The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 13, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Thomas J. Windram; Richard Swartz; and Don Bailey. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, County Manager's Assistant; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Linda Springston, Deputy Clerk.
James C. Watkins, Clerk, gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Bailey.
After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to postpone the Minutes of February 20, 1990.
Commr. Gregg stated that on Page 16, Lines 34 and 35, of the Special Minutes of February 27, 1990, where reference was made to a suit which was filed in Huntington, Long Island, it should be clarified that no suit had been filed.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the Minutes of February 20, 1990, and approval of the Special Minutes of February 27, 1990, as corrected.
CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following:
Payment of Warrant No. 118153 through Warrant No. 118394, for the following accounts:
General Revenue Countywide Library
Bassville Fire District County Transportation Trust
Mosquito Control Land
Operating Supplies Paisley Fire District
Countywide Fire District Landfills
Northwest Fire District Private Industry Council
Capital Outlay Pasco Fire District
Emergency 911 Fund Fine & Forfeiture
South Lake Fire District Mt. Plymouth Fire District
Road Impact Special Assessments
Section 8 Law Library
Satisfaction of Judgment for Donald W. Kunsman, Case No. 88-1602-CF, in the amount of $250.00.
Acknowledge receipt of the monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases for the month ending February 28, 1990, in the amount of $129,129.07.
CLERK'S OTHER BUSINESS
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for a Budget Transfer in the amount of $l,lOO.OO from Fine & Forfeiture Contingency to the line item Office Supplies, in the County Judge's Budget.
COUNTY MANAGER CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following:
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Mosquito-Aquatic
Request for signatures on an Interlocal Agreement with Volusia County, for mosquito ditch maintenance, in Groveland.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Grants
Request for signature on the Community Services Block Grant award agreements, and the Resolution authorizing the application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for the funds, in the amount of $5,097.00.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Roads-County & State/Subdivisions
Request to release an Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit for performance of Sugarloaf Estates, in the amount of $17,850.00; acceptance of a Cashier's Check, in the amount of $1,620.40, for maintenance; acceptance and execution of a Maintenance Escrow Agreement: and the acceptance of the following road into the County maintenance system: Sugarloaf Court (3-2447).
Request to release an Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit, in the amount of $752,279.00, for performance of Plantation At Leesburg, Casa Del Lago; and the acceptance of a replacement
Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit, for the same amount, to extend the performance for another six months.
Bonds - Mobile Home
Request for Lydia Billette, Umatilla area, District #5, to live in a mobile home on the same piece of property on which her conventional dwelling unit is being built, subject to the proper bonds being posted and with the understanding that the mobile home will be removed upon the completion of the conventional dwelling unit or upon the request of the Board of County Commissioners.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Public Works
Request to purchase one Brush Chipper, from Vermeer Southeast Sales, at a cost of $16,276.46 (second low bidder), which was budgeted for $18,000.00.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request to release the following Murphy Act Deed Reservation:
#llOl, Natila Perkins, City of Eustis, Grove Street
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
BUDGET TRANSFERS/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Budget transfer of $162,589.00, Environmental Services.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/JAILS
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request by Capital Improvements to approve the agreement between Lake County and Marion Service Roofing & Air Conditioning, for the reroofing of the existing jail, in the amount of $84,068.00.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BIDS/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the authorization to award the Astatula Ash Monofill construction contract to Earth Resources Corporation, at a bid price of $1,238,085.00 (low bid).
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board to discuss the request by Griffin Industries for exemption from certain requirements of the County Flow Control and Solid Waste Ordinance. He stated that they are requesting waiver of the Lake County business address requirement of the Solid Waste Ordinance; waiver of the Flow Control Ordinance requirement to dispose of waste within Lake County; and the waiver of the $500.00 franchise fee. He noted that staff recommends waiver of the business address and the disposal requirement, and recommends denial of the waiver of the franchise fee.
Mr. Ernest Colvin, Griffin Industries, appeared before the Board to discuss their requests. He stated that they were not aware of the County ordinance for a franchise fee, and noted that all of the Counties which they service require that their trucks are inspected and are able to meet certain standards.
Mr. Colvin discussed their business, which entails the collecting of fat, bones, trap grease and oils from restaurants, supermarkets, hotels, and hospitals, with the Board. He added that, they also recycle the trap grease.
Commr. Swartz suggested waiving the first two requests and instructing staff to review the $500.00 franchise fee requirement, then come back with a recommendation based on the type of operation of Griffin Industries.
