked how the water use should be monitored, saying it was not fair to one man to have a large well while his neighbor was trying to conserve while on the City’s water.
Commr. Campione commented against the assumption the man with the well was wasting water, suggesting the utilization of test cases where people would volunteer to have their irrigation wells metered.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned the Board suggested it several years ago on a voluntary basis.
Commr. Campione explained the volunteers would provide the opportunity to compare data between those with irrigation wells and those without.
Commr. Conner noted the volunteers would not be wasting water. He stated because there was no regulation it was as if there were separate rules for people with wells and without.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that people with a well still needed to adhere to the water restrictions.
Mr. Welstead clarified that while people with wells were still under water restrictions, people paying for their water would be more likely to conserve it. He gave an example of a housing community that was mandated to go to a conservation rate structure, noting that while the utilities water usage went down, the number of irrigation wells increased. He explained that while the utility’s revenues decreased the water usage did not change, causing the utility company to raise their rates.
Commr. Cadwell recommended removing the irrigation wells issue off the list.
The Board discussed which legislation positions they would pull from the current list in order to include additional language and/or discuss at a later date, deciding to pull the request for changes to water resources legislation with regard to establishment of irrigation wells and the request for changes to water management district enabling legislation with regard to public interest determination.
Commr. Hill requested the status of the request to extend the deadline for the ADA voting system.
Mr. Minkoff responded it had passed.
Commr. Parks remarked there was no economic development legislation on the current list the Board was pushing or promoting.
Commr. Conner commented he remembered discussing the enterprise zone issue, but he thought there had been steps taken with regard to establishing some enterprise zones in Lake County.
Commr. Campione stated Representative Maddox had indicated he was interested in drafting a bill that would give the County more because currently it was not an option.
Ms. Dottie Keedy, Community Services Director, explained the County did not qualify because there were a limited number allowed in the State, but she read there was pending legislation that would help.
Commr. Campione commented she thought Representative Maddox wanted to sponsor a bill himself and suggested the Board send a message showing their support and a request to look at what he had established so the County’s economic staff could look at it.
Commr. Conner stated there was State money for enterprise zones, suggesting the County do what it could to meet the criteria for qualification.
Commr. Cadwell asked if there could be one sheet to support any legislation that would expand County government’s ability to create enterprise zones.
Commr. Conner clarified it would be to qualify for enterprise zones, and supported the suggestion.
The Board agreed to add language supporting any legislation that would expand County government’s ability to create enterprise zones to the list for final approval.
Mr. Minkoff summarized the Board’s decisions so far, stating they were eliminating number six, adding language in support of legislation allowing Lake County to qualify for enterprise zones, and adding language to numbers five and seven or creating a separate item that would provide they did not want the State to penalize entities that conserve water by reducing their consumptive use permit allocation.
Commr. Hill clarified they could eliminate number seven and incorporate the communication aspect into number five.
Commr. Cadwell stressed he supported the additional language and then asked Mr. Welstead if he was able to find the report.
Mr. Welstead provided a rough draft of the language to be added to the legislative position regarding enhanced water conservation initiatives. He explained the language stressed utilities would not lose their consumptive use permit allocation; it would stay with them and grow over a period of time. He added the language also addressed preemptive measures. He distributed the draft to the commissioners.
Commr. Hill stated it was a good first draft and it could be revised with the legal staff and put it in the same format.
Mr. Minkoff said they would replace number five with what Mr. Welstead had written, and then asked if number seven would still be eliminated from the list.
Commr. Hill answered yes and asked Mr. Minkoff to replace it with something for enterprise zones as previously discussed.
The Board discussed their final decisions on the list of their legislative positions.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved their 2011 Legislative Positions including the language submitted during discussion by Mr. Welstead, omitting numbers six and seven, and adding language in regards to expanding the ability of county government to qualify for enterprise zones.
Commr. Hill stated they approved it as such but they could amend it in January.
invoice from myregion.org
Commr. Cadwell explained the invoice was discussed during budget planning and noted the Board had decided to continue working with myregion.org. He clarified his focus had been with the Congress of Regional Leaders but there were other opportunities the Board could become involved with. He noted if the Central Florida Delegation joined with the Tampa Bay Delegation, as was the hope of myregion.org, then together they would have more votes than South Florida in the Florida Legislature. He noted myregion.org was reaching out to Tampa Bay and if the Tampa Bay Delegation joined with the Central Florida Delegation, then together they would have more votes in the Florida Legislature than South Florida. He recommended the Board continue to be a participant in myregion.org and to pay the invoice.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved payment of the myregion.org invoice.
