JUNE 5, 1990

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, June 5, 1990, at 5:05 p.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; Don Bailey; Richard Swartz; and Thomas J. Windram. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.


Commr. Bakich, Chairman, brought to the attention of the Board the fact that the City of Eustis was requesting approval of a 15 foot wide water main easement, located on the property of the Lake County Fairgrounds. He stated that staff had all bids approved and were ready to move forward with the request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request alluded to above.



Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board and brought them up-to-date as far as what was requested of staff and what staff had done, regarding said requests, concerning the Lake County Road Impact Fee Study. He stated that, at the Board Meeting held on March 13, 1990, direction was given to staff to look specifically at construction costs which were presented at that time, which staff has done, in correlation with the Public Works Department, which he stated would be presented to the Board, for their perusal. He stated the fee schedule had also been revised, which would be discussed, as well, noting that it had changed considerably since the one which was received by the Board late last week. He stated the convenience store issue would also

be addressed this date, as well as the mobile home study, which was authorized by the Board. He then turned the floor over to Mr. Tom Jackson, with Hunter/Reynolds, Smith & Hill.

Mr. Jackson appeared before the Board stating that, at the last public hearing which was held concerning the Road Impact Fee Study, his firm was requested to reexamine the road costs, noting that the Board felt the costs which were given may not have reflected actual road improvement costs in Lake County. He stated that some of the costs which were given were based on typical costs of a number of road improvement projects around the State, by the Florida Department of Transportation. He stated that, according to the contract, his firm was not to develop road costs, however, they did, noting that since no other information was given to them, his staff used FDOT costs standards, which were based on typical sections that FDOT supplied them with. He stated his firm has since met with the County Public Works Department, and discussed their actual experience on road projects in Lake County - not only the material costs, but also the quantity, the thickness of the roadways, etc.

Discussion occurred, at which time Mr. Jackson referred to two tables, one being a table of costs for doing a two lane road and the other for going from two lanes to four lanes. He then referred to a diagram on display which showed the dimensions, based on Lake County standards, for each of the two types of improvements alluded to above. He then reviewed a chart titled "Typical Roadway Improvement Costs for Lake County, County Maintained Roads Only", and answered questions presented by the Board regarding same.

Ms. Carmen Chronister, also with the firm of Hunter/Reynolds, Smith & Hill, appeared before the Board and explained how the study which their firm conducted was done. She stated that when her firm was reviewing the roadway costs, their staff went back and looked for substantiation on all the different factors involved in the determination of the final fee. In the capacity, or maximum service volumes, even though it is a rural cross-section, in terms

of using swails, as opposed to a closed drain system, it is urban in terms of the number of roadway cuts, driveway cuts, median cuts, and intersecting roadways, of which she stated has a large impact on the amount of traffic which can be carried. She stated another major factor is speed, noting that, in the analysis, some of the capacity for the two lanes was calculated for a 45 m.p.h. rural facility. Then it was improved to four lanes, and the new capacity which was put in was for a 55 m.p.h. roadway segment, as opposed to a 45 m.p.h. segment. She stated, however, that the main difference is that a rural roadway segment assures no more than two driveway cuts, per mile. She stated if the County was making that kind of widening, to provide for growth, that growth would have to have access to the facility, so a part and parcel which would be increased to four lanes, is going to be increased in the number of driveway cuts and median cuts per mile.

Commr. Windram stated that, during a discussion the Board had earlier this date, he was not addressing the use issue, as much as he was construction costs.

Discussion occurred regarding an instance where the additional costs in right-of-way, for a rural section of highway, equaled the additional construction costs within the 100 foot right-of-way, at which time Ms. Chronister stated that, in talking with the County's Public Works Department, in determining what the future sections would be on the proposed improvements, they were looking at the rural cross-section across the Board for all two and four lane improvements.

Commr. Gregg stated he had reviewed the figures on the charts which were given to the Board earlier, however, the figures on the same charts which they had just been given were different, noting that the difference was substantial, and questioned why, to which Mr. Jackson stated that the figures which were on the set the Board had received last week were premature, noting that the figures they presently had before them were the correct figures.

Mr. Jackson then reviewed the chart titled "Lake County Transportation Impact Fees - Revised Road Costs with ROW", which he noted had been revised June 4, 1990. Upon being questioned by Commr. Bakich as to how the Board could be assured that said numbers would not change again, Mr. Jackson stated that the numbers which the Board had received last week should not have been distributed, as he had understood the discussion would only pertain to road costs, and not capacity, however, after learning that said charts had been distributed, stated that the capacity was evaluated as well, which he noted was a key part of the equation. He stated the figures the Board had before them this date complete said evaluation. He noted that the figures which had been given to the Board last week were taken from the old lane capacity. After further discussion regarding the matter, Mr. Jackson stated he did not anticipate the present figures changing again, as all the variables have been considered, with exception to the mobile home per generation rate, which he noted would be discussed at a later time.