Commr. Windram made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gregg to approve the waiver of the Lake County business address requirement of the Solid Waste Ordinance; waiver of the Flow Control Ordinance requirement to dispose of the waste within Lake County: and the waiver of the franchise fee for the first year, to allow the Board to acquaint themselves with Griffin Industries.
Commr. Swartz indicated that he would rather the Board investigate what other counties are doing, before they waive the franchise fees.
Commr. Windram noted that, Griffin Industries is already paying inspection fees for the trucks in other counties, but not a franchise fee.
Mr. Findell discussed what the franchise fee pays for in Lake County.
Ms. Claire Bartlett, Solid Waste Director, appeared before the Board and stated that, she had required Griffin Industries to submit to Lake County their inspection results and requirements in Orange County, which they had passed in that County. She noted that the $25.00 inspection fee, in Lake County, for the trucks, goes directly to the State Health Unit which performs those inspections for the County.
Commr. Swartz stated that there should be some charge, but not necessarily $500.00.
At this time, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/FIRE PROTECTION/GRANTS/STATE AGENCIES
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request for signatures on the EMS Matching Grant Application, with the State of Florida HRS, in the amount of $141,000.00, for six first response rescue trucks for the fire department.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the selection of Henderson, Young & Co., to develop the Capital Improvement Element of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, at a cost of $40,000.00.
ROADS-COUNTY & STATE
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to cease maintenance of the west portion of #2-3609, Owens Road.
Mr. Gerry Jacobs, Risk Manager, appeared before the Board to discuss changes in the County's insurance policy from American General to another undetermined company, and changes in the current prescription card service.
Mr. Jacobs noted that, he is reviewing one company, Mail Scripts, Inc., a mail order company, which also offers a prescription card service, consisting of no deductible for generic drugs and $3.00 deductible for brand name drugs. He added that, another company, Script Card, offers the lowest cost service to the County, and the cards can be delivered within 48 hours.
Mr. Jacobs stated that Script Card is accepted at Wal Mart, K-Mart, Revco, Walgreens, and Albertsons, and are currently negotiating with Eckerd's for acceptance there.
Commr. Bailey noted concerns with not having Eckerd's.acceptance of the card in South Lake County.
Mr. Jacobs stated that, with the Script Card, one may go to a nonparticipating pharmacy, and submit a payment voucher to the company for reimbursement.
Mr. Jacobs noted that, staff has had difficulty in dealing with the present prescription card company, PCS, and it has been observed that there have been difficulties in getting the cards from them.
Mr. Jacobs stated that, if this issue were postponed one week, there would be no difficulty obtaining cards from Script Card, but there would be a delay in obtaining cards from PCS by April 1.
Mr. Alan A. Thelen, County Manager, recommended that this issue be brought up on the agenda at the March 20, 1990, Board Meeting.
Commr. Bailey brought to the attention of the Board the Lake County Showcase of Senior Services, which will be held March 16, 1990, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., sponsored by Lake-Sumter Community College, and urged the members of the Board to attend.
EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Commr. Bakich brought to the attention of the Board a letter of resignation from Mr. Tim Sullivan, from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. He indicated that he was interested in serving in that vacancy.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Commr. Bakich to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, filling the seat vacated by Mr. Tim Sullivan.
Commr . Bakich noted that Commr. Windram resigned from the Economic Development Council and was replaced by Commr. Gregg.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:05 a.m., the Chairman stated that the Board would recess unti 1 the scheduled Public Hearing at 10:30 a.m.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ASSESSMENTS/RESOLUTIONS/ROAD PROJECTS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before 3/13/90.the Board to discuss Special Assessment Project #SA-66, Clark Road.
It was noted that this project was approved to advertise on September 5, 1988.
No one present in the audience wished to discuss this project with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to accept the Special Assessment Resolution and Assessment Roll, and to award Special Assessment Project #SA-66, Clark Road, to Paquette Paving Co., Inc. (low bid), in the amount of $32,945.00, and the execution of the agreement.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ASSESSMENTS/RESOLUTIONS/ROAD PROJECTS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board to discuss Special Assessment Project #SA-64, Buttercup Lane.
It was noted that this project was approved to advertise on May 16, 1988.
