The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 5, 1991, 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: Donald B. Bailey, Chairman; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Richard Swartz; Catherine Hanson; and Michael J. Bakich. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Alan A. Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Watkins gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Hanson.

MINUTES

Regarding the Minutes of December 17, 1990, the following changes were requested to be made:

On Page 2, Lines 14 and 20, and on Page 3, lines 9 and 12, change Lewis to Bouis.

On Page 11, Line 17, change Michelle Rainer to Charlotte Lehner.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of December 17, 1990 (Special Meeting), as corrected.

Regarding the Minutes of February 5, 1991, the following changes were requested to be made:

On Page 1, Line 18, change Mazak to Mazade.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of February 5, 1991 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.

PRESENTATION OF AWARDS, PLAQUES AND RESOLUTIONS

COUNTY EMPLOYEES/PERSONNEL

Commr. Bailey presented a plaque to Mr. Wade D. Curtis, Special Services Division, Public Works, acknowledging his

retirement after 11 1/2 years of service to the County, as well as plaques to the following employees, acknowledging five years of service to the County:

Ms. Elizabeth Ainslie, LP Nurse, Department of Corrections

Mr. John E. Alford, Corrections Officer, Department of Corrections

Mr. Randy W. Bensley, Corrections Sergeant, Department of Corrections

Mr. Malon L. Cheatham, Corrections Administration Lieutenant, Department of Corrections

Mr. James J. Crawford, Corrections Officer, Department of Corrections

Ms. Ernestine R. Gnann - Food Service Supervisor, Department of Corrections

Ms. Bonnie F. Hatch, Corrections Officer, Department of Corrections

Ms. Linda J. Kaufman, LP Nurse, Department of Corrections

Ms. Audrey W. McKinney, Cook, Department of Corrections

Mr. Franklin McKinney, Corrections Officer, Department of Corrections

Mr. Joseph B. Mordini, Construction Inspector, Public Works

Mr. Jimmy L. Price, Equipment Operator II, Maintenance Area I

Mr. Lonnie L. Smith, Equipment Operator III, Maintenance Area II

Mr. Donald G. Thompson, Corrections Officer, Department of Corrections

Ms. Mary L. Woodbury, Secretary III, Current Planning

COMMISSIONERS

Ms. Linda Rozar, representing the Concerned Citizens of Lake County, presented Commr. Don Bailey, Chairman, with an award honoring him as "Commissioner of the Year".

CLERK'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

Accounts Allowed

A request for payment of Warrant No. 131897 through Warrant No. 132462, for the following accounts:

Law Library Countywide Library

Revenue Sharing Section 8

County Transportation Trust Landfills

Mosquito Control General Revenue

Animal Shelter Trust Fund Aquatic Weed

Countywide Fire District Northwest Fire District

Private Industry Council Capital Outlay

Pasco Fire District Mt. Plymouth Fire District

Northeast Ambulance Northwest Ambulance

Commissary Trust Fund Resort & Development Fund Tax

South Lake Fire District Bassville Fire District

Paisley Fire District Emergency 911 Fund

Miscellaneous/Gas Fund

Audits/State Agencies/Water Resources

A request to acknowledge receipt of the St. Johns River Water Management District Annual Financial Audit, for FY 1989-90.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board (for informational purposes) that the North Lake County Hospital District Board voted and recommended approval of the budget transfer included in the group of budget transfers before the Board this date. She stated said board had retained the services of Greenlee, Kurras, Rice & Brown for their ongoing accounting services, and had retained Attorney Gretchen Vose to act as their legal counsel, thus, would become an independent board, as soon as said individuals assume their duties.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and

carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

County Employees/Personnel

A request for approval of certificates to employees with one and three years of service to the County, and authorized proper signatures on same.

Budgets/Budget Transfers

A request for the transfer of funds in various departments, as alluded to in documentation included with this request.

Accounts Allowed/Ambulances-Hospital Districts

A request to encumber and expend budgeted funds, in the amount of $38,933.00, to reimburse Waterman Medical Center, for rechassis of ALS Unit No. 101.

Roads-County & State/Public Works

A request to accept Peggy Avenue (4-4365) into the County Road Maintenance System.

Roads-County & State/Signs

A request to post 30 m.p.h. speed limit signs on Biltmore Street (4-4190) and to change the speed limit to 30 m.p.h. on Prestwick Avenue (4-4090).