Mr. Jackson then reviewed a chart comparing Lake County residential land use fees with those of surrounding counties, at which time discussion occurred regarding same.

Commr. Gregg questioned where Mr. Jackson's firm was on the mobile home study, to which Mr. Jackson stated his firm had received all the information on the surveys which were taken, as of last week, and have preliminarily calculated what the trip rate would be, utilizing the new information which was received. He then indicated what the current trip rates are, as well as what it would be according to the new information received.

It was noted that the Board should receive the information alluded to above, in final form, in approximately a week, therefore, Mr. Thelen, County Manager, suggested postponing action regarding the fees until after the Board has had a chance to review said information.

Mr. Jackson noted that, in terms of the overall work program, his firm had submitted to the County fees for every facility area, except for public libraries, which they have not done as yet, due to the fact of waiting for information from the Lake County Library System.

Commr. Gregg suggested sending the information the Board received this date to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, for their review.

Mr. Mike Szunyog, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board stating that the Board had earlier talked about a grace period, or a later effective date for the ordinance, and, in doing some research on it and other fees around the State, found that there is generally a 30 to 50 day grace period, where the building community would come in and get building permits, based on the existing fee, until the period is over. He stated what staff is proposing is a 45 day period, which they feel would allow those individuals that are presently in the process of obtaining approval, to obtain their permit, based on the existing fees, within a 45 day period.

Discussion occurred regarding the fact that the Board felt 45 days may not be sufficient time, at which time Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated the way the ordinance is presently drafted provides that it shall become effective, as provided by law, which is 10 days after transmittal to the Secretary of State. She stated what the Board might want to do is provide a specific date for it to become effective, so that those individuals currently in the process of submitting a building permit would be able to do so.

Mr. Carl Ludecke appeared before the Board stating that it is presentlY taking approximately 60 days for FHA approval and 90 days or more for VA approval. He also noted that the appraisers have 30 days to do their appraisals, and at times, take their time doing so, after which it goes to the underwriters, therefore, stated they

would appreciate the Board allowing at least 90 days, if at all possible.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he represented several home builders present this date, as well as those individuals in the material extraction business. He stated he was also representing Royal Industries, which has a substantial warehousing operation, as well as a company in the business of residential development. He stated the Board had discussed, at an earlier Board Meeting, the equalizing of fees, with regard to mobile homes and conventional homes, as well as the fact that they also discussed mining operations and some other intensive industrial uses which were in place, that did not seem to have any relation to the actual trip generation from same. He stated what he thought was going to happen was that those involved were going to be able to express their concerns, and then be provided with updated information, prior to the next public hearing, well enough in advance to allow those involved to review same, however, this did not happen.

Mr. Richey stated that he had Mr. Dave Dunlap, with the consulting firm of Vanasse, Hangen & Brustlin, in Orlando, go through and make a proposal, for purposes of discussion of the mining operation, as well as the equalization of impact fees for conventional versus mobile homes, at which time he distributed a document pertaining to same, for the Board's perusal. He stated that, rather than get involved in a contest of experts in discussing the matter, would suggest having the different views of how to arrive at impact fees be done through the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee and come back to this Board in 30 days with a system worked out. He stated he did not want to have to wait 30 more days, while someone gets back with the information presented this date, and have those involved receive it just before the public hearing, without sufficient time to review it.

Mr. Dunlap appeared before the Board stating that his firm had looked at the report prepared by Hunter & Associates, and had

addressed, in their memorandum, three (3) issues: (1) the apparent high fee, per acre, for sand mining operations within Lake County; (2) the disparity between the fees charged for manufactured housing, as opposed to conventionally structured single family housing; and (3) the projected costs of roadway improvements on a per mile basis. He stated that he had prepared a memorandum, based on the original Hunter report and their evaluation, at which time he elaborated on same and answered questions presented by the Board.

Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board and stated that having the Committee report back to this Board in 45 days, sorting out proposals, as far as bedrooms versus the straight trip generation, on mobile homes versus conventional homes, clearly indicates that some wording needs to be worked on for the ordinance, with regard to industrial uses and mining uses, because there is a big difference between what Mr. Dunlap is saying and what the firm of Hunter & Associates is saying, noting that he realized it could not be resolved this date, however, needs to be resolved soon, as it represents big dollars to Lake County, as well as to those individuals whose pockets it will come out of. He requested them to take time to study the charts before them this date and do what is right, so that it will stand up to the test of time.