No one present in the audience wished to discuss this project with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to accept the Special Assessment Resolution and Assessment Roll, and to award Special Assessment Project #SA-64, Buttercup Lane, to Paquette
Paving Co., Inc. (low bid), in the amount of $33,238.05, and the execution of the agreement.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, appeared before the Board to discuss the Public Works Department and its operation. Mr. Stivender discussed the function of each division and noted that there are 14 employees in the Engineering Division, 11 employees in the Special Services Division, 83 employees in the Road Operations Division, 32 employees in the Building Maintenance Division, and a newly created Recreation Division with no employees as of yet.
Mr. Stivender discussed roads within the County, which have been taken over by the County from the Department of Transportation, from 1977 to 1987, consisting of 108.0 miles of road. He further noted that, in 1987, 10.54 miles of road was transferred from the County to the City, and 1.78 miles of road was transferred from the City to the County.
Mr. Stivender discussed road projects that are ongoing within the County, including subdivisions and resurfacing.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted that, when the subject of requiring training programs for servers of alcohol was initially discussed, it was proposed as a Resolution or in ordinance form. She stated that, it should be addressed in the form of an ordinance. She further noted that, the State has enacted the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, in 1989, which is a voluntary program where vendors can become certified by going through a training process. She also added that, based on the Legislation it does appear to be a voluntary system of certification and the State is required to develop rules and any course of instruction would have to be approved by the State in order to become certified.
Mr. Jeff Herlong appeared before the Board to discuss the alcohol servers training program with the Board, and noted that the State Department of Business Regulations has put together a Responsible Vendors Training Program, which is run by the Florida Hotel and Restaurant Association. He feels that the test, which they have, adopted is minimal (10 questions), and he is disappointed with the results of that test. He added that, in the training program, there is no discussion on inhibition, judgment, reaction, or coordination, and no information regarding how much alcohol can be consumed in a certain period of time and remain below a safe level, which are topics he feels should be addressed.
Mr. Herlong discussed a restaurant, in Ocala, that went through a TIPS training program, spending $750.00 to train 25 employees, and noted that their liquor liability insurance decreased from $30,000.00 to $22,000.00 a year. The Health Communications, Inc., who is the author of the TIPS program, is a recognized certified 3/13/90.supplier of the Responsible Vendor Act Training by the State of Florida, and that is the program used at that restaurant. Their training program goes beyond the minimal training standards of the State, and the company is recertified yearly. After the servers have had their training, their certification is valid for three years.
Mr. Herlong requested that the program in Lake County be more stringent and comprehensive than the one that the State provides.
Ms. Lustgarten noted that, the statute provides each server of alcohol take any course of instruction that has been approved by the Division of Business Regulations in order to become certified. Mr. Herlong stated that, the Responsible Vendor Act will be monitored by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, since the State has made this Act voluntary, possibly, the County could make it a requirement of the County's Occupational License that servers must be certified by the State. To which Ms. Lustgarten responded that, she would need to review whether a condition of that type could be placed upon an Occupational License.
It was noted that, the County Attorney would review these conditions and report her findings to the Board at the Board meeting in the second week of April. Commr. Swartz added that, at some point, there should be some involvement by the people in that industry.
No action was taken at this time.
PUBLIC WORKS (CONT'D.)
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, continued his presentation of the Public Works Department, and introduced to the Board the following Public Works employees:
Don Griffey, Director of Engineering
Fred Thompson, Engineer
Don Roof, Technical Support Supervisor
Mike Brooks, Operations Supervisor
Bill Shumaker, District I
Ted Hershelman, District III
Bo Carlton, South Lake
Bob Runninger, Shop Foreman
Phil Silkey, Sign Superintendent
Frank Woodson, Building Maintenance & Custodial
Wade Curtis, Chief Construction Inspector
Dottie Keedy, Program Coordinator
Cindy Heffler, Executive Secretary
Sharla VanScoyk, Staff Assistant
Mr. Stivender continued his discussion of the road program for the County and noted that, of the $2.5 million allocated by the Board under CTT funds, already $1.9 million has been committed this year.
Mr. Stivender reviewed slides of the County clay pit at Highways 19/27, and discussed its operation and future plans.
Mr. Stivender updated the Board on the Marsh Park project, and noted that bids will be accepted April 3, 1990. He added that, they have preliminary drawings on the Tavares and Singletary park's, which were received Monday, March 12, 1990.
Mr. Stivender noted that they have begun interviewing for the newly created Recreation Director position, and should have that individual on board by mid-April.
Mr. Stivender discussed the Public Works budget as it concerns the General Fund, Operations, Road Construction, Special Assessments, and Impact Fees.
Mr. Stivender noted that, between October 1, 1989 through February 28, 1990, 226 Utility Permits and 490 Driveway Permits have been issued.
No action was necessary concerning this presentation.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:55 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for Lunch and reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
Mr. Alan A. Thelen, County Manager, noted that the County has received three Request for Proposals (RFPs) concerning the privatization of the Lake County Jail, those being Wackenhut, Prycor, and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). He stated that Prycor was not reactive to all of the requirements in the RFP, therefore, they were excluded from making a presentation.
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation
Dr. George Zoley, President, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, appeared before the Board and introduced Mr. George R. Wackenhut, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Wackenhut Corporation, who founded the corporation. Mr. Wackenhut stated that the corporation employees approximately 39,000 people in the United States, 44 in foreign countries, and that they are one of the largest security organizations in the world. He noted that, many of their employees have prior correctional experience.
Mr. Wackenhut stated that, their pension plan will provide for all jail employees to receive the same pension benefits as if they had remained with the Sheriff. He informed the Board that, all of the proposed services will be guaranteed by the full resources of the Wackenhut Corporation, and any contract commitment entered into by the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation is also guaranteed by the entire Wackenhut organization. He stated that, concerning his corporation, he does not tolerate anything less than complete professionalism.
Dr. Zoley reappeared before the Board to discuss corporate qualifications, and noted that, their corporation has been in this business for 35 years. He added that, the corporation has one- half billion dollars in annual revenues, and $150 million in current assets.
Dr. Zoley stated that, in 1985, they were awarded their first facility to operate, which was a juvenile facility located in Oklahoma. In 1986, they received their second contract, which involved the responsibilities of desiging, constructing, and operating the jail, located in Colorado. He discussed their facilities in Michigan, California, Texas, New York, and Florida
(Monroe County). He noted that, all of their facilities, are in some stage of an accreditation process.
Mr. Wayne H. Calabrese, Vice-President, Business Development, Wackenhut Corrections, appeared before the Board and discussed the profiles of the key personnel within the corporation.
Mr. Calabrese stated that, the corporation has toured the facilities in Lake County, and have met with the County Manager and Project Manager. He added that, they have also met with the County's correctional officers to discuss positions, wages, shifts, benefits, and pensions; reviewed plans and specifications for the.Prelude and the new Jail: analyzed jail population and booking trends; and studied the proposed management and staffing prepard by Correctional Services Group, Inc. Plan as Mr. Calabrese noted that, their proposal objectives are to meet
correctional needs in accordance with ACA and FAC 33.8 st andards; provide programs to reduce recidivism: protect employees' jobs, wages and benefits: indemnify and insure County and public officials against all claims arising from the facilities operation; deliver the highest quality service at the lowest cost: and incorporate the proposal into a comprehensive management and operations contract.
Mr. Calabrese discussed how their corporation would meet the correctional needs of Lake County by operations, programs, employees, indeminification/in- surance/performance bond, pricing sheets, and the proposed management and operations contract. He noted that, there are three options for the County, which are, to continue under the current operation, create an internal department of corrections, and privatize the corrections department. He added that, there are three special interests to be addressed, which are, the taxpayer, the public employees, and the public officials.
Mr. Calabrese stated that, his corporation has reviewed the design of the jail, and there are some minor modifications which they would make in order to enhance its efficiency, resulting in further savings to the County.
Mr. Calabrese made reference to some comments that the competition had made concerning comparisons to their proposal, such as sick leave and pensions, and requested the opportunity to respond to those comparisons in writing. He added that, if the Board selects their proposal, it is open for negotiation.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether Wackenhut would be able to handle the transition if the Jail employees choose to unionize. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, they currently have a union contract in Detroit, Michigan, and are well versed in negotiating with the union.
Commr. Bakich questioned how Wackenhut would handle the transition from operation by the Sheriff to privatization. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, all of the jail employees would remain in their positions, and Wackenhut would need to meet with the Sheriff, and top officials, to review the records which may need to be duplicated, and to coordinate the hospitalization and benefits.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether the County will have the ability to audit and review the jail's records. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, the County would appoint a County Monitor who would have an office at the facility, if desired, and that individual would ensure that Wackenhut is complying with the conditions set forth in the contract. He added that, the County would have unrestricted access to all records generated by the corporation concerning the operation of the facility, unless there is some statute that protects the privacy of the individual.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether there is anything unique about Lake County which the corporation is concerned about. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, Lake County has a very aggressive population projection, and they would need to work carefully with the County to ensure that there are no gaps in filling the beds, so that certain wings and areas are not unnecessarily staffed.
Commr. Bailey questioned whether there were any major issues, in meeting with the Jail employees, that could not be agreed upon.
To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, they only question that he was not prepared for was what portion of the Federal government insured the qualified pension plan, for which he later supplied the answer to. Mr. Calabrese further added that, they had informed the employees that they were willing to commit to the 12 hour shift preferred by the jail employees for the term of the contract.
Commr. Windram questioned the position of the Sheriff's Office of Monroe County regarding privatization. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, the Sheriff was a proponent of privatization, with reluctance, because he needed the assurance of a guarantee that the employees would not lose anything in the process.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there was any necessity to modify, or rescind, any of the proposal based on the potential for unionization. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, there is no need to modify, or rescind, any of the proposal, and if the unionization takes place it will be addressed with the County and Wackenhut.
Mr. Thelen questioned the guarantee for the employees, relating to the salary adjustment that is in the corporations contract, and whether that includes a six percent cap. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, if the corporation receives a four percent increase, they would take four percent of the total wage base, and that amount would be available for wage increases. Mr. Thelen further questioned, if the cap was at six percent, cost of living was at eight percent, and the yearly contract was a nine percent, at what stage would their proposal be. To which Mr. Calabrese responded that, at that time their proposal would have to be negotiated with the County, then take into consideration what the County would want to do under those circumstances. Mr. Calabrese added that, they can accomodate any salary increase that is required by the contract with the union, as is done in Detroit, if not, they would need to discuss it with the Board.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 3:15 p.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would take a brief recess.
Corrections Corporation of America
Mr. Doctor R. Crants, Cofounder of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), President and Chief Executive Officer, appeared before the Board and stated that the company has a statement that they follow, which is, "quality corrections, at less cost to the taxpayer, in partnership with government".
Mr. Crants discussed CCA's experience and qualifications, and stated that they have 17 secure facilities in the United States, including one facility in Australia. He discussed contracting agencies, compensated mandays, inmate population by security level, jail operations, jail cost comparisons, and contract renewals.
Mr. Crants discussed CCA's financial strength, reviewing their income statement for the year which ended December 31, 1989, their balance sheet, a financial comparison of CCA and Wackenhut, and their commitment to the industry.
Mr. Crants discussed project specifics, such as, a proposal comparison of CCA versus Wackenhut concerning price, medical costs, salaries, employee benefits, and experience.
Ms. Ann Youlers, Director of Human Resources, CCA, appeared before the Board and discussed the company's compensation and benefits, as they relate to vacations, holidays, sick leave, short term disability, long term disability, life insurance, salaries, health care, retirement, and stock ownership, as compared to the County, as it exists at this time. She added that, in addition, the company pays for employees that wish to relocate to another geographical area within the company.
Ms. Youlers discussed the comparison of the Lake County salary ranges as compared with CCA and Wackenhut, and stated that they have maintained the current level in most jobs, and have exceeded that level in some positions.
Ms. Youlers added that, they are supporters of the new Federal Drug Free Workplace, and do require drug testing for pre-employment.
Mr. Crants reappeared before the Board and discussed the historical highlights of CCA, as they occurred from October 1983 to February 1990.
Commr. Bakich questioned how the company would be able to work with the jail employees should they desire to unionize. To which Mr. Crantz responded that, they are prepared for operating the jail if it becomes unionized. He added that, they are operating a recently unionized jail, which is a medium security prison, and have had great success in dealing with unions.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether the County would have access to the jails financial records, and other information, if so desired. To which Mr. Crantz responded that, the County would have access, if desired.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether CCA allows for a law library for use by the inmates. To which Mr. Crants responded that, in their proposal, they do provide for a law library and also provide.for legal counsel to represent inmate claims.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether a general purpose library is as consistent with ACA standards as a law library is. To which Mr. Crants responded that the general purpose library is consistent to ACA standards.
Commr. Bailey questioned whether, after CCA's meeting with the jail employees, if there were any major issues which could not be agreed upon. To which Mr. Crants responded that, there was no disagreement on any major issues, but he could tell that the jail employees were skeptical of privatization. He added that, when posed with the question of committing to 12 hour shifts, CCA responded that they were not willing to commit to that, but would be amenable to consider it.
Commr. Gregg questioned whether, if the County, through negotiations with CCA, were willing to offer a minimum number of inmates, would CCA be willing to pass on some of the contract inmate revenue. To which Mr. Crants responded that, CCA would be willing to pass on that revenue, because they work in partnership with government, and discussed the case of a prison in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Commr. Swartz questioned the jail costs comparisons, and why the governmental costs are significantly higher. To which Mr. Crants responded that, most of the time, when government designs a facility, it is not designed with a cost effective operation in mind. He added that, in the instances in which CCA is operating the facility, they have taken over the design of a facility that has already been built, and in the cases where they have been able to achieve substantial savings, CCA designs a jail annex, wing, or extension, since the jails are generally very overcrowded. He further added that, CCA pays for that addition, and the efficiency of the new portion enables them to lower the cost of operation.
Mr. Alan A. Thelen, County Manager, questioned the issue beds that cannot be filled, and how CCA would approach this, in terms of investment of the facility. To which Mr. Crants responded that, when preparing the pricing, CCA assumed that the County would only pay for what they use, there would be no minimum guarantee, and CCA would be responsible if there were any empty beds, which may be subsidized.
Commr. Bakich questioned whether CCA has any rehabilitation program of the inmates for return to society. To which Mr. Crants responded that, CCA is willing to educate the inmates for their return to society and do provide those type programs. Mr. Crants discussed a study concerning "Return to Custody Statistics for Juveniles".
Commr. Bakich stated that, the County was considering the option of taking on the educational programs, and questioned whether such programs are included in their proposal or are they in addition to their proposal. To which Mr. Crants responded that, there had been a study performed concerning programs, that was issued in December of 1989, for which he did not have a copy available at this time, and indicated that he would provide the Board with a copy. He added that, CCA has 21 different programs to offer, such as, vocational training, and college courses.
At this time, Commr. Bakich stated that, the Board would discuss the presentations between themselves. He added that, he was overwhelmed with the amount of information presented, and due to that fact, he was not comfortable with justifiably making a decision today from the County's point of view.
Mr. Thelen noted that, the Board had indicated that they would try to make a decision by March, but there are some things that were presented this afternoon that he would like staff to react to, before a decision is made. He added that, individual members of the Board had requested that the County staff make a presentation on the proposal that was compiled by the County, which had been submitted as a regular bid from the County Manager's office, because of the County's interest in trying to operate the jail. He stated that, because of scheduling, County staff could not make a presentation until the April 3, 1990 Board meeting or, possibly, at a special scheduled meeting..Commr. Gregg stated that, an important issue for response by staff and the two companies, is the costs of health care, concerning capped and noncapped.
Commr. Bakich mentioned, possibly, having an audit done, item by item, in order to obtain the pros and cons of each proposal for the Board's review. To which Mr. Thelen responded that, staff could go through the information presented and highlight the pros and the cons.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, as staff reviews the variety of information, they also review that information with the firms involved.
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a special meeting for Thursday, March 29, at 9:00 a.m., for presentations by the County staff, Wackenhut, and CCA, for action concerning
privatization of the Jail by the Board, if desired.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 4:50 p.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 5:05 p.m. for the scheduled Public Hearing.
Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, appeared before the Board to discuss the proposed Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. He stated that, at the last meeting, the Board instructed the consultants to go back and review the rate charged for convenience stores.
Commr. Bakich noted that, it has been brought to his attention that the building industry, and others, have numerous questions to address to the Board, and is unsure that those concerns can be resolved tonight. Therefore, he questioned whether the Board desires to hear their concerns and delay the ordinance until another time. To which it was the consensus of the Board to hear their comments and delay action on the ordinance at this time.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, noted minor amendments to the ordinance, such as, word changes, that are to be incorporated.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing several conventional homes, developers, several industries, and companies, appeared before the Board and stated that he has concerns regarding the rate charged for mobile home parks, and that, historically, mobile homes serve as retirement communities and should be assessed as retirement homes, not single family residences.
Mr. Richey noted concerns that, the industrial and mining rates are unrealistic, because such operations cannot afford to pay impact fees on an entire site when only a very small portion is actually in production at any one time. He was also concerned that, entire acreages are assessed and no credits are provided. Mr. Sans Lassiter, a professional engineer, representing Mr. Richey, appeared before the Board and stated that, he has been involved in impact fee reviews of both public and private agencies and is very familiar with the different types of ordinances within the State of Florida. He questioned the use of level of service "C" as a standard, when the comprehensive plan has not been adopted, since there also may be a provision for level of service "D" in the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Lassiter was concerned that the development cannot exceed a particular level of service during any month, of any year, over a 20 year period, which is not a standard practice. He was also concerned with the credits allowed, and the impact level for mining operations. He added that, the roadway maintenance characteristics, and not only capital costs, are reflected in the costs to be recovered by impact fees.
Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board and stated that, he was concerned that the impact rates will be increased before the County finishes processing an individuals paperwork, which is unfair to the applicant's because of the systems inefficiency. He also stated that, the effective date needs to be clarified in the ordinance or determined by the Board.
Mr. John Pringle, President of Pringle Development, appeared before the Board and requested that the final decision not be made at this time. He stated that, he was concerned with the supporting figures used for the cost per lane-mile, as it relates to Table 2,.of the Impact Fee Study, and why the cost& for developers are lower. He also questioned where the list of projects, in Table 2 originated, and whether impact fees are intended to pay for growth in future years.
Mr. Tom Jackson, Hunter Services, responded to Mr. Pringle's question concerning cost per lane-mile and stated that those costs were derived from the County's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, Florida Department of Transportation District 5, and from the County's Traffic Circulation Element.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, noted that the County bases their calculations within the Capital Improvement Program, on anticipated costs, and those costs depend on the type of road and demands made on that particular road.
Discussion occurred regarding basing the calculations on anticipated costs, current costs, and actual construction costs.
Mr. Stivender noted that, the Public Works Department provided the consultants with estimates on particular road projects and the consultants extended the numbers which added additional costs in the study.
It was further noted that, some of the figures were obtained from the draft of the Traffic Circulation Element, which was provided by the Planning Department, and the improvements are based on the methodology used for doing the Traffic Circulation Element, and projecting a certain amount of increase in traffic each year, which would generate the need for improvement.
Mr. Alan A. Thelen, County Manager, suggested that the consultants and the County staff review the figures used in the study to ensure that they are correct, since the differences are so great.
Mr. Carl Ludecke, Charlie Johnson Builders, appeared before the Board and questioned the assessments of mobile homes versus single family unit homes. He felt that the lower mobile home fee would encourage more mobile homes to be placed in the County.
Mr. Ludecke noted concerns with the 60 to 90 day waiting period in order to secure home loan financing, and that new homeowners may be required to pay the fee before their loan is approved, which may jeopardize the purchase of the home. Also, the home loan arrangements may fall through after the County has collected their fee. He noted concerns with regards to new homeowners securing Veterans Administration (VA) or Farmers Home Administration (FHA) loans.
Commr. Gregg suggested that, a waiting period be established, that would allow for plans that had been submitted, before the adoption date of the ordinance, or increase in the ordinance, their permit be allowed to be issued within six months of the adoption date of the ordinance. Therefore, as long as the plans are submitted before the adoption date of the ordinance, one would be exempt from the increase in the impact fee.
Mr. Ludecke stated that, the County should take the average of what it has cost over the last three years to build roads in Lake County, adjusting it for cost increases for materials and labor, which would be a more realistic number for use by the consultants in their study.
Commr. Bailey questioned whether the single family home can be amended to the same figure as the mobile home, and whether those figures need to be justified. To which Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded that, the fees must be based on the data which supports the fee, which is the information supplied to the consultant by the County. She added that, the current fees are based on the ITE studies that support those fees, and when the mobile home study has been completed by the consultants, there will be sufficient data to address mobile home fees, since that data must be present in order to justify the impact fee figures.
Mr. Lee Hokr, a member of the Lady Lake Commission, appeared before the Board and stated that, the proposed impact fee program is extremely ambitious, will threaten development, and the figures should be lowered.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing several developers in the municipalities and the County, appeared before the Board and stated that, she is not opposed to the impact fees, but these fees.as they are proposed, work to discriminate against conventional housing, which will encourage mobile home housing.
Ms. Bonifay noted that, the County should provide an alternative method of calculation for the traffic impact study, and distinctions should be made between on and off site improvements.
She further added that, the provision of a traffic impact study should not be required as a condition for development.
Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board and suggested that the County apply a user's fee, with regards to the Lake Rails to Trails, as a source of funding income for that project. He further stated that, this ordinance should be postponed approximately 60 to 90 days to allow the County, consultants, and developers to provide more detailed input.
Mr. Pringle reappeared before the Board and stated that, with regards to the equalization of mobile home and single family home fees, the Board's responsibility is to encourage home ownership as opposed to rentals, and conventional single family homes as opposed to mobile homes.
Commr. Gregg stated that, the County does not want to offer incentives to encourage the building of more mobile home parks in lieu of conventional housing, but the County cannot arbitrarily increase the fees for mobile homes to equal the fees for single family homes. He added that, whether one lives in a mobile home or a conventional home should not have an effect on traffic, but mobile homes typically have been retirement communities and that is the reason for the lower trip generation rate.
Commr. Swartz stated that, another element comes into focus concerning how the County directs itself, and that is in the Board's ability to plan for land useage for the future and the type of housing that is desired, which could have a considerable impact on the County, as well as the fees.
Mr. Lee Fennell, who owns property in Lady Lake, appeared before the Board questioned the reason why the fees are lower for banks and banks with drive-throughs, versus savings and loans. He also noted that, the entire impact fee structure places a disproportionate share of the costs on new development when those already in the community would derive the benefits from both the growth and the improvements that the new developments would provide.
Ms. Wanda Cone, representing Habitat for Humanity of Lake County, Florida, Inc., appeared before the Board and expessed their concerns that low cost, and other self-help housing programs, designed to assist the homeless affordable housing issue, would be severely restricted by the proposed impact fees. She requested that, additional language be inserted to the ordinance, which would provide for a waiver of fees for the new homes developed by these programs. She added that many of these low income persons do not have cars.
Commr. Gregg stated that, he had previously requested some direction on affordable housing and information on what other counties are doing, in that regard, but that information has not yet been provided. He agreed that there would be a problem in Lake County with regards to affordable housing and would like some definitions as to what is "affordable housing" and the allowable price range, then the Board could make a decision on whether to discount or waive the fee.
Mr. Thelen noted that, previously, staff had determined to look at all of the fees relating to other functions, as well, and staff will be compiling a package on such, as part of the housing element study.
Ms. Cone added that, in Orange County, the Habitat for Humanity pays the impact fees and are reimbursed through a grant system. She added that, those affordable housing type homes are under $30,000.00, and within the city limits.
Mr. Mike Lamb, a partner with a planning and engineering firm in Orlando, appeared before the Board and stated that, they have clients that are doing projects within the affordable housing range.
He provided figures based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition of affordable housing. He added that, a very low income household in Lake County is making approximately $12,250.00, and pay no more than $318.00, monthly, for their.mortgage. He also suggested the the impact fees be waived for low and very low income families.
Commr. Bailey suggested that, the County lower the proposed impact fees and phase them in over an extended period of time. To which Mr. Jackson responded that, the fees could be phrased in at a lower percentage, should the Board desire.
Commr. Gregg stated that, the Board should give staff direction that the fees could be paid before the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued, in order to collect money to handle the impact that the home or business will have on the County's system.
Commr. Swartz noted that, the County needs to ensure that staff can address the issue, in cases where the applicant may go bankrupt before the CO is issued. To which Ms. Lustgarten responded that, bonding, or a letter of credit, for the impact fees, at the time the building permit is issued, would ensure that they are paid. To which it was the Board's consensus that, they would not want to require bonding, or a letter of credit, on all projects, but, possibly, it would be feasible for large projects.
Mr. Thelen stated that, another approach would be to allow a discount of the fee if one would prefer to pay the fee in advance.
Mr. Joe Parisian, contractor, appeared before the Board and suggested not letting the home or business turn their power on until the impact fee is paid.
Commr. Gregg stated that, when off-site road improvements are done on developments, that those improvements should be credited to the developer's impact fee account. To which Ms. Lustgarten noted, that is done if it is an off-site improvement, that is not required for the functioning of that development, they would be credited, which is determined by County staff on a case by case basis.
Mr. Ed Bergman, commercial real estate broker, appeared before the Board and stated that, he understands the philosophy of litigation is that, any off-site improvements should be credited to the impact fees. To which Commr. Swartz responded that, that statement is incorrect, if the improvements are site specific to the project.
Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board and stated that, the present ordinance is not clear, as to when the off-site improvements can be credited to the impact fees, and whether they are credited depends on the interpretation by the County staff. To which Ms. Lustgarten responded that, in the ordinance, amendments to the language has been added in order to clarify that issue.
Mr. Jackson stated that, their study on mobile homes should be completed approximately April 1, 1990, and the study on recreation and education is scheduled for completion by May 1, 1990.
After some discussion, it was determined to delay action concerning this ordinance until the Board Meeting of June 5, 1990, until such time as the new proposed ordinance can be readvertised. There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH
JAMES C. WATKINS