Roads-County & State/Signs

A request to post 55 m.p.h. speed limit signs on C-561, from C-455 to U.S. 27.

Deeds/Roads-County & State

A request to accept the following right-of-way deeds:

For Road Project:

Florence O. Parker - Gray's Airport Road (1-7310)

Glenn D. and Florence O. Parker - Gray's Airport Road (1-7310)

Glenn D. Parker - Griffin View Drive (1-7212) and Gray's Airport Road (1-7310)

Stephen T. Helms - Lane Park Cutoff Road (3-3444)

For Conditional Use Permit (Rezoning):

Bobby and Penny Purvis - Bay Lake Road (C-565)

For Site Plan:

Joseph H. Nolette - Tavares Avenue (1-4928)

For Lot Approval:

B & W Groves, Inc. - Number Two Road (2-3024) and Bloomfield Avenue (2-3026)

Roads-County & State

A request to release the following Murphy Act State Road Reservations:

Steven A. and Marna Handley - Bassville Park area - Reserve 25 ft. from centerline of road - Lakeview Drive (1-5538A).

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGETS/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-BUDGET

Commr. Swartz brought to the attention of the Board the fact that, contained within the request for approval of specifications, quotes, encumbering funds previously authorized, etc., from Administrative Services-Budget, there was a request for approval of consulting services, in the amount of approximately $50,000.00, to prepare the Land Development Regulations. He stated he did not recall the Board giving prior approval for said services, and did not support obtaining outside services to prepare the Land Development Regulations, as he thought staff would be doing them.

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, responded, stating that it was part of the original budget, before the County's professional staff was reduced, to have this work done by consultants.

Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, informed the Board that approximately $45,000.00, of the money involved with doing the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) would be in the form of a State Entitlement Grant, from the Department of Community Affairs. He stated it was planned all along that the County would go outside for assistance on the LDRs, due to the fact that they are quite lengthy and extensive, and felt that staff cannot accomplish this task without outside help, noting that they must be presented to the State by February 1, 1992.

After further discussion regarding the matter, a motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Hanson to delay the portion of the request alluded to above, pertaining to consultant services for preparing the LDRs, until the Board Meeting of March 12, 1991.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Administrative Services-Budget for approval of specifications, quotes, encumbering funds previously authorized, payments to be made, and other services that do not require bids or quotes, as follows, excluding that portion pertaining to consultant services for preparing the Land Development Regulations:

The Requisitions for the Corrections Division have been processed in the same manner as they were done prior to Lake County Board of County Commissioners assuming responsibility. At present, the Jail Administrator is in the process of bringing these procedures in compliance with County purchasing policy and procedures. Request permission to waive the bid and quote process at this time.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

RESOLUTIONS/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for the Chairman

to write a letter to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission denying a request for a resolution establishing a bird sanctuary on a four acre parcel of property owned by a Lake County resident.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT'D.)

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-BUDGET/BUDGET TRANSFERS

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, requested the Board to readdress a portion of the County Manager's Consent Agenda pertaining to a request for the transfer of funds in various departments, particularly the portion regarding the establishment of a Special Revenue Section, to jointly be budgeted, 50/50, by the Landfill Enterprise Fund and the Countywide Fire Fund.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to readdress the request (Tab 3 of the County Manager's Consent Agenda) alluded to by Mr. Richey.

Mr. Richey addressed the fact that approximately $336,817.00 had been budgeted by the County for the establishment of a Special Revenue Section to handle the collection of non-ad valorem taxes for fire protection, schools, and libraries. He stated he felt the private sector could do the job for a less amount of money, and requested the Board to investigate that option, before approving this request.

It was noted that the Coordinator for the Special Revenue Section (Ms. Terry King) had been hired and was due to come on board Monday, March 11, 1991.

A considerable amount of discussion occurred regarding this matter, at which time a motion was made by Commr. Swartz and seconded by Commr. Bakich to approve a request to investigate a lease purchase agreement for the equipment that has been proposed for upgrading the Property Appraiser's Office, to be used for the purpose of handling non-ad valorem taxes for fire protection, schools and libraries.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.

Commr. Bailey voted "No".

Mr. Jim Schuster, Director of Finance, requested clarification of the portion of this request pertaining to funding for the Countywide Fire Fund, questioning how it would be funded, to which Mr. Thelen, County Manager, replied that the transfer for same is not intended at this time, noting that the matter will be brought back before the Board, for approval, at a later date. He stated said funding will come from three (3) different districts.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)

COMMUNICATIONS/LAWS & LEGISLATION

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to draft a letter, for the Chairman's signature, encouraging the U.S. legislative delegation to develop and adopt legislation giving local government more control over the quality pricing of cable television.

PUBLIC HEARING

ASSESSMENTS/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.

Mr. John Brettell, a local resident, appeared before the Board informing them that there was an error in the assessment roll for Crescent Drive, involving Lots 59 and 60 (Items 12 and 13 on the assessment roll). He stated he originally owned both lots, however, had sold one of the lots, and one-half of the second lot, yet the records show him as still owning both lots. He requested that the records be corrected.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to award and authorize Project No. SA-70, Crescent Drive Special Assessment

Resurfacing Project, to Carroll Contracting and Ready Mix, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $11,391.00.

Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that they would now need to approve a resolution reflecting the name change which Mr. Brettell pointed out.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a resolution correcting the assessment roll for Crescent Drive, as alluded to above.

COURTHOUSE/COURTS-JUDGES

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the Chief Bailiff to amend the schedule for the Courthouse security.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COMMITTEES

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the Capital Improvements Department to lease property located at 119 N. Joanna Avenue, in Tavares, to be used as the office for the Tourist Development Director and his staff.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the first amendment to the contract with Industrial Waste Services, Inc., for curbside collection and marketing of recyclable materials, for recyclables drop-off collection, and authorization to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $1,350.00, and authorized proper signatures on same.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request, by Pollution

Control, for authorization to execute Change Order No. 001, DER Contract No. GC88, entitled "Agreement for Pollutant Storage System Compliance Inspection Verification Program".

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/FAIRGROUNDS/HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES

Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Director of Health & General Services, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for permission for the Lake County Fair Association to install a dump station, as required by the Lake County Health Department, at an estimated cost of $500.00, to be paid directly by the Fair, as they will be doing the work.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MENTAL HEALTH

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to accept and approve two (2) separate leases, re-written by the County Attorney, enabling Lake-Sumter Mental Health Center to assign their building lease to a local bank, in order to obtain collateral value on their building.

PUBLIC HEARING

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY PROPERTY/RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that there were three (3) items before them this date, for approval, being (1) a resolution authorizing the property exchange between Mr. Tex Merritt and the County; (2) an agreement between the County and the Merritts requiring them to remove any and all structures on the property which they are conveying to the County, within 90 days, including any underground tanks which may exist; and (3) the acceptance of a Warranty Deed from the Merritts conveying their property to the County.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board approved the three items alluded to above by the County Attorney.

Commr. Bakich was not present for the discussion or vote.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/UTILITIES

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, explained this request, stating that the last time this issue was discussed, the Board authorized staff to follow-up with some negotiations. He stated the Board had expressed some concern, at that time, about the off-set provision which states the utility companies would receive credit for the property taxes and business licenses they pay to the County, and felt this was something that staff should try and work around.

Mr. Thelen stated he felt in order to resolve this issue, it would be necessary for the County to go to court, noting that the utility companies have a "favored nation" provision in most of their agreements, which they would have to change, and are not willing to do so, as it has worked for them over the years. He stated, in talking with the County Attorney, the County would need to pass an ordinance, with that provision not in it, which the utility companies will not agree to, therefore, it will require court action to resolve. He stated another concern staff has is the length of the agreement, noting that staff would like 10 years, however, the utility companies are rather insistent on 30 years. He requested direction from the Board on both issues.

Commr. Swartz stated, regarding the terms of the agreement, he felt it did not matter whether it was 10 or 30 years, however, noted the Legislature is considering action which will allow non-chartered counties to impose utility taxes, just as cities do. He questioned, if the County was to choose to go that route, at a later date, whether provisions were in the contract to allow the County to get out of it, to which Mr. Thelen responded that there were, noting that the County could lower the rate, or back out of the franchise agreement.

Mr. Rex Taylor, City Manager with the City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board to discuss the utility franchise tax. He stated, from a municipal standpoint, the City supports the concept of trying to put in place a utility franchise in the unincorporated area of the County; however, they do not support the off-set, or the taxes which are being proposed by the IOUs, in particular, Florida Power Corporation. He stated they also approve the fact that, in the rate base to Florida Power, or any investor owned utilities, property taxes are included in that rate base. He stated they do not feel the franchise fee is right, as, since the Public Service Commission has mandated that the franchise fee be added to the utility bill, they will be double taxing people in the unincorporated area of the County. He stated he felt the Board was the franchising authority, not the investor owned utilities, and as long as what the Board puts in place complies with the Florida Statutes, he did not think it should be left up to what the utility companies want, or will accept.

Commr. Gregg stated he agreed with what Mr. Taylor stated, in that they include their tax in their rate base, and now they are deducting it out of their franchise fee. He stated the only problem is that, to try and avoid the "favored nation" status in the contract, the County is going to be on shaky ground for the next two years, in litigation, and the State Association is possibly going to enter into that litigation, within the next two years, to try and resolve the issue, therefore, feels the County will be better in enacting the franchise agreement, on that basis, and participate with the State Association in that litigation, to try and resolve the matter. He stated, hopefully, they will eliminate the off-set charge.

Commr. Swartz stated a concern he had regarding the off-set clause, and as to whether it was being removed equally from everybody, or whether it was just being taken as an off-set from money that was coming from unincorporated residents, at which time Mr. Billy Spikes, Florida Power, appeared before the Board

responding to Commr. Swartz's concern, stating that Florida Power is not looking at placing an additional burden on their customers, of a 6% franchise or a 10% utility tax, noting that Lake County is the only county in their service area that is looking at a franchise agreement. However, he realized the shift of the burden from the State to the counties and the County's need for revenue, noting that he felt this is probably, in itself, one of the fairest ways to handle the matter. He stated that, as far as a spread of the off-set being discussed, he felt that by leaving the off-set in, everybody will be treated the same. He also discussed the matter of a 30 year term, for the franchise agreement, noting that they are not looking forward to it; however, if the County goes with a standard 30 year franchise, they are willing to work with the Board concerning the matter.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding this matter, at which time Commr. Swartz requested a review by the County Attorney's Office regarding what is likely to happen if this Board adopts an ordinance that does not include the off-set.

Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Bakich stated he does not support the off-set, to which Commr. Gregg concurred, due to the fact that they felt the County was going to do battle over the next two years, and collect nothing.

Commr. Gregg stated the State Association is willing to take the matter on, and try to resolve it, and felt the County should work with them in doing so, and start enacting and charging the fee as soon as possible.

It was the consensus of the Board to continue discussion regarding this matter at a later time, due to a time certain case which was scheduled to be heard.

PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCES/WATER AUTHORITY

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.

Commr. Bakich questioned the language contained in this ordinance pertaining to the description of the access road leading to the Lake Dalhousie boat ramp, noting that it was the opinion of the residents that the County was restricting them from using that road. He also questioned the language which states that picnicking, swimming, and sunbathing would be prohibited at all hours, noting that he would like to see said language changed to just limiting these activities to certain hours, rather than prohibiting them.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the ordinance does not restrict access to the residents - it simply provides that the boat ramp, as well as the access road, will be prohibited; however, the residents can do whatever they choose on their own private property. She stated there is no limitation, as far as the residents are concerned. As far as putting a time limit on the lake, based on all the meetings held pertaining to the matter, the whole intent of the ordinance (which she noted was agreed upon by the Board) was to eliminate those ongoing objectionable activities, being picnicking, swimming, and sunbathing. She stated this ordinance restricts the use of the boat ramp to boat launching activities, and eliminates all other activities.

Commr. Bakich stated the Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission had noted a concern they had with limiting the hours for use of the boat ramp, as during normal hours, someone who is standing on the shore would be in violation, and did not know if the Board wanted to be that restrictive in nature. He stated the night time hours are where the real concern is with the residents in the area.

Colonel Robert Butler, with the Ocala Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, appeared before the Board stating that they agree with the latest edition of the ordinance and find it to be adequate. He also indicated he had a letter (for the record) from Colonel Robert Brantley, Executive Director of the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish

Commission, addressed to the County Attorney, informing her that he found the ordinance to be adequate, as well.

Mr. Gibb Owens, with the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission (present in the audience) was identified as being present, as a private individual, wishing to express some personal concerns - that he was not present representing the Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission. He had indicated to several of the commissioners, prior to the start of this meeting, what his concerns were.

Mr. Chuck Pula, Director of Parks & Recreation, appeared before the Board and expressed his opinion on this matter. He stated he agreed with Commr. Bakich's assessment of the boat ramp facility, noting that he was very hesitant about restricting things such as swimming, sunbathing, picnicking, etc., noting that the ordinance does not address fishing from the shoreline or just standing on the shoreline, and felt that the County's facilities need to have these types of recreational activities allowed during daylight hours. He stated he felt said problems could be addressed through the Florida Statutes, rather than putting more restrictions on this particular site.

Ms. Pamela Braun, a resident of the area around Lake Dalhousie (lives on the lot next to the boat ramp), appeared before the Board representing herself, as well as some of the other residents, stating that the area was never originally designed to be opened for the activities that go on there. She stated the original intent was for boat launching and related parking, only. She informed the Board of parties that go on at the boat ramp and what a nuisance they create, noting that enforcement is terrible. She stated that, at times, during the summer months, she and her husband would have to leave their home, due to the noise.

Mr. Will Davis, Lake County Water Authority, appeared before the Board stating that this issue was addressed with the Lake County Water Authority, as well as the Advisory Committee on Conservation. He read a statement indicating how the Committee

feels about the matter, noting that they feel the ordinance is too restrictive, considering there are statutes already in place which would cover this situation, if they were enacted. He stated they feel adoption of this ordinance might force similar ordinances on other lakes. He stated they do not have any problem with the open alcohol container issue, noting that the general gist is that, if the County is going to enforce an ordinance, it needs to be considered on all public facilities, countywide. He stated the open container issue will be addressed at Hickory Point, and felt the recommendation will be the same. He stated the greatest problem is enforcement, and that the Sheriff's Department is aware of it. He requested the Board to reconsider adoption of this ordinance, and to think about the consequences involved, if they do.

A motion was made by Commr. Bakich and seconded by Commr. Swartz to approve adoption of the Lake Dalhousie Boat Ramp Ordinance.

Commr. Swartz interjected that he felt the Board was going to have to address the situation with the lakes on a case-by-case basis, as there are different problems with each one, and he does not see how the County can handle them across the board.

Mr. Dennis Pridgen, Central Region Boat Ramp Coordinator with the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, appeared before the Board stating that, in reference to the City of Umatilla Boat Ramp, they had just reached an agreement with the City of Umatilla to sign a cooperator's agreement, which he noted is, in essence, identical to one they signed with the County for the Marsh Park facility, noting the Board will be seeing them in the near future, for approximately six (6) other ramps in the County. He stated that many of the issues discussed this date are addressed in the cooperator's agreement.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCES/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Brad King, State Attorney, appeared before the Board to discuss the Citizens Dispute Settlement Program, stating that he wanted to make the Board aware that, up until January 1, 1991, his office had handled and paid all costs for this program. He stated that, due to the restructuring of State government, and the cost cutting measures that were implemented this year, he had to cut this program out of his budget and restructure his office. He informed the Board as to what this program does, stating that it provides a free service of dispute resolution between parties that, otherwise, could not afford to go into circuit or county court and resolve a civil dispute between themselves. He then informed the Board as to how the program operates, stating that, most of the time, the parties leave the program having solved their dispute, and having not impacted on the courts system, the State Attorney's Office, or law enforcement, to any great degree. He stated that last year approximately 6,000 cases were diverted into the program, most of which were resolved either prior to mediation, or during mediation, noting that very few of them had to go into either circuit or county court.

Mr. King stated the situation was discussed with Judge Swigert, at the Judges' Conference, and they appointed a committee to look into developing a program, circuit wide, through Mr. Fred Hooten's Office; however, the problem they are going to face is that the program is going to have to be funded from some source, noting that it presently costs his office approximately $75,000.00 per year, in salaries, benefits, and supplies, to run the program for the entire circuit. He stated that, last year, the Florida Legislature authorized County Commissions to fund the Citizens Dispute Settlement Program through an additional filing fee on civil court cases that are filed in circuit and county court, up to $5.00 per case, in order to fund the costs of this kind of program. He stated he felt it was feasible, if Judge Swigert and the other

judges feel it is an appropriate vehicle to dissolve disputes outside the court system, and requested the Board to look into funding the program. He stated he felt it would take a lot of the load off the judges, as well as provide a service to those individuals that cannot afford to pay the filing fee, to get into the court system. He stated he did not think the Board could take any action until the judges reach a decision regarding the program, but, wanted to make the Board aware of it.

Mr. Howard "Skip" Babb, Jr., Public Defender, appeared before the Board stating that he felt the Citizens Dispute Settlement Program was a good one, and that Mr. King had done a good job with it over the years. He stated, however, he was present this date to discuss the matter of the proposed Legal Services Filing Fee Ordinance.

Regarding the first half of the presentation, Commr. Swartz stated he would like to have a response back from the County's local judges, as well as the circuit, concerning the Citizens Dispute Settlement Program. Mr. Babb stated he would keep the Board apprised of what transpires with the judges, regarding the matter.

Mr. Harley Herman, Attorney in Leesburg, and Lake County Bar Association representative of the Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, appeared before the Board requesting to resume the filing fee ordinance that used to be used to fund part of legal aid services in this county. He reviewed charts, giving a brief overview of the reason why they are requesting to resume the filing fee ordinance. He stated there are approximately 30,000 individuals in the poverty level that would qualify for legal aid services, noting that the present funding for the program only enables the program to have two (2) attorneys, which equals out to one attorney for every 15,000 people. To give a comparison, he stated the general bar in Florida allows one attorney for every 500 to 1,000 individuals, noting that there are probably more attorneys than that statewide. He stated the general board, even though most

of them are from outside Lake County, have supported Lake County as a number one priority, to upgrade this office; however, the criticism they constantly receive is that, if the County is not demonstrating its support, since it is the only county in the central Florida area that does not have this type of ordinance, then why should money that could go to other counties, that was generated through other counties, be used for the Lake County program, and that is what has made the need so critical. He stated what they have proposed has a sliding scale, based on the different types of cases, noting that what is most important about it is that it gives the County a great deal of control over how those funds are used. He stated that, with the money the County has, a third attorney position and some private bar involvement would be funded.

Commr. Bakich requested the County Attorney to look at the ordinance, noting that he felt further consideration was due.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that this ordinance was a recommendation of the Lake County Bar Association, noting that the format might need to be changed; however, the essence of the ordinance would be the same.

Commr. Gregg requested the Clerk's Office to investigate surrounding counties and let the Board know which counties have already adopted this ordinance, or are considering doing so, and, if so, how much monies they have collected.

Mr. Babb reappeared before the Board stating that his staff has already looked into the matter, and found that Lake County is the only county that does not have such an ordinance, at this point in time. He stated there is certainly a need for it in this area, and noted that the Bar Association is behind it. He stated it is a year's contract that can be canceled, with proper notice, and that there are safeguards, as far as auditing what monies come in is concerned, and they are satisfied with it.

Commr. Swartz stated he would support this ordinance, and felt that it should come back before the Board as soon as possible, with additional information, as requested, at which time Mr. Babb stated

he could bring it back to the Board as soon as he is notified of a time to appear.

Commr. Gregg questioned Mr. Babb as to whether the fees involved could be removed from the ordinance, or adjusted, if need be, to which Mr. Babb stated they could.

It was noted that the ordinance would be brought back before the Board, for further discussion and consideration, at the meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991, at 11:00 a.m., with the information requested by the Board to be provided prior to said meeting.

No action was taken at this time.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/UTILITIES (CONT'D.)

Discussion continued regarding the matter of the County negotiating with the power companies, concerning a franchise agreement and an off-set provision.

Commr. Bailey stated he would like to see the Board hold a workshop session regarding the matter, to which Commr. Swartz concurred.

Commr. Swartz stated, if the County is faced with the fact that, if they do not go with the off-set, they are not going to be in the position of collecting the franchise fee, over the course of the next one to two years, then the Board needs to move forward. He requested the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, to inform the Board what they need to do if they choose to adopt their own ordinance, which does not provide an off-set, noting that a draft of the ordinance, as well as the legal opinion of the County Attorney regarding it, can be brought back at the workshop session, for discussion.

Commr. Gregg requested staff to look into the tax situation, and furnish the Board with figures regarding it, to where everybody understands it and has it straight in their minds where the double taxation would lie, if any.

No action was taken at this time.

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/CODE ENFORCEMENT

Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, explained this request.

Mr. Jerry Lockett, Attorney, representing Theophilus, Inc., appeared before the Board to discuss a request for his client to be issued a burn permit, for a parcel of property located north of SR 46 and west of Round Lake Road. He stated there had been a misunderstanding between staff and himself regarding the type of burn permit requested. He stated he and his client had requested the issuance of a burn permit, for the purpose of burning on a regular basis; however, staff had understood that they were requesting a temporary burn permit, for a one-time burn.

Mr. Lockett stated that, under a State permit, his client really did not have to obtain permission from the Board to burn on her property, due to the fact that she can burn in an agricultural zone, under her CUP, without having to amend the CUP, as long