Commr. Swartz stated a concern he had in that Lake County is getting further and further behind on their road needs by not adopting the road impact fees.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Richey stated there needs to be a better mechanism where one can sit down with staff, and his consultant, and talk about the issues alluded to above, and come back to staff with comments, noting that he felt it was a waste of the Board's time in doing so.

Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board stating that they had previously received both oral and written comments, from the Home Builders Association, when discussing the matter, however, she

noted that she did not have any comments this date, as she had just begun to review the figures distributed at this meeting. She stated she wanted the Board to know that she was still interested and would like to reserve the right to come back before the Board, at a later time, and communicate their thoughts on said figures.

Commr. Bakich questioned Mr. Jackson as to whether he had any comments on the information presented by Mr. Dunlap's firm, Vanasse, Hangen & Brustlin, to which he stated that he had not seen the information prior to Mr. Dunlap's presentation, however, commented regarding the mining operation and the fee being charged on a gross versus net acres, stating that his firm had submitted a memorandum to the County, dated March 15, 1990, which specifically states, on Page 4, that the intent was that it be based on a net basis of the actual acres in operation, not the acres designated as mining. Regarding the comments made concerning mobile homes, he stated his firm did a study, collected information indicating changes in the trip rate it would involve for mobile homes, and are now in the process of going through said information.

Ms. Chronister, who is a member of the ITE Trip Generation Committee, and familiar with the way ITE structures its trip rates, and the types of factors that are included, reappeared before the Board stating that the rate ITE reflects are accurate for mobile homes. She stated discussion occurred at the last Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting regarding the use of bedrooms in the homes, for determining the impact fee, however, a decision was made that, because of the variable use of bedrooms, in homes which get to more than three bedrooms, that it would not be the way to make that assessment. She stated one could build a home with five bedrooms, however, the next family that moves in may use three bedrooms and use the other two bedrooms for other things, such as a recreation room, library, etc. She stated the feeling that she got from the Committee was that the Planning Department received plans from developers which indicated three bedrooms, a library, a study, etc., therefore, the Committee felt that sticking with

single family and multi-family ratings would be the best way to go about it. She stated the findings they are coming up with on the mobile home study have indicated that the rate ITE shows is a very accurate reflection of the balance between the scattered site mobile homes and mobile home parks. She noted they were actually getting higher rates in the mobile home parks, due to the fact that mobile home parks are usually located in more urban locations, so trip lengths become shorter. She stated that ten trips is one of the most solidly substantiated numbers in the trip generation record, at this time.

Further discussion occurred regarding the trip rates, at which time Mr. Dunlap gave further input, to which Mr. Jackson stated that he had not seen the information which Mr. Dunlap referred to, therefore, felt it would be best for he and his staff to take a look at the information and come back to the Board with a formal response, rather than banter back and forth at this particular meeting.

Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board stating that a conventional home in the middle of nowhere and a mobile home in the middle of nowhere generate the same kind of trips. He further stated that a conventional home in an urban setting and a conventional home in a rural setting ought to generate the same kind of trips, noting that it is a policy decision that the Board must make, in order to equalize the different kinds of uses, which he feels, based on what he heard this date, is not being dealt with. He stated, in his opinion, the criteria which the Board should use is bedrooms.

Commr. Bakich stated he felt the Board needs to look at the aspect of one taking a five bedroom home and making two of the five bedrooms into a library, den, etc., as alluded to by Ms. Chronister. He further stated that he, too, felt a mobile home in a rural setting is going to generate the same trip rate as the conventional home in the same type setting.

Commr. Swartz stated he felt part of the problem was that the Board authorized the consultants to go back and do an indepth study of the difference, due to the fact that the assumption was that there was not any difference, however, the consultants came back stating that it was probably a little higher, in terms of trip generation, which will ultimately raise the fee, and the Board did not like that information. He stated one cannot equalize a situation if it is not equal.

Mr. Jackson stated that the ITE trip generation manual does differentiate by the size of a conventional home, which equates very closely to a mobile home, noting that there is a very close correlation between the two.

Commr. Bakich stated there seems to be a differing opinion for every industry being affected, and he finds it very frustrating. He also stated there does not appear to be a working together between those being affected and this Board.