economic development and community services
Transportation disadvantaged (paratransit) bus program
Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Division Director, addressed the Board requesting approval to apply for a grant under the Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 program to fund the Transportation Disadvantaged paratransit bus program in the fiscal year 2011-2012, also requesting approval of the supporting Resolution 2010-152 and acceptance and implementation of the grant if awarded. He noted the County currently had 17 buses that exceeded their useful life of 200,000 miles and/or 10 years, and was requesting to apply for the grant to purchase three new buses. He explained the total cost for the three vehicles was $216,750, of which the Federal Transit Administration would pay 80 percent of the cost, FDOT would pay ten percent, and the County would be responsible for the remaining $21,675. He specified the buses would be purchased under the State Transit Research Inspection Procurement Services Program.
Commr. Campione asked if the County’s fiscal impact was the $21,675.
Mr. Harley responded yes.
Commr. Campione suggested showing the fiscal impact in two parts, the overall as well as for the County.
Commr. Cadwell recommended showing one as incoming revenue and the other as what the County was actually spending.
Mr. Harley responded that on this particular grant the funds being awarded would not go directly to the County, the County only had to pay the ten percent.
The Board suggested only putting the County’s fiscal impact on the agenda item in the future.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request to apply for the Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 program grant, to accept and implement funds if awarded to purchase three new buses for the Transportation Disadvantaged paratransit bus program, and signature of supporting Resolution 2010-152.
transportation disadvantaged program
Mr. Harley addressed the Board requesting approval to apply for a grant under FDOT Section 5311 Program to fund to provide operating assistance for the Transportation Disadvantaged Paratransit Program in the fiscal year 2011-2012 budged, approval and signature of Resolution 2010-152, and acceptance and implementation of the grant award, if any. He explained the total cost was $945,292, with the County’s providing $472,676 of those funds in a 50/50 match with FDOT.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request to apply for the FDOT Section 5311 grant, acceptance and implementation of funds awarded, and the signature of Resolution 2010-152.
library advisory board
Mr. Minkoff stated the City of Mount Dora recommended Mr. Tom Eppich be appointed to the Library Advisory Board to serve an unexpired term ending on February 28, 2014.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board appointed Mr. Tom Eppich to the Library Advisory Board.
tourist development council
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2010-153 reappointing Ms. Terry March, Mr. Ray Goodgame, and Ms. Sanna Henderson to the Tourist Development Council for four-year terms beginning December 2, 2010.
REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER
Mr. Minkoff reminded the Board the County’s employee breakfast was being held on Thursday, December 16th, 2010, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. at the Agricultural Center.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
proclamation honoring martin luther king jr.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2010-154 honoring Martin Luther King Jr.
reports – commissioner parks – district 2
whistling pines foliage, inc.
Commr. Parks reported he would be visiting Whistling Pines Foliage, Inc., a nursery in Umatilla, between now and Christmas.
reports – commissioner conner – district 3
fiscal projections comparison
Commr. Conner reported the County was about $8 million better off at the end of the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year than what they had projected at the end of the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year. He expressed his gratitude to the County’s administration and workforce for their help in achieving that accomplishment.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER campione – vice chairman and district 4
economic development update
Commr. Campione reported receiving a large number of emails from the link on the County’s website prompting people to submit economic development ideas to the BCC. She also suggested extending the deadline to February 1, 2011 instead of the current deadline of January 15, 2010.
REPORTS – COMMISsIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5
the giving toy box event
Commr. Cadwell reported the success of The Giving Toy Box event, which was held on Sunday at the First Baptist Church of Umatilla on Sunday, December 12th. He noted that over 400 families and over 1,500 children benefitted from the program.
traffic light project update
Commr. Cadwell requested Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, give an update on a traffic light project at a subdivision in The Villages.
Mr. Stivender stated the project was currently on hold and he would be distributing a memo on the project at a later time.
Mr. Minkoff stated when he received the memo from Mr. Stivender on the project he would forward a copy to the Board.
Commr. Hill mentioned the planners on board would probably be interested in the project on a land planning basis for the whole strip, noting the planner might attempt to develop the properties so traffic patterns could be used instead of installing a traffic light.
Mr. Stivender clarified that when Public Works conducted a traffic management pattern for the two miles they strategically placed all open locations restrictive model from US 27 to the County line as part of the design and this was a preexisting situation. He added they still needed to get the easements, which were not going to be donated.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:19 a.m.
Jennifer Hill, chairman
NEIL KELLY, CLERK