A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
August 13, 2013
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 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: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Jimmy Conner, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Sean Parks; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: David Heath, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, 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
The Chairman asked for 30 seconds of silence and then led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Heath stated that Mr. Carey Baker, Lake County Property Appraiser, was present to discuss Tab 33, a request from Information Technology for approval of the interlocal agreement between the County and the Property Appraiser to transfer the Geographic Information Services (GIS) Parcel Base Map responsibility and three BCC GIS employees that maintain the parcel layers to the Property Appraiser’s Office. He suggested that Tab 33 be heard immediately after the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda. He also mentioned that a discussion of the PUD for the Bella Colina property and a request for a kitchen counter upgrade in an affordable housing program home needed to be added under Commr. Campione’s Report.
The Board consented to the changes to the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 21, 2013 (Regular Meeting) and July 9, 2013 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
Ms. Susan Irby, Employee Services Director, presented the following employee awards:
Sandra Lara, Library Assistant II
Public Resources/Library Services Division
Dianna Magrum, Document Services Associate (Not Present)
Fiscal & Administrative Services/Document Services Division
Danny McCullough, Network Technician
Public Resources/Library Services Division
Alvin Padgett, Equipment Operator III (Not Present)
Public Works/Road Operations Division
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Jon Pospisil, a resident of Goldenrod and a representative of the Lake Beautyberry Chapter of the Florida Natural Plant Society, stated that they were looking to establish a place in South Lake County to display landscaping using only native plants for residents to view and hopefully be motivated to plant native plants in their yards. He mentioned that County staff had worked with his group and suggested the Minneola Athletic Complex (MAC) as an ideal location for this project. He requested that the Board consider creating a policy that any future planting done at the MAC only consist of native plants, the landscaping be designed in assistance with the students studying Landscape Architecture, and volunteers be enlisted to maintain the park.
Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Pospisil and expressed his support of the use of native plants at the MAC.
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 5, 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.
Ordinances from the Town of Lady Lake
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinances from the Town of Lady Lake, as follows:
Ordinance No. 2013-02 – Amending the Memorandum of Agreement for the Planned Unit Development for property owned by Hilltop Manors Inc.
Ordinance No. 2013-04 – Amending Section 13-21 of the Town of Lady Lake Code of Ordinances entitled Levy and Purpose, for the purposes of suspending the collection of supplemental educational assistance fees retroactively from April 1, 2013 until January 1, 2014.
Ordinance No. 2013-05 – Amending Ordinance No. 81-1-(83), which established the Town of Lady Lake Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance No. 2013-06 – Redesignating zoning classification for property being 8.22+/- acres of land owned by J.T. Beahan, IV.
Ordinance No. 2013-07 – Amending the Town of Lady Lake Land Development Regulations (Ordinance No. 94-08).
Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District FY 2013/14 Meeting Schedule
Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution 2013-05 identifying the Fiscal Year 2013/2014 meeting schedule for Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District.
Cascades at Groveland Community Development District FY 2013/14 Meeting Schedule
Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution 2013-08 identifying the Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Meeting Schedule for Cascades at Groveland Community Development District.
Proof of Publication of Unclaimed Moneys and Payments to the Board
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Proof of Publication of unclaimed moneys and payments to the Board for those non-court related moneys advertised less claims and publication costs.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Conner stated that he supported Tab 10, a request from Public Resources regarding the contract for construction of the parking and path system for the MAC, but requested that it be pulled for a separate vote because he had some questions regarding the agenda item.
Commr. Campione commented on Tab 8, a request from Growth Management for approval of a resolution regarding an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) with the City of Mount Dora, stating that the resolution was initiated in order to address the Employment Center area and would be a little different than other ISBAs the Board had worked on.
Commr. Cadwell asked if this meant that the City of Mount Dora only wanted that particular area in the ISBA and not the entire city.
Mr. Heath replied that that was correct.
Commr. Campione commented that they would likely need to involve the entire Golden Triangle area if all of Mount Dora was involved, so it was preferable to begin with the area encompassing the Employment Center and take on the larger area at a later time.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 24, pulling Tab 10 for a separate vote, as follows:
Request to approve the Amendment to the City of Leesburg Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) 1 Agreement. The fiscal impact is $149,316.94 (Expense). Also, requesting approval of the Resolution No. 2013-82 for Unanticipated Revenue returned from the City of Leesburg in the amount of $88,723.29.
Conservation and Compliance
Request for approval to award contract 13-0031 for provision of on-site veterinary services at the Animal Services Center to Dragonfly Equine Medical Services (Eustis), and authorize the procurement office to complete additional awards as described in the background summary. The annual fiscal impact for the services to be provided by this vendor is $24,200. The total annual fiscal impact anticipated for all veterinary services of this nature is $40,000.
Request for approval to transfer funds in the amount of $20,000 for the spay/neuter rebate program approved by the Board on May 21, 2013. The total fiscal impact of the program will be $50,000 as approved.
Economic Development and Tourism
Request to approve payment of the MyRegion.org invoice for Lake County's 2013 assessment. The fiscal impact is $10,000.
Request to approve and execute a Satisfaction of Lien for Daniel J. Minor, who has paid the civil citation for unlicensed contracting. There is no fiscal impact.
Request to approve Resolution No. 2013-81 responding to Mt. Dora Resolution 2013-12, initiating the process pursuant to Section 171.203 F.S. for negotiating an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement. The fiscal impact is undetermined.
Request for approval to award contract(s) 13-0434 for Restoration and Land Management Tasks to three vendors: Habitat Restoration & Wildlife Protection Services (13-0434A), Eustis, Florida, Kleinfelder (13-0434B), Mt. Dora, Florida, and Mitigation Resources, Inc. (13-043C), Clermont, Florida. The fiscal impact for FY2014 is estimated at $301,000 (Expenditure). This is a reduction of 16.5% from the current year budgeted amount of $360,500.
Request for the Board to accept a contribution to the Lake County Fire Department by Wolverine Advanced Materials, Leesburg, Florida. This money will be used to purchase a rescue mannequin for use during training evolutions. The fiscal impact is $1,500 (Revenue).
Request to approve a transfer in the amount of $47,000 from Public Safety/Fire Rescue repair and maintenance operating budget to capital expense budget for driveway replacement at Lake County Fire Station 59 (Lewis Road, Leesburg).
Request for approval to award contract for the purchase of mosquito control insecticide chemicals to Adapco, and authorize the Procurement Office to execute all supporting documentation. The fiscal impact is estimated to be $174,269.
Request for approval of contract for the purchase and removal of Lake County’s loose co-mingle containers and deposited materials, and authorize the Procurement Office to execute all supporting documentation. This is a revenue contract involving no expense to the County. Revenue from this award is estimated at $45,300 per fiscal year.
Request for approval of contract for the purchase and removal of loose mixed paper materials placed in County’s landfill and authorize the Procurement Office to execute all supporting documentation. This is a revenue contract involving no expense to the County. Revenue from this contract award is estimated at $105,000 per fiscal year.
Request for approval to award contract for Storm Water Pipe/Water Quality Unit Cleaning, Video Recording, and Related Services to Estep Construction, and authorize the Procurement Office to execute all supporting documentation. The fiscal impact is $50,000 - Expenditure (Estimated).
Request to approve a Purchase Agreement with Joseph C. Burke, Jr. for the purchase of strips of land to be used for right of way and a perpetual easement for the C466A Phase 1A Roadway Construction Project in the Fruitland Park area. Also, to authorize for the Chairman of the BCC to sign any and all documents necessary for closing, in conjunction with said C466A Phase 1A Roadway Construction Project. The fiscal impact is $277,500.00. Commission District 5.
Request for approval to award contract 13-0440, Traffic Striping and Marking to Oglesby Construction, Inc. (Sanford, FL), and authorize Procurement Services to execute the related documents. The annual fiscal impact is estimated at $347,000.
Request for approval to accept the attached list of public right of way deeds that have been secured in conjunction with roadway and / or stormwater projects (Commission Districts 2 & 5). There is no fiscal impact. And approval to accept a Conservation Easement Deed secured through Growth Management Planning & Community Design (Commission District 5). There is no fiscal impact.
Request for authorization to award Alfred Street One Way Pair, Project No. 2013-07; Bid No. 13-0038, to DeWitt Excavating, Inc. The fiscal impact is $5,599,151.46. Commission District 3.
Request to approve Resolution No. 2013-83 authorizing the posting of “NO PARKING ON RIGHT OF WAY” signs at the intersection of Hull Road (0942) and Lakeshore Drive (1040) in the Clermont area, Section 1 Township 23, Range 25, Commissioner District 2. There is no fiscal impact.
Request to approve a License Agreement with Community Supports, Inc. for the purpose of constructing an access drive into the Lakeview Terrace Development, which will also serve as a new connection for West Altoona Rd. (#8272) to S.R. 19. The License Agreement also allows for a sign, landscaping and irrigation within County railroad property in the Umatilla area according to plans attached to the Agreement. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 5.
Request for approval to amend contract 13-0417 Roadside Mowing and Litter Removal (Area A) awarded to Groundtek of Central Florida (Ocoee, FL), to include provision of services in Area B, and approve termination of the existing contract for those services. The fiscal impact for the balance of FY2013 is $25,376.40. The annual fiscal impact for the services is $60,483.60.
Request for approval of Arthropod Control Budget Amendment #2 amending State Funds; transfer from Travel and Per Diem and Training to Chemicals. There is no fiscal impact.
contract for Construction of MAC Parking and Path System
Commr. Conner stated that he supported the MAC but was unclear about where the funding for the project was coming from.
Mr. Heath replied that the project was being funded through sales tax and impact fees.
Commr. Conner asked if this were the type of project that would be affected if the Board needed to use sales tax funds next year as it was doing this year.
Mr. Heath replied that it could have an impact on this type of project if the Board wanted to use the Infrastructure Sales Tax as a basis to balance the budget.
Commr. Campione clarified that this year the Board was using the Sales Tax to pay for debt service on an infrastructure project, which was considered an allowable use.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request from Public Resources to award contract 13-0437 for Construction of the Minneola Athletic Complex Parking and Path System to Paqco, Inc. (Leesburg, Florida). The fiscal impact is $294,975.00. Commission District 2.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’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 Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 25 through 29 as follows:
Request for approval and execution of a lease agreement between Lake County and the Lake Agriculture and Youth Fair Association, Inc. for the use of the Lake County Expo Center/Fairgrounds and buildings from March 28, 2014 through April 16, 2014.
Request for approval of renewal of Lease Agreement with Etheredge Limited Partnership for Health Department lease space located at 3261 U.S. Highway 27/441, Fruitland Park.
Request for approval and execution of School Impact Fee Agreement between Lake County and Shantiniketan Developers 2, LLC.
Request for approval of Mutual Release and Settlement of Claims between Donald P. Watson and Christine H. Watson and Lake County.
Request for approval to cancel the Mortgage and release the Note executed by Richard and Nerylis Brown on December 12, 2007, and recorded at O.R. Book 3555, Page 672, and re-recorded at O.R. Book 3583, Page 1854, upon receipt of the $2,250 payment. Fiscal Impact: The original loan amount was $10,000; recovery will be $2,250.
Transfer of gis parcel base map responsibility
Mr. Steve Earls, Information Technology Director, began a presentation to discuss the proposed interlocal agreement between Lake County and the Lake County Property Appraiser (LCPA) for the transfer of the GIS Parcel Team, which consists of three BCC employees, and the Parcel Base Map duties to his office. He defined GIS as a computer technology providing a systematic way to collect and manage location-based information which could then be used to generate maps and reports. He mentioned that the Parcel Team currently worked closely with the LCPA to incorporate property record changes into the Parcel Base Map, which was completed in 2007, and ensured that the map was maintained and current. He noted that GIS applications were used throughout various County departments as well as Lake EMS, the Sheriff’s Office, the LCPA, and by citizens. He stated that the LCPA used GIS in developing the tax roll and that there would be no adverse impacts from the proposed transfer.
Mr. Carey Baker, Lake County Property Appraiser, introduced Mr. Michael Prestridge as the new Chief Deputy Property Appraiser. He then explained that the Florida Administrative Code required that each county’s property appraiser should have and maintain aerial photography suitable for the needs of his office as well as property ownership maps for the county. He reported that creation and maintenance of the Parcel Base Map by the LCPA was considered a “Best Practice” by the International Association of Assessing Officers, and the majority of counties nationally followed this model. He explained that parcel mapping was unique from other GIS functions because the parcel mappers needed to be skilled in mathematics, survey law and title law in addition to GIS processes, and emphasized that an accurate map was required to produce a fair and equitable tax roll. He remarked that transferring the three BCC employees would eliminate redundancy and allow the LCPA to eliminate manual mapping. He added that it would also allow for greater oversight and quality control, and establish the foundation to eventually create and grow the use of GIS as a tool in the development and assurance of a fair and equitable tax roll.
Commr. Cadwell commented that the transfer would also help with issues concerning the Value Adjustment Board.
Mr. Baker replied that it would help the LCPA defend the values it listed for properties as well as help citizens research their property values.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the three BCC employees possessed the necessary skills set mentioned earlier.
Mr. Baker replied that they did, and that the problems that occurred in the past were due to separation of the GIS Parcel Team and the LCPA. He noted that the same three people currently comprising the GIS Parcel Team would be the ones to make the move.
Mr. Earls stated that the purpose of the interlocal agreement was for the LCPA to obtain in-house GIS services through the transfer of three BCC-employed GIS personnel consisting of a Land Records Coordinator and two Senior GIS Analysts and their computer workstations to the LCPA’s staff and employ beginning October 1, 2013 for Fiscal Year 2013/14. He specified that the BCC would pay out eligible annual and sick leave accrued by the employees upon transfer, and thereafter the LPCA would assume all responsibility for payment of salaries and benefits as well as any equipment needs. He noted that the BCC would pay the core cost for the GIS system used by the BCC and LCPA, but all GIS software licensing costs for the workstations of the transferred employees would be provided by the LCPA. He added that the interlocal agreement would automatically renew annually for additional one-year terms, and the agreement could be terminated at any time with a 60-day written notice. He stated that the transfer would be seamless to all departments and the citizens, and all GIS data would still be stored on the County GIS servers, accessible and available to all County departments and Constitutional Officers. He added that the remainder of the GIS Division would continue to work in the GIS office located on the first floor of the County Administration Building and continue to provide addressing, perform GIS analysis, maintain other data layers of the GIS map, and create new layers as needed. He recommended approval of the interlocal agreement.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the interlocal agreement with the LCPA to transfer the GIS Parcel Base Map, responsibility for the map and three BCC GIS Employees who maintain the parcel layers to the LCPA.
Goodwill industries job services and economic impact
Mr. Robert Chandler, Economic Development and Tourism Director, commented that Goodwill Industries served a much needed but sometimes poorly understood role in economic development. He then introduced Mr. Bill Oakley, CEO of Goodwill Industries of Central Florida, and noted that Mr. Oakley had over 40 years of experience with Goodwill and had been with Goodwill Industries of Central Florida since 2010.
Mr. Oakley reported that Goodwill Industries has been in Central Florida for 52 years and served six counties including Lake County. He commented that the Goodwill store that opened in Clermont in April of 2013 was the third Goodwill thrift store in Lake County, with the other two located in Eustis and Leesburg, and the three stores created work opportunities for 78 people. He stated that Goodwill Industries also helped people with barriers to employment including disability and other challenges to get and keep a job and to acquire skills necessary for the job search in order to help them become self-sufficient. He explained job training and other services to help people in the community find good jobs were funded through the proceeds generated from the sale of donated items, and these employment services were all free of charge. He stated that two of the eight job connection centers in Central Florida were located in Lake County, with one in Leesburg and the other in Clermont. He reported that 27,500 people received Goodwill services throughout Central Florida last year, with over 5,300 people placed in jobs and an estimated economic impact for the region of $82,194,944. He specified that the Leesburg Job Connection Center served 13,600 people and placed 3,582 in jobs between March 2007 and June 2013, and the Clermont Job Connection Center had served 261 people and placed 36 in jobs between May and June of 2013, and he estimated that those people would earn a combined total of $43,402,975 in one year if they worked an average of 30 hours per week at $7.69 an hour, which had a significant economic impact to the County. He mentioned that Goodwill was finding increased competition in the thrift store market, especially concerning where generous citizens could donate their items, so Goodwill was creating donation expresses. He stated that the first of several donation expresses anticipated to open over the next few years would hopefully be in Leesburg, and would make the donation process more convenient. He also noted that Goodwill Industries worked with Workforce Central Florida and was interested in building a deeper relationship with that organization. He suggested that the BCC should have a designated donation day for staff and that he could work with staff to help coordinate this effort.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he had been at the groundbreaking for the Clermont Goodwill thrift store, and he thanked Goodwill Industries for their efforts. He agreed that the donation drive would be a good idea and that he would like to participate.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Heath to see if any of the departments wanted to sponsor the drive and suggested that the BCC could recognize the department that collected the most items.
Commr. Heath asked if any of the commissioners would like to head the project.
Commr. Sullivan volunteered to head the project.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the donation drive take place over an entire month instead of one specific day to allow for more opportunities to donate. He then asked Mr. Oakley to send him information regarding the statistics on the people placed in full time employment with the help of Goodwill Industries.
2013 hurricane season update
Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Emergency Management Division Manager, addressed the Board to provide an overview of the 2013 hurricane season. He stated that Hurricane Donna, a Category 3 storm which occurred in 1960, was the last hurricane to directly hit Lake County, and even though a number of storms had impacted the county since then, none since Hurricane Donna had actually impacted the county with hurricane-force winds of 74 mph or greater. He reported that the emergency shelters were last opened county-wide was in 2004, though individual shelters had been opened as needed for localized emergencies, and the last full activation of the Emergency Operation Center was the Groundhog Day Tornadoes in 2007. He reported that 2012 was considered an above-average year with 19 named storms, ten of which became hurricanes with only one major hurricane, and three of which made landfall: Tropical Storm Debbie in north Florida, Hurricane Isaac in Louisiana, and Super Storm Sandy in New York and New Jersey. He mentioned that the prediction for 2012 had been for 12 to 17 named storms, with five to eight becoming hurricanes and two or three of those hurricanes becoming major hurricanes. He noted that scientists had observed that while the trend showed more storms overall, there had been fewer major hurricanes; however, those major hurricanes formed quicker and tended to be more intense. He stated that 2013 had already seen four named storms, and then he reported that Colorado State University predicted 18 named storms, with nine of those becoming hurricanes and four of which would be major hurricanes, and the National Hurricane Center forecasted 13 to 20 named storms of which seven to 11 would become hurricanes with three to six turning into major hurricanes. He stated that both predicted an above-average hurricane season for 2013.
Mr. Carpenter then reviewed what citizens could do to prepare for a hurricane. He stated that citizens should have a personal/family disaster plan established before the risk of a hurricane arises, as well as a disaster supply kit including water and food for each family member and pets, a plan for pets in case of an emergency, and a battery-powered NOAA weather radio. He added that it was also a good idea to have important documents in a waterproof container and have cash on hand. He stated that during the storm citizens should know where the safest room in the house is and monitor local media as well as the weather radio for updates. He added that citizens should stay away from doors, windows and skylights. He stated that residents should use a radio or television to get the latest information after a hurricane and stay away from downed or damaged power lines, be careful and cautious regarding food that might have spoiled, and use proper safety equipment when cleaning up debris. He added that it was also a good idea for citizens to take photos of the damage to their homes and possessions for insurance purposes, drive only when necessary, and contact family as soon as possible. He reminded everyone that it was important to remain vigilant despite the slow start to the 2013 hurricane season.
county manager’s departmental business
Pain management clinic moratorium
Ms. Dotty Keedy, Community Services Director, recapped that the BCC had adopted Ordinance No. 2011-14 implementing a one-year moratorium on pain management clinics in the unincorporated areas of the County and also directed staff to analyze the effects of the clinics on communities and to prepare recommendations if necessary for local regulations. She mentioned that the moratorium had been extended in August 2012, February 2013 and July 2013, and would expire on October 1, 2013. She noted that since 2009, State Legislators had enacted regulations to curb prescription drug abuse including the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, requiring the registration of pain management clinics with the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), and requiring physicians to perform physical exams on the same day controlled substances are prescribed or disbursed. She mentioned that in 2010 a national list was compiled of the top 100 pharmacies which distributed Oxycodone, and 58 of those pharmacies were in Florida, but after State regulations on pain management clinics were established the number was reduced to 21 in 2011 and only four in 2012. She reported that the number of pain management clinics in Florida had been reduced from 921 in June of 2010 to 444 in June of 2012 according to the FDOH, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office reported a significant decline in the number of arrests for abuse of prescription pain medication since the implementation of the statewide database, and the District 5 Medical Examiner’s Office reported that Lake County had seen a decrease in prescription drug related deaths from 191 in 2012 to 142 in 2012. She mentioned that a number of Florida counties had enacted local regulations in an effort to reduce the prescription drug abuse problem which included regulations on zoning districts, distance requirements, hours of operations, and signage. She stated that there were some issues with local regulations including establishing the definition of a “Pain Management Clinic,” whether the regulations would be countywide or only for unincorporated areas, and whether the regulations would be implemented through Land Development Regulations or the County Code. She added that the Board would also need to decide whether physicians and/or pharmacies and pharmacists would be regulated and decide the method of regulations. She mentioned that regulations could cause impacts to legitimate pain management clinics.
Ms. Keedy then stated that the County had been experiencing a significant problem with prescription drug abuse prior to the enactment of the moratorium, and it appeared that the State regulations had had a positive impact on the problem based on the statistics presented. She remarked that there were issues related to local regulations such as limited staffing and budget impacts, and that there was a greater risk of a legal challenge the longer the moratorium existed, though she noted that there had been no request for new pain management clinics in unincorporated Lake County since the moratorium was enacted. She stated that staff recommended the moratorium be extended for one additional year until September 30, 2014 and for staff to continue monitoring trends related to existing regulations, and she requested that the Board approve this recommendation.
Mr. Minkoff stated that his office had worked with Ms. Keedy on the recommendation, and based on the circumstances, he thought it was a defensible position.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the State Legislature was planning to attempt to enact additional regulations on pain clinics.
Mr. Minkoff replied that the big issue last year was that the State wanted to eliminate the ability of local governments to regulate pain management clinics in any way, and he opined that there might be some similar legislation introduced next year.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he supported continuing the moratorium but opined that additional measures would eventually need to be taken.
Commr. Campione suggested that staff collect information about the counties that had local regulations to see what was working for them to help determine what the best solution for Lake County would be.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved for staff to advertise an ordinance extending the moratorium on pain management clinics until September 30, 2014.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
The Chairman announced at 10:10 a.m. that there would be a ten-minute recess.
contracts for the collection and disposal of solid waste
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, addressed the Board to review the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the collection and disposal of solid waste in the County. He recapped that the County contract with Covanta for the disposal of solid waste was set to expire on June 30, 2014, and the current contracts for collection with Waste Management and Waste Services would expire on September 30, 2014. He noted that the County would be disposing of solid waste at a local landfill during the three months between the end of the Covanta contract and the start of the new disposal contracts. He mentioned that the BCC approved the creation of the Solid Waste Alternative Task Force (SWATF) in September 2009 to evaluate various collection and disposal options for the County, and the group held 24 meetings between May 2010 and July 2011. He stated that the SWATF presented a list of 22 recommendations to the BCC on February 14, 2012, which the Board approved. He reviewed all 22 of the recommendations including universal collection, increased citizen education regarding recycling as well as the implementation of single stream recycling, and establishing a one-one-one collection schedule of one day for garbage, one day for recycling and one day for yard waste. He stressed that the SWATF was very adamant about ensuring the methods of collection and disposal were both environmentally and economically efficient. He reviewed the timeline since the BCC approved the SWATF recommendations, mentioning that the RFPs were solicited on February 22, 2013.
Mr. Skip McCall, Solid Waste Division Manager, continued the presentation, discussing the evaluation criteria for the disposal services RFP. He reported that the vendors submitted a price per ton bid for the disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) for one, two, or all three service areas in the County, and the County dedicated tonnages to specific sites but would not guarantee a minimum amount. He added that all unincorporated yard waste would be delivered to the County’s Central Solid Waste Facility because it was recommended by the SWATF to increase the reuse of yard waste, and staff had found a company that would come in and mulch the materials on site before hauling it off and using it as an alternative fuel source, and all at a cost of $8.73 per ton. He reviewed the evaluation criteria for the collections services RFP, stating that the vendors submitted a proposal for automated and semi-automated once per week garbage collection designated to specific disposal sites, automated and semi-automated once per week single-stream recycling collection, and once per week yard waste collection. He added that the vendors would provide various sized garbage and yard waste carts to the residents, and he also specified that trash and recycling would be picked up on the same day so trucks would move through service areas only twice per week. He also noted that the RFPs included on-call bulk pickup within 72 hours and an option for a second day of trash collection. He reviewed the pricing of the four vendors that had responded to the disposal RFP, stating that the responses had ranged from $19 per ton up to $42 per ton and that the estimated countywide total cost for each vendor was calculated based on 69,000 tons of MSW in the unincorporated areas. He commented that the new Heart of Florida facility in Bushnell had submitted the lowest bid at $19 per ton for countywide service, and he reported that the facility was permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), had an excessive life of almost 80 years, was a very large facility, and that the facility had contracts with Marion County and Sumter County and was currently receiving waste. He reviewed the pricing of the five vendors that responded to the collection RFP, noting that the vendors had placed bids for five disposal sites, and the costs displayed for the Board assumed Heart of Florida would be the primary disposal site because that facility was the lowest bid. He stated that the bids ranged from $11.47 per ton to $23.49 per ton for three different service areas, with the total estimated annual price based on 66,000 total residents. He also reported that bids had also been received for the cost of an additional trash pickup day, and the amounts presented to the Board assumed Heart of Florida was the primary disposal site and were in addition to the base rates presented earlier.
Mr. Stivender stated that the Procurement Committee recommended Heart of Florida to provide disposal services for all three service areas based on the bid rate of $19 per ton, with the Central Solid Waste Facility serving as the alternate disposal facility, and that Waste Connections cover Service Area 1, Waste Services cover Service Area 2, and Waste Pro cover Service Area 3 for collection services. He commented that the staff and consultant analysis had looked into the proposer’s ability to perform services required under the agreement, their experience and qualifications as well as their prior performance, the responsiveness and completeness of their proposal as instructed within the RFP, and the cost of their services, all to ensure that the County would receive a solid product from the vendors. He added that they had wanted a minimum of two vendors for collection services, though the preference was for three, and that desire for diversity was why one of the recommendations was for the second lowest vendor instead of the lowest. He then reported that the next steps included for the communication and outreach campaign contract to come before the Board on September 10th for approval, for the collection contract transition plan to begin on October 1st to provide as smooth a transition in trash services for residents as possible, and for the Board to have a workshop on October 22nd regarding working out the details for second day trash collection, assessment billing, and the consultant’s communication and outreach plan. He added that they would have a workshop on the Enterprise Fund in 2014, and he noted that the disposal contract was set to expire on June 30, 2014, the collection contracts expired on September 30, 2014, and the new disposal and collection plan would be implemented on October 1, 2014. He requested that the Board award the disposal contract for all three service areas to the Heart of Florida (A.C.M.S.), award the collection contract for Service Area 1 to Waste Connections (W.C.A.), award the collection contract for Service Area 2 to Waste Services (W.S.I.), and award the collection contract for Service Area 3 to Waste Pro.
Mr. Heath mentioned that all of the vendors were present and two of the vendors had asked the Chairman for additional time to speak during the public hearing this morning. He recommended that the Board not allow any existing or proposed vendors to speak during the public comment, because responses had already been received for the RFP, and allowing information outside from their responses to the RFP could become problematic. He also recommended that the Board either approve the recommendation as presented or vote to throw out all of the bids and have staff start the process over again should they not agree with any or all of the recommendations.
The Chairman stated that she agreed with Mr. Heath’s recommendation that the vendors not be allowed to talk during the public comment. She then passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman.
Commr. Campione moved to reject all of the bids, go back to the drawing board, and negotiate with the existing providers.
The motion died from lack of a second.
Commr. Conner asked Mr. Stivender to address the option for second day pickup and the option for residents to not use the supplied trash bins, explaining that those were the primary concerns of the residents that had contacted him.
Mr. Stivender explained that the RFP included the flexibility for housing developments or subdivisions to have the option of putting trash bags on the curb instead of using the provided trash bins as well as the option to elect to have a second day of trash collection. He specified that staff would sit down with the vendors once the contracts were approved to discuss each of those two options, identify which communities were choosing the use of trash bags and/or second day collection, and then calculate the additional costs to those communities based off of the bids submitted.
Commr. Campione asked if residents who did not live in a subdivision would have either of those two options, mentioning that North Lake residents were concerned about not having second day pickup because of the risk of animals tearing through the trash.
Mr. Stivender explained that it would be difficult to attempt a second day of collection for individual residences, and he mentioned that some areas of Lake County currently only received one day of trash collection because of the logistics of getting to those residents.
Commr. Campione commented that both residents who lived on dirt roads and those who lived on paved, county-maintained roads who did not live in subdivisions and who were unhappy that they would not continue to have two days of trash collection.
Mr. Stivender replied that the Board had approved the one-one-one plan for one day of trash, recycling, and yard waste a year ago, and so that was how the RFP was written.
Commr. Cadwell reiterated that it was organized areas such as gated communities that could make the decision for a second day of trash collection for their entire community, but residents could not pick and choose individually. He then asked residents to give the one-one-one collection plan a try before assuming that it would not work. He explained that the City of Umatilla had once a week trash collection, and he had not had any problem adjusting once the City had switched to the larger trash cans. He added that the once per week collection works if residents recycle the items that are supposed to be recycled, and the larger trash cans helped prevent animal problems.
Commr. Campione suggested maintaining the county-wide two-day trash collection.
Commr. Cadwell opined that residents would be glad that the garbage trucks were not driving down the road an additional day, because it would mitigate damages to the roads.
Commr. Parks remarked that they needed to move forward with the solid waste contracts, stating that the cities of Clermont and Minneola were waiting to discuss their solid waste contracts to see if they could get a better deal for their residents based on the contracts approved by the Board. He mentioned that he had received complaints from residents concerning the lack of second day trash collection and suggested discussing the possibility of changing the proposed contracts so that the default position was that everyone had two-day trash collection and communities could then opt to go down to one day of trash collection if they wanted.
Commr. Campione reminded Commr. Parks that they would need to throw out all the bids and start over if the Board wanted to do that because that was not how the RFP was written.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that Commr. Parks’ suggestion did not address the residents that did not live in an organized housing development or subdivision and that they could not pick and choose which streets or which individuals would receive one or two day collection. He remarked that the Board had decided it was be best for the County to go to the one-one-one option, and he opined that overall the one-one-one plan was adequate.
Commr. Sullivan stated that he lived in a community that used the one-one-one collection method and he agreed with Commr. Cadwell that it worked well. He added that part of what the Board wanted to accomplish was to reduce the flow of solid waste and increase recycling. He stated that he was comfortable moving forward with the proposals presented.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Stivender why there was an emphasis on having three vendors for collection.
Mr. Stivender explained that having three vendors provided a fallback should something happen to one of the other vendors in order to maintain customer service within the County.
Commr. Conner opined that although all of the companies that were being considered were good, solid companies, he agreed with having three haulers for solid waste for the above mentioned reason.
Commr. Campione commented that the RFP had included a minimum requirement for the number of years that haulers needed to be in the waste hauling business, and she asked if the same requirement had been included for the disposal facility because it was her understanding that the Heart of Florida site was completely new.
Mr. Stivender replied that the issue of Heart of Florida being new was something that the committee had discussed at length, and the fact that Marion County had made a huge waste commitment to that site helped provide a level of comfort regarding the site’s long term commitment in the Central Florida area.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that both the disposal and collection contracts had significant performance guarantees that required either bonds or cash backups to guarantee performance.
Commr. Campione expressed concern that an exception was made for the disposal site but not for haulers, because haulers were not allowed a chance to bid if they did not meet the minimum requirements for experience and prior performance. She added that the SWATF had recommended that the environmental impact of the disposal method be evaluated and that adverse environmental factors might justify choosing a more expensive disposal option, but she did not see anything in the recommendations of the Committee that took the environmental factors into consideration.
Mr. Stivender replied that single-stream recycling had been identified as the best method to address environmental concerns by reducing the amount of material going to the landfill. He commented that they would not be sending as much waste to the disposal site if the county could recycle and compost more, and that point would be included as a part of the advertising campaign.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the SWATF recommendation had including choosing more than one option for disposal.
Mr. Stivender confirmed that the County had a 20-acre landfill site that was good for 16 to 17 years for waste disposal.
Commr. Campione opined that while the SWATF had considered the County’s landfill as an option, the way the recommendation was worded implied that more than one outside disposal facility could be considered. She stated that it was a good recommendation and something the Board should be considering, and it was another reason she did not support moving forward with the proposed bids.
Commr. Cadwell opined that Marion County would not invest $20 million in the Heart of Florida if that landfill was not state of the art and did not meet every regulation required. He remarked that he did not know if a new landfill was a bad thing because it would be built to higher standards than the County’s own landfill. He commented that the County’s landfill would serve as backup, and he was sure the other vendors would step forward to help if something did not work.
Commr. Campione explained that her understanding of the SWATF recommendations was that environmental factors would be considered beyond the design, permitting and regulation of a landfill, and she opined that burning trash to make electricity was a form of recycling and therefore a better disposal method than burying it in a landfill.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was not anti-incineration, and he had worked to try to get a better contract with Covanta for the County. He remarked that he had hoped Covanta’s bid would have been competitive so they could have continued working together, but Covanta’s bid was too high.
Commr. Parks remarked that he had also hoped incineration would have been a cost effective option. He then commented that waste stream reduction was an important environmental factor and that recycling was two to three times more energy efficient than converting raw materials. He added that there were pros and cons to each option, but he agreed with Commr. Cadwell that the $1.2 million difference between Covanta and Heart of Florida could not be disregarded.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and stated that no vendors would be allowed to speak at this time.
Commr. Cadwell noted that no vendors filed a protest to the RFP.
Mr. George Waters, a resident of The Plantation at Leesburg, addressed the Board stating that he first moved to Lake County from California, and he had been very happy to see how far ahead Lake County was compared to California in how it put people before causes, which gave him a high regard for the County and the public service it provides. He added that he had been pleased that the County had twice a week trash collection, which was great in hot weather, and that the trash collectors would pick up almost anything, which prevented trash from building up alongside the road. He also mentioned that he loved the idea of burning garbage to create energy instead of putting the waste in a landfill. He commented that there was no reason the one-one-one plan could not be changed if the Board believed that public service was of a higher value because the Board could make any change they wanted as long as they used the bids provided from the RFP. He noted that the bids presented showed an increase in monthly cost for second-day collection, but it did not show what the annual cost per household would be in order for residents to see how much they would be paying. He read a letter that he had received that morning from an anonymous source who stated that one of the incentives for moving to Lake County was the twice per week trash collection. He then opined that it would be difficult to get an entire housing community to vote on whether they should have once or twice per week trash collection.
Commr. Cadwell estimated that the increase in cost per resident for twice per week collection where Mr. Waters lived would be $36.
Mr. Waters asked how much the total waste collection would cost and if that total cost was more than they were paying now.
Commr. Campione remarked that she did not think the Board had that information currently, which was a problem, and she reiterated that the Board should throw the bids out.
Ms. Mary Reed, a resident of The Planation at Leesburg, addressed the Board stating that she was glad they were discussing the issue of twice per week garbage collection. She noted that where she previously lived in Wisconsin they had changed waste collection providers every few years and ended up with terrible waste collection service. She opined that Waste Management was the best waste collection company she had ever seen, and she was disappointed that they were not under consideration. She stated that she had no room in her garage for the proposed containers for trash and recycling and it would be difficult for her to take them out to the curb. She added that residents in her community were not allowed to keep things such as those trash bins outside.
Mr. Mark Johnson, City Manager for the City of Minneola, addressed the Board in support of the proposed bids, stating that he would like to see the Board move forward with a decision today. He mentioned that the City currently used one of the carriers on the list of proposed vendors, and they wanted to try to negotiate a lower rate. He added that that vendor did an excellent job for the City.
Commr. Conner commented that the disposal rate that had been bid from Heart of Florida was available to the cities, and he asked if the hauling rates were available to the cities as well.
Mr. Stivender replied that they were.
Mr. Minkoff commented that he was not sure if they provided the “piggyback” because most of the cities had their own contracts with haulers, but he noted that in the past the haulers contracted through the County had offered those rates to the municipalities.
Mr. Scott Taylor, a resident of Sorrento, addressed the Board stating that he did not understand where the recycling portion of the program would reduce the amount of volume that would be buried in the landfill. He opined that burning waste that would otherwise be put in the ground was the preferred option.
Commr. Campione commented that it was up to the resident to recycle as much as possible using the bins that would be provided which would have wheels on them for easier transportation.
Mr. McCall explained that the single stream commodities would become the property of the vendors once the items were collected and would be handled via whatever means the vendor chose. He stated that the more recyclable commodities that could be pulled from the waste stream, the more the County would save on disposal costs when the remainder of solid waste was taken to the disposal facility.
Mr. Taylor suggested that the County could expand programs to recycle items such as electronics that might not go into the single stream recycling but were still able to be recycled through facilities that accept such items.
Commr. Cadwell commented that the City of Eustis reported approximately a 160 percent increase in recycling within the first month of switching to separate containers for garbage and recycling.
Commr. Sullivan remarked that the single stream method had proven to be very effective because it created markets for the commodities and provided incentive for the haulers to take part in the recycling. He added that it has also reduced the stream of waste being disposed of.
Mr. McCall added that Lake County had an e-waste recycling program at the central Solid Waste facility in Astatula where residents could bring items such as large monitors, televisions, and any other type of e-waste. He noted that there was no charge for this service and the County disposed of the items appropriately.
Mr. Rick Rodrigues, a resident of Royal Highlands in Leesburg, addressed the Board stating that he was happy with the waste disposal system currently in place. He opined that the new containers would be one of the largest hurdles to get over for Royal Highlands because it was a senior community, and many of the people in the community put out trash bags instead of garbage bins. He remarked that many people in the community had a problem getting the trash from the house to the curb as it was, and it would be difficult for them to use the new bins with many of the residents using canes, walkers or wheelchairs. He asked who would bear the cost of the new trash bins and what would residents do with their current trash bins, because it was a waste to throw them out. He commented that residents would also incur expenses from the wasted trash can liners as well as using more water to rinse out the trash cans because of the lack of liner. He opined that changing the current system would be a burden on many people. He also opined that he did not know how co-mingling the recycling with the trash would work because residents separate the recycling from the trash.
Commr. Parks asked staff if residents would still separate recycling.
Mr. McCall replied that residents would have one bin for MSW and another for all recyclables, and the haulers would then sort through and separate out the individual commodities once they took possession of the recyclables. He stated that the contracts provided that the vendors purchase the bins, but the bins would then belong to the County on the commencement date of the contract; the residents would not bear the cost of the new trash and recycling bins. He added that the old bins could be used to hold yard waste because the proposed contracts allowed for residents to put yard waste either out loose or in a container.
Commr. Campione asked if the trash collectors would haul away the old trash bins.
Mr. McCall stated that the haulers could evaluate that on a case by case basis.
Commr. Campione asked what would happen if there was extra waste that could not fit into the new trash bins.
Mr. McCall replied that residents had the option of requesting a second trash bin or recycle bin and that there was a charge associated for the second trash bin but not for additional recycling bins.
Ms. Susan Hoffman, a resident of Royal Highlands in Leesburg and an officer and Board Director of the Royal Highlands Homeowners’ Association, addressed the Board on behalf of the residents of Royal Highlands to present a petition with 1,136 signatures stating that the residents of Royal Highlands did not want the new trash bins because they had no room to store them, they were heavy, and elderly residents would have difficulty using them. She stated that the Royal Highlands residents were asking to continue putting their trash in bags on the curb instead of using the new trash bins. She added that they were also concerned about the once per week trash collection.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the residents of Royal Highlands who wanted to recycle were currently doing so and if bins with wheels would make it easier.
Ms. Hoffman replied that they were not currently recycling, because it was difficult for many to manage putting the bin on the curb, and it might be easier if the bin had wheels.
Commr. Campione mentioned that elderly residents might have a difficult time washing out the larger bins.
Mr. John Banahan, President of the Royal Highlands Property Owners’ Association, addressed the Board stating that he had concerns regarding the new trash bins and the switch to once per week trash collection. He urged the Board to not vote on any of the contracts until all questions had been answered. He commented that Royal Highlands was a senior community, many of the residents there were frail, and it would be a burden on those residents to use the proposed trash bins. He expressed concern about the traffic on the roads within Royal Highlands because the residents were responsible for maintaining them, the changes to the local ecology because people would store their trash outside and that would attract animals, and the smell from residents storing their trash outside. He also opined that residents would be more inclined to put all their waste into one trash can instead of separating out the recyclables.
Mr. Dan Gorden, a resident of Tavares and a member of the SWATF, addressed the Board stating that the SWATF had heavily debated the issues the Board was discussing today, and he opined that the Task Force had done a good job acting in the best interest of Lake County. He mentioned that he would like more information on the total cost to the County for solid waste, explaining that it had been the hope of the SWATF to eventually stop having money taken from the General Fund and put into the Solid Waste Fund to balance the budget. He expressed his hope that the total cost for all solid waste services would be less than what the County was currently paying, and if it was higher, then that was something the Board needed to look at.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that the Board could address making solid waste an enterprise fund at the enterprise fund workshop that would be held in February.
Mr. Stivender stated that the total cost for waste services with the proposed bids would total $10.9 million. He mentioned that the cost for disposal with Heart of Florida was much less than what the County was currently paying, adding that the County had been using the revenue from generating electricity to keep the assessment price down.
Commr. Campione commented that the Board did not currently have any information as to whether the assessment would stay the same or increase the reduced level of service.
Mr. Heath stated that estimates showed no impact to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 special assessment because the changes would not take place until next year, and an increase was not anticipated for FY 2015 because of the cash balance from the electricity.
Commr. Campione stated that the assessment would then be subsidized in FY 2015, although she had thought that they were trying to stop subsidizing it.
Mr. Heath replied that the assessment was being subsidized now and that there were a number of different factors such as the convenience centers and the landfill closure costs that were going to impact the funds needed. He added that the Board would also have to decide how much of the costs they were comfortable putting on unincorporated residents as opposed to countywide because the cities used the convenience centers and the electronic hazardous waste disposal sites as well. He explained that the purpose of the February workshop was to delve further into those issues.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a resident of Tavares and writer of a blog called fiscalrangers.com, addressed the Board stating that the SWATF had met at least 24 times and the Board had discussed the solid waste issue at length, but only at the last minute after the work has been completed do people show up to voice their objections. He remarked that he had attended all of the Board meetings and some of the Committee meetings, and he wished that residents had not waited until the last minute to attend and object. He stated that he supported the work that the County had already done and commented that he suggested that there not be any trash collection on Mondays because of the number of Monday holidays. He noted that he did not have an objection to the one-one-one plan and suggested that a large decal be placed on the bins to explain what items could be recycled. He recommended that the Board encourage the communities and residents to start getting involved earlier and attend meetings so they can stay on top of the issues and provide input before the final stage.
Mr. James Kinzler, Environmental Services Director for the City of Clermont, addressed the Board and expressed his appreciation for the County taking the lead on this project and proposal. He stated that the City of Clermont was in support of lowering the cost for Lake County and the citizens of Clermont, and they were now evaluating the proposal to determine the most cost effective solution for their residents. He noted that they were especially interested in the countywide programs for recycling education because of the program’s inherent benefits. He stated that the City was in favor of moving forward with the proposed agreements.
Mr. Charles Lee, Director of Advocacy for Audubon Florida, addressed the Board and opined that what was missing from the discussion was a head to head comparison of the Covanta proposal incorporating the arc in-stream recycling facility, which avoided the need for consumer efforts at recycling because recyclable items were removed on the tipping floor, and the reduction of hauling costs based on the integration of single stream recycling. He expressed his belief that the cost gap between the two proposals would disappear if there were a head to head comparison of Covanta and Heart of Florida, but the Board had not been able to see that comparison because of the way the process had been set up. He commented that the County became a State leader in advancing modern solid waste treatment when it moved forward with something other than landfilling solid waste back in 1988, and he regretted the possibility that the County might backtrack to a more primitive form of disposal. He mentioned that he knew the Heart of Florida landfill had been approved by the DEP and that Marion County had committed to using it, but he also knew that the permit program and enforcement program were not as strong as they used to be. He expressed his concern that the Heart of Florida proposed a tipping fee of $19 per ton when every other comparable county averaged between $29 and $54 per ton, with Covanta’s offer for Lake County falling in the middle of the average, and he worried that the Heart of Florida offer was too good to be true. He opined that a $19 per ton fee would not bring in sufficient funds to guarantee the proper operation of the landfill. He asked the Board to accept the Chairman’s recommendation to throw out the bids.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing and reserved comment to the Board.
Commr. Campione commented that many valid points had been made and needed to be considered, and the Board should get the answers they need before making a decision of this magnitude. She stated that they needed to know what the overall cost of the assessment would be, what the consumer would be paying, what the cost would be to the residents of the communities choosing to have second day trash collection, and if using trash bags instead of the County-prescribed bins would cost the residents more. She opined that they should not wait until February to have a workshop on those issues; they needed to address them immediately. She expressed concern that the Board was telling residents what was best for them instead of making decisions based on resident feedback and concerns, and she urged the Board to consider rejecting the bids and then either negotiate with current providers or rewrite the RFP to address the issues that had been raised. She noted that there was sufficient time to choose either option and still meet the deadline.
Commr. Parks stated that he trusted the work the staff had put in, though he understood that there were still questions needing to be addressed. He expressed his concern with throwing the bids out, though he was not opposed to having a workshop to address resident concerns.
Commr. Campione reiterated that the Board needed to either accept or toss all of the bids today because they could not change the current RFP.
Commr. Sullivan commented that there was no perfect solution because the solid waste needs for every household were different, and the recommendations put before the Board by the SWATF was an attempt to solve the problem as cost effectively as possible. He mentioned that he lived in a city with a one-one-one program, and it worked. He stated that his only concern was the cost effectiveness, but they would not reach that point until some decisions were made, because the details for the communities wanting twice per week trash collection still needed to be worked out. He opined that the Board needed to move forward.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that the Board did not rush through this process; it had started on September 15, 2009 with the creation of the SWATF. He opined that the Board risked losing its integrity if it did not move forward. He reiterated that no one had filed a protest against the RFP, and while there were some residents who were concerned about how services would be handled in their community, options were being provided to help ease those concerns. He stated that this had been a good process, and the issues expressed today would be addressed regardless of what decision the Board made now.
Commr. Parks suggested having a workshop in two or three weeks to address the concerns expressed today and then proceed forward with the contracts at that later date.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that all of the questions raised by residents today could be addressed through the current RFP; the Board needed to make a decision so they could have the vendors working with them to provide concrete answers to those questions.
Commr. Campione commented that they could not tell those communities exactly how much extra the second day collection would cost them at this time, and there was still no option for the residents who did not live in a subdivision or housing community.
Commr. Conner stated that he was disappointed because this should have been a great news day for Lake County; they were giving individual communities the choice to decide if they wanted to have second day trash collection and whether or not they wanted to use the new trash bins, and staff had done a superb job in following the unanimous direction of the Commission. He remarked that he was trying to look at this from the standpoint of a constituent to determine what it was that the people in his district wanted, and with the flexibility built into the RFP, he did not think it would be an inconvenience to anyone, and they would try to work through any issues that arose. He noted that the incinerator had cost the citizens of the County over $100 million over the last 25 years, which the County had been subsidizing, but the subsidy would end next year. He commented that his preference would be Waste Management and Covanta, but the policy called for a competitive process, and the suggestion to negotiate with the current providers was not consistent with the requirements of a competitive process. He opined that the process used had been competitive. He also noted that the County had had multiple problems with the ash from the incinerator at the County landfill.
Mr. Stivender stated that the cost for leachate disposal had been the biggest challenge annually, and the County currently spent between $6,000 and $8,000 a year in leachate costs.
Commr. Conner remarked that he had never seen an RFP written as well and with such flexibility as this one and opined that this should be a moment of celebration for the people of the County because they would finally be liberated from the tonnage burden of the incinerator. He stated that as much as he appreciated Covanta, there was a sealed bid competitive process, and unfortunately neither of the two vendors he would have preferred to do business with had given competitive bids. He commented that the Board had to give the citizens the best value and stated that he supported the recommended action.
Commr. Campione commented that the contract with Covanta was ending regardless of the decision the Board made today. She opined that the Board had had the chance to make some modifications to the RFP but had chosen not to, and now they were left with the current RFP while claiming that they could take care of the expressed concerns, and she did not think they would be able to address the concerns if they approved the recommendations. She expressed her hope that the transition would be good and that there would not be an additional cost incurred by communities opting to have two-day trash collection. She commented that there was an opportunity to make the RFP better if some changes were made. She thought that the Board could do better because there was time to make those changes, and she was disappointed for the residents of Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell asked how many meetings had been held with the vendors when staff was writing the RFP and whether there had been an opportunity to bring up alternatives or make other suggestions.
Mr. Stivender stated that they had brought all ten vendors in to provide input on the RFP and every topic incorporated within, prompting some modifications based on their input.
Commr. Parks stated that he could not support dramatic, drastic changes to the RFP.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved staff’s recommendation to award the disposal contract for all three service areas to Heart of Florida and to award the collection contract to Waste Connections for Service Area 1, Waste Services for Service Area 2, and Waste Pro for Service Area 3.
Commr. Campione voted, “No.”
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
The Chairman announced at 12:30 p.m. that there would be a ten-minute recess.
South district transportation impact fee increase
Mr. Stivender addressed the Board to give a presentation of the study and evaluation of a concept to reduce the discount charged on fees in the South Transportation Impact Fee District and which would result in a higher fee on new development. He recapped that in January 2013, the BCC approved reinstating Transportation Impact Fees for Lake County at an 87 percent discount from the recommended fee of $500 per home. He stated that the County Attorney’s opinion was that the County could levy a different Transportation Impact Fee in each of the three benefit districts in the County. He reported that there was a lot of support from the cities in South Lake County as well as the South Lake Chamber of Commerce for a higher Transportation Impact Fee in the South Lake District, which included all five cities in South Lake County, and the BCC had approved a study to evaluate the Transportation Impact Fee in that portion of the County. He stated that the Minneola Interchange, which included North Hancock Road, Citrus Grove Road, and the Turnpike Interchange regional impacts, was a dramatic area of impact that the State recognized by supporting the County’s TIGER Grant application and advancing funding. He reported that the State had identified $15 million and would loan the CRA another $15 million with the County contributing $10 million, totaling $40 million for the cost of the project. He specified that the funding did not include construction of east/west roads and there were some challenges with the timeframe such as the need to acquire the right of way for the County’s portion by July 1, 2014. He noted that the timeline had the interchange, which was a joint project between the FDOT, the County and the Turnpike, completed and operational by December 2016. He also mentioned that the County was still waiting for the status of the $18 million TIGER Grant. He briefly mentioned the Wellness Way Sector Plan, which included major roadway improvements totaling $100 million, and noted that the PD&E would be funded by FDOT. He explained that a committee of all the South Lake municipalities would be assembled to review the priorities of each municipality, and then those priorities would be brought back before the BCC for approval. He commented that he did not expect that there would be time to finalize the list, so there would not be a program tied to the South Lake Transportation Impact Fee until at least a year from now.
Commr. Cadwell asked if Mr. Stivender’s comment about the State not funding the east/west roads meant that Citrus Grove Road and North Hancock Road would not be funded, and if so, where the funding would come from.
Mr. Stivender replied that there was currently no money for that project, but that Citrus Grove Road was a critical link to US 27 and would be greatly impacted by the opening of the Turnpike Interchange. He then discussed the discounted Impact Fee rate compared to the suspended fee, stating that the suspended fee for a single-family home between 1,500 and 2,499 square feet was $2,189 and that the updated fee was $3,867. He recapped that the Board had adopted a discounted rate equal to 13 percent of the updated fee, which for the example provided came to $500, and the discounted rate across all categories came to less than the suspended fee. He reported that a discounted rate equal to 56.61 percent of the updated fee would raise the fee to the same amount as before it was suspended using the previous example and that for most of the other categories it still provided a lower rate than the suspended fee. He provided a five year revenue estimate for South Lake of $3.3 million at the current rate of 13 percent, assuming that South Lake County continued to grow faster than the rest of the County, and that this would not address the challenge of the $30 million worth of work that needed to be done. He stated that the estimated five year revenue for the South District if the fee was raised to 56.61 percent of the updated fee would be $14 million. He reported that Hartwood Marsh Road between US 27 and South Hancock Road and Citrus Grove Road between US 27 and North Hancock Road were paramount to the South Lake District, and there would not be enough money for those two projects even if the rate was raised to 56.61 percent, though that they could try to implement some of the projects that had been discussed in recent weeks. He related that at 56.61 percent, the five year revenue would come to $14.6 million and would leave $3.5 million to be acquired through Sales Tax or other funding sources. He explained that by using the Sales Tax they would be taking money away from smaller projects to fund the larger projects because Impact Fees were more for major capacity improvement projects while Sales Tax was more for intersection improvements, enhancements to roads, and maintenance. He mentioned that the existing Transportation Impact Fee formula would not be changed and that a study would be necessary to support the levy of a different fee in separate benefit districts. He stated that an ordinance would be presented on September 10th at the Board’s direction to establish a higher Transportation Impact Fee in the South Lake District and the new fee would be implemented on January 1, 2014 if it was approved.
Commr. Parks stated that he supported raising the discounted rate to 56.61 percent of the updated fee, though he did not like any fee or tax and wanted to try to keep them as low as possible, since this needed to be done. He stated that this was supported by the South Lake cities and the South Lake Chamber of Commerce as well as landowners in the Wellness Way sector. He commented that it was good that there were projects specifically designated for the revenue from the fees and that the projects would benefit the County through additional value and jobs. He stated that the Transportation Impact Fee was very competitive, noting that the fee in Orange County was higher, and he mentioned that the new fee benefited commercial development more than it had in the past. He then suggested that the Transportation Impact Fee be paid as a part of the closing costs for the property.
Commr. Sullivan asked how much revenue would be generated if the Board instated the full updated fee. He opined that the interchange would be an economic boon for the County. He remarked that there were very few east/west connectors to get to the major roads, and his concern was that the Board would not go far enough with the impact fee at a time when they had the support of the South Lake municipalities.
Mr. Stivender reported that the total five year revenue for the full updated impact fee would be $25.8 million.
Commr. Campione opined that increasing the fee that much could deter development.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Stivender if he was comfortable with the cost and revenue estimates on the major road projects.
Mr. Stivender replied that there was some concern regarding inflation on the cost estimate for the major road projects and that inflation had not been factored into the estimate.
Commr. Cadwell commented that there would be a residual rise in construction costs once work on the interchange began. He then asked if the major road projects would use up all of the estimated five year revenue from the impact fees.
Mr. Stivender replied that there would be no additional funds for any other projects if the impact fees were used for the two previously mentioned projects.
Commr. Cadwell stated that it was projected that just enough revenue would be brought in to cover the two east/west corridors if the Board adopted the recommended increase to 56.61 percent, but nothing would be left to solve the other transportation problems in South Lake.
Mr. Stivender commented that many projects were tied to developments that disappeared, and there would be a longer list than the ones presented of road projects once a fee was implemented and staff met with the cities. He stated that those costs would not be covered in the discussion today unless the Board approved implementing the full updated impact fee.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that he understood the logic of paying the impact fee with the closing costs, but it would delay the collection of the Transportation Impact Fees and therefore push back the projects the fees would fund.
Commr. Campione commented that the other projects in South Lake could be revisited at a later time to help address their financing. She asked what the estimated revenue was based on.
Mr. Stivender explained that the estimates had been calculated by the number of building permits currently being received and did not include any additional development that might come as a result of the projects being completed.
Commr. Campione commented that the additional development that could come from the road projects could bring in enough additional revenue to fund more road projects. She stated that she could not support increasing the Transportation Impact Fee to the full updated amount. She opined that they needed to start with a more reasonable amount, such as the 56.61 percent.
Mr. Stivender suggested that 60 percent might be a better number to use than 56.61 percent.
Commr. Sullivan expressed concern that if the Board went with the 56.61 percent, then there would still be a shortfall of $3.5 million on the two road projects that would then be taken from the Sales Tax revenue. He stated that he was completely behind economic growth in the County, but he did not want growth without the infrastructure to support it.
Commr. Conner stated that he supported reinstatement of the fee at some level in the South Lake District, but he wanted to know if there was any data as to what point an increase would be too high and would deter development.
Mr. Stivender stated that he did not have that data.
Commr. Conner asked if there was a consensus from the Board for the discounted rate of 56 percent of the updated fee.
Commr. Parks summarized that the Board had agreed to the 56 percent but was considering if it should go to a higher percentage than that. He noted that the amount of the full, updated fee was higher than what Orange County’s fee was.
Mr. Stivender stated that raising the fee to 70 percent would eliminate the need to use Sales Tax revenue on the two projects.
Commr. Campione opined that it would be nice to reach that goal, but it would be terrible to deter the tax rolls from rebounding.
Mr. Stivender stated that 70 percent of the updated fee would be $2,714 for a single family home between 1,500 and 2,499 square feet. He mentioned that most categories would be lower at this rate than at the suspended fee rate.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joseph Saunders, Vice Mayor for the City of Minneola, addressed the Board stating that he would prefer not to have an impact fee, but he understood its necessity. He remarked that the Turnpike Interchange was an unprecedented project and that the TIGER Grant application was very comprehensive. He opined that if the Board backed out of the impact fee and the connector roads could not be built, then the State would back out of the interchange and the whole project would fall apart. He opined that the City of Minneola made a bad commitment to this regional project because of the level of expenditures required and that the roads in Clermont were becoming more crowded as development increased, so there was no other alternative than to raise the South Lake District Transportation Impact Fee. He also suggested that there be another feeder road to extend Fosgate Road to US 27 in addition to the two projects already outlined, stating that he would push to raise the funds to build most of that road in the hopes that the County would contribute funds to make the road large enough to serve the flow of traffic.
Mr. Scott Blankenship, Assistant City Manager for the City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that Clermont supported reinstating a Transportation Impact Fee that was at least equal to the suspended fee. He emphasized how critical transportation was to economic development and that this was infrastructure that the County needed to support because of the positive economic impact it would have.
Mr. Jon Pospisil, a resident of Goldenrod, addressed the Board stating that he had land in Lake County that he wanted to develop in the near future, and he believed that impact fees were the fairest way to pay for South Lake’s development, but reinstating the fee at the full updated amount would be a mistake because it would be too aggressive. He opined that 60 or 70 percent would be more reasonable, and he suggested raising the Transportation Impact Fee in other parts of the County to 25 percent.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff if the Board would have to raise the fee in the other Impact Fee Districts to the same level as South Lake if the Board approved raising the South Lake fee should another district come to the Board asking for their rate to be raised.
Mr. Minkoff replied that the Board would not have to raise the rate to the same as South Lake, but it would have to conduct a study to validate the new rate as they had with South Lake.
Commr. Campione commented that if a decision was made to add the School Impact Fee, then that would also add to the price of development.
Ms. Carolyn Maimone with the Home Builders Association (HBA) addressed the Board stating that she opposed increasing the Transportation Impact Fee because it would increase the expense to the builder and therefore increase the expense to the buyer of the home. She pointed out that the money for the fee would not be applied to a mortgage or part of the value of the home, and it would prevent people from buying as large a home as they could otherwise. She remarked increasing the impact fee in the South Lake District would affect building in the entire southern part of the County and would be a hindrance to the small builders and such organizations as Habitat for Humanity that did not have the funds available to afford the increase in impact fees. She suggested that the fee be waived for areas that were not affected by the new development. She also commented that no money was being taken from the General Fund to support the infrastructure projects.
Commr. Campione stated that the General Fund was not used towards roads at this time.
Ms. Maimone asked if the County could use money from the General Fund for these projects. She opined that a large impact fee depended on growth to bring in revenue, but it would actually impede growth.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a resident of Tavares and writer of a blog called fiscalrangers.com, addressed the Board stating that the Transportation Impact Fee should be raised to the full updated amount because those who incurred the need for growth and infrastructure should be the ones to fund it. He commented that the rates the consultant came up with were based on a backlog of projects that needed to be completed, and it only further increased the backlog and therefore increased the fee later on when the County discounted the fee. He mentioned that increasing property taxes was another way to raise the funds and that other states did not have impact fees because they collected state income taxes. He stated that the impact fee was the fairest process for the County to raise the funds.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing and reserved comment to the Board.
Commr. Parks moved to direct staff to implement the collection of the Transportation Impact Fee for the South Lake District as part of the closing costs.
Mr. Minkoff asked if Commr. Parks meant that the fee would be paid at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO).
Commr. Parks clarified that the fee would be part of the closing costs.
Mr. Minkoff asked how that would be monitored to ensure the fees were paid. He explained that half of the fee was collected at the plat and the balance was collected with the building permit. He noted that some communities collected the fee at the time of the CO, which was the County’s last approval before someone could live in the house.
Commr. Conner stated that collecting the fee at that time would delay revenue by a few months. He asked what would happen if there was a house that did not have a CO.
Commr. Campione replied that the builders had to repay the permit fees if they did not obtain a CO within a certain amount of time.
Commr. Conner suggested that Commr. Parks should research the issue further with staff and then bring it back to the next BCC meeting.
Mr. Heath asked what the Board wanted to advertise, because the ordinance would include a section specifying the time of collection for the impact fee, and currently it was set to be collected at the time of the building permit. He suggested that the advertised ordinance have the payment due at the issue of the building permit because that was the more restrictive option, and the Board could always move it back.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there was a 90-day delay before the fee could be increased, which was why there was a time limit for approving the fee increase, but there was more time to work out when the payment is due.
Commr. Parks withdrew his motion with the understanding that staff would research the different options for time of payment.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to advertise a public hearing for an ordinance increasing the South Lake District Transportation Impact Fee to an amount equal to 70 percent of the updated fee.
Commr. Campione voted, “No.”
reports – county manager
The County Manager requested authorization to advertise for the vacant Conservation and Compliance Director, and he recommended that the name of the Conservation and Compliance Department be changed to Community Safety and Compliance Department in the budget. He then stated that the cost for providing a resource officer at Spring Creek Charter School would be approximately $40,000, and requested to add this amount to the Statement of Changes to the Budget that would be presented in September. Lastly, he requested that the Board approve a one-time incentive pay of $250 to part-time and $100 to seasonal County employees in addition to the previously approved one-time incentive pay of $500 to full-time employees in recognition of their services to the County.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved adding to the agenda the request to advertise for the vacant Conservation and Compliance Director position, authorization to change the name of the Conservation and Compliance Department to Community Safety and Compliance Department, authorization to add $40,000 to the Statement of Changes to the Budget for a resource officer at Spring Creek Charter, and approval for a one-time incentive pay of $250 for part-time and $100 for seasonal employees.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the above requests.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN – DISTRICT 1
Information on impact fee waivers
Commr. Sullivan mentioned that several months ago the Board had requested he look at the City of Leesburg for impact fee waivers. He stated that he would forward the details of his findings to the commissioners.
reports – commissioner parks – district 2
Letter from south lake animal league
Commr. Parks reported that he had received a letter from the South Lake Animal League in support of the changes the County was implementing in the Animal Services Department.
reports – commissioner conner – district 3
Tour of blue rhino facility
Commr. Conner reported that he had toured the Blue Rhino facility to see the aftermath of the explosions, and he commented on how incredible it was that the damage was contained to the facility with minimal impact to surrounding properties and no casualties despite the magnitude of the explosions.
Discussion of accident data for CR 455/CR 561 roundabout
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that during a January BCC meeting regarding a roundabout for the CR 455/CR 561 intersection, Mr. Stivender had reported that there had been ten crashes at that intersection while Mr. TJ Fish, Executive Director of the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO), had reported that there had been 39 crashes in a four-year period. He stated that he had met with both men and explained that he had learned that two different sets of criteria had been used to determine the number of accidents, and he opined that it was important for the Board to be aware of the different criteria. He noted that LSMPO reported crash data differently than the County did.
Mr. Stivender explained that his staff had received the crash data from Mr. Fish which identified 49 crashes since January 2002, and his staff performed a tighter analysis of the crash data provided because any crash along a major traffic corridor was recorded as happening at that intersection by highway patrol or the Sheriff’s Office because it was the closest node. He stated that all 49 of those crashes were related to that intersection, even if they occurred half a mile down the road from the intersection.
Commr. Conner stressed that this information was important in determining the crashes that actually occurred at the intersection instead of near the intersection. He opined that accidents that happened near but not at the intersection were not related to the actual safety of the intersection.
Mr. Stivender explained that there were 32 crashes over a ten year period at 1,000 feet from the intersection, and the tighter the analysis, the fewer the crashes. He reported that there had been 26 crashes within 500 feet of the intersection.
REPORTS – COMMISsIONER campione – CHAIRMAN & DISTRICT 4
Proclamation regarding Florida water professionals week
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2013-80 observing August 12-16, 2013 as Florida Water Professionals Week.
Discussion regarding school impact fees
Commr. Campione reported that Ms. Kyleen Fischer, Lake County School Board Chairman, had sent a letter to the BCC requesting a joint meeting between the two Boards. She mentioned that they had also received a copy of the Minutes from the last School Board meeting regarding the issue of School Impact Fees. She remarked that the School Board was asking the BCC to find a solution to the School Impact Fee issue, and she opined that the key to having a productive joint meeting would be to hone in on the particular issues that they would take on at that meeting. She mentioned that the questions that came up as a result of the consultant that was at the School Board meeting needed to be answered if there was any chance for support of an assessment fee. She opined that the answers given during the meeting addressed the larger developments but would hurt the small contractor looking to build a single home because they would be responsible for the full impact fee up front. She remarked that this did not mean that there was no way to implement the impact fee and still address the smaller developments or the possibility of two fee districts.
Commr. Conner stated that he had read the minutes from the School Board meeting and he was not against meeting with the School Board. However, he opined that the School Board was not clear on what option they supported, and it would not be productive for the BCC to meet with the School Board until they were clear on which option they wished to pursue. He explained that the two motions made at the School Board meeting on the impact fee had failed, so there was no recommendation on impact fees when three of the School Board members wanted impact fees and two were adamantly opposed. He mentioned that the motion for the joint meeting passed on a 3-2 vote, and one of the three was one of the members opposed to the impact fee. He stated that the BCC should respond that they would be happy to meet with the School Board once the School Board had sorted through their issues and figured out their funding solution and that the BCC would not meet with the School Board to dictate a solution to them.
Commr. Campione explained that it appeared that the motions from the School Board that had failed were asking for an assessment, and the letter from Ms. Fischer narrowed down the options to the assessment concept. She opined that it was a positive step that the School Board was trying to come up with a solution, and the BCC needed to help them get to that point or it might never happen.
Commr. Parks suggested asking the School Board for answers to specific questions before they met so they could be clear on what the meeting would address.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was intrigued by the assessment process discussed at the School Board meeting and wanted to know more about it if the School Board decided that was something they wanted to look at. He remarked that there was no way the BCC would be able to meet with the School Board before the necessary deadline, and he suggested that they conduct the joint meeting in February.
Commr. Campione stated that she did not agree with waiting until February. She suggested the BCC bring a consultant of their own to explain the differences between the two assessment options.
Commr. Conner opined that the BCC should know whether the majority of the School Board was interested in assessments or the Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) before holding a joint meeting.
Commr. Sullivan opined that the School Board did agree that they needed to have impact fees or some other type of financing mechanism to build new schools, but they did not know enough about the details of that to make a specific decision. He stated that everyone on the School Board agreed that something had to be done, and he thought that the consensus would be some type of special assessment or MSBU so they could spread it out and put it on the tax roll for collection.
Commr. Parks specified that it was $10,200 divided over five years.
Commr. Cadwell asked how that would affect the plan for County infrastructure.
Commr. Campione stated that the County’s plan for infrastructure needed to be included in the discussion, because if the School Board’s request was to go to 50 percent, it would generate $5 million more for the School Board per year. She noted that the School Board stated they needed $30 million over five years to meet their capital needs, and the 50 percent fee would get them $25 million over that five-year period.
Commr. Cadwell suggested suspending the fee for another year to give the BCC time to start working with the School Board.
Commr. Campione suggested setting a date for the joint meeting so the commissioners could have the opportunity to get answers to their specific questions. She opined that the consultant for the School Board had been discussing generalities and not the legalities of the options.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they had submitted a request to the Attorney General for an opinion. He remarked that after reading the minutes from the School Board meeting, it appeared that a majority of the School Board favored an impact fee only in the South Lake District. He stated that there were issues with the MSBU approach, and he was not certain that it would be feasible to do that.
Commr. Conner remarked that he would not be satisfied regarding the option’s legal integrity if the Attorney General gives the opinion that they are allowed to have impact fees on one end of the County and not the other. He opined that the County had to approach that option very cautiously because a judge could rule that the Attorney General’s opinion was wrong should a homebuilder sue the School Board.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that the School Board had wanted to meet sooner because there was a set deadline that needed to be observed if the impact fees would be reenacted. He stated that the BCC needed to send a letter to the School Board stating that that deadline would be allowed to pass, and the impact fees would not be reenacted at this time.
Mr. Heath stated that staff had been operating under the assumption that the BCC would take some action in September so they would not hit the fiscal cliff come January. He summarized that it was the will of the Board to suspend the School Impact Fee one more year and immediately start working on exploring the option of a special assessment. He recommended that the Chairman send a letter to the School Board stating the will of the Board and to advertise a public hearing regarding a moratorium to suspend the School Impact Fee for one year.
Commr. Conner stated that he was in agreement with the County Manager’s recommendation and that it should be noted that the reason the BCC was advertising to suspend the School Impact Fee for one year was because the School Board had not provided a recommendation.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved adding to the agenda a request to advertise a public hearing regarding a moratorium to suspend the School Impact Fee for one year and for the Chairman to send a letter to the School Board outlining this decision.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the above request.
Request from Bella colina properties for pud revision
Commr. Campione reported on a request from the new owners of the Bella Colina properties for a revision of the PUD both to include a lodge within the property and in order for the PUD to conform to the County’s existing Comprehensive Plan. She requested that staff work with the owner regarding the request to revise the PUD.
Commr. Parks recused himself from voting on this issue due to a potential conflict of interest.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved adding Commr. Campione’s request to the agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved for staff to work with the owner regarding the request to revise the PUD.
Upgrade requests on Affordable housing program homes
Commr. Campione reported on the issue regarding a request from Ms. Gale Thomas, a participant in an affordable housing program, to upgrade the cabinets being installed in her home. She explained that she agreed with the position of the staff to not allow any upgrades, but there was no policy in place for such requests. She suggested that the issue be sent to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board to see if a policy could be formulated that would allow instances for limited changes not to exceed a certain number or dollar amount.
Commr. Cadwell stated that there were many things that could go wrong if the County allowed for requested changes.
Commr. Sullivan stated that since he was on the Affordable Housing Advisory Board, he was concerned because there were very stringent guidelines, and allowing people to make changes could go against those guidelines. He commented that it could cause problems allowing one person to make changes but not allowing another to do the same, especially with the economic ties involved because it pertained to affordable housing. He agreed with the recommendation to send the issue back to the Advisory Board.
Commr. Campione suggested that the discussion with the Advisory Board include a specific dollar amount and number of changes, such as no more than two changes not to exceed $750.
Mr. Heath suggested that this issue be brought back before the Board on September 24th to provide for time restrictions from the Advisory Board and out of respect to the timeliness of the request from Ms. Thomas. He added that he and Commr. Sullivan would provide a status report on the decision of the Advisory Board.
Design standards for commercial property development
Commr. Campione requested that staff prepare a presentation for a proposed set of design standards for commercial property development.
The Board was in agreement with Commr. Campione’s request.
reports – commissioner cadwell – district 5
Truck and tractor pull
Commr. Cadwell reported that he had received an invitation to the Truck & Tractor Pull, which would be held at the Lake County Fair Grounds on August 17th, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
75th anniversary of Florida hospital waterman
Commr. Cadwell reported that Florida Hospital Waterman would be celebrating its 75th anniversary on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.
leslie campione, chairman
NEIL KELLY, CLERK