Commr. Swartz disagreed, stating that the mining industry may not like the information received, but they addressed the matter and gave the Board their best judgment. He stated he also felt the consultants have done everything they can to address the matter. He stated if the Board is going to send the matter back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, then they need to know, from anyone that wants to challenge the data received, whether or not they have received all the information they need, so that the Board can ask the consultants to review the additional information, for a final analysis.

Mr. Richey stated that if, in fact, the fee schedule before the Board this date is the fee schedule they are proposing, and the conditions noted are the conditions which those affected will have to abide by, then he feels the public should have the opportunity to look at it, talk with their consultants, decide if there are other areas it ought to concern, and then come back before the Board.

Commr. Gregg agreed with Mr. Richey in that he, too, felt it was unreasonable to have several pages of data put before them, at the last minute, and be expected to read it before the meeting this date, and make a decision. He stated he did not think it was at all unreasonable to expect the development community, the Home Builders Association, and everyone else involved to be upset about it, noting that he felt it should go back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, and that the Board ought to give them an opportunity to be heard, and ought to have answers for them. He stated when the Board developed the fee the County presently has, they did not have the problems they are faced with today, due to the fact that they worked in a committee atmosphere, made up of individuals who have to live with the decision made. He stated he also felt that a mobile home in a rural setting, and a conventional home in the same setting, generate the same trip rates.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, gave input regarding the matter, stating that this meeting was set a couple of months ago, by action of the Board, and one of the things the consultants ran into, in terms of developing the data received (particularly the data which relates to mobile homes), was that they did not receive it in time, therefore, it was going to take them some additional time to study it. He stated that staff knew the information relating to mobile homes was not going to be included in the Hunter & Associates' presentation, however, the other information which the Board received, just prior to the meeting, was not made available to staff until Friday, June 1, 1990. He stated the consultants indicated it would take them a week to complete the study regarding mobile homes and have it to the Board for their perusal, noting that the Board could not have a hearing regarding it until July 3, 1990. He stated if the Board wanted it to go back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, in the interim, that could be done, or the Board could extend it further if they wished, however, it would have to be scheduled sometime after July 3, 1990.

Further discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Gregg stated when he worked on the existing impact fee, he was told they could not increase mobile homes to single family, with the trip generation rates they presently had, however, they could lower single family. He stated if they did increase mobile homes to conventional, theY were risking litigation by the mobile home community.

At this time, Mr. Richey interjected that Manatee County assesses their fee based on bedrooms, and that Marion County equalizes it. He stated, from a policy point of view, if Manatee County can count bedrooms, Lake County ought to be able to do so, and if Marion County can equalize it, Lake County ought to look at doing it.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that whatever method is used, it needs to be based on substantive data that supports the fee.

Commr. Gregg questioned Mr. Jackson as to what his feelings were regarding basing the fee on bedrooms, and forgetting mobile or conventional homes, to which Mr. Jackson responded that he would not argue with the point, he would just need to be comfortable that there is sufficient information to base the difference on, which he has not seen as yet.

Commr. Gregg then questioned Ms. Chronister, with her knowledge on the ITE, as to how she felt about basing the fee on bedrooms, to which she responded that she could go back to the telephone survey and get the data from those which were contacted and then have County staff go into mobile home parks and find out what the breakdown is on each of the 800 to 1,000 units that are contained within each of the parks, however, noted there would be a problem, in that as much as 30% of the residents of said mobile home parks have left Lake County for the season.

Further discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Bakich stated he felt it should go back to the Impact Fee Citizens Advisory Committee, for further study, and see if they

can come back to the Board with a consensus of how the County should approach the issue.

Commr. Gregg then stated that he, too, felt it should go back to the Committee, and would like to see equalization between mobile homes and conventional homes, if there is any way possible. He further stated that he would like to see a time frame of 90 days, from the time of implementation, as well as the fact that he would like to see something regarding affordable housing, noting that he felt there has been sufficient time to come up with something regarding same.

Commr. Gregg further stated that he would like to see the Committee come back to the Board with a recommendation within 45 to 60 days, and that he did not want to receive said information the day of the Board Meeting - that the Board needs the information at least several days prior to the meeting.

It was noted by the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, that the issue has reached a point where staff will have to start readvertising, due to the fact that there will be a substantially new ordinance, regarding the matter. She stated there will have to be two (2) public hearings, two weeks apart, for the final enactment.

Mr. Szunyog, Director of Planning, stated that the Board might want to have a workshop, prior to the first public hearing, to which the Board concurred, at which time it was noted that it was the consensus of the Board to have said workshop on August 7, 1990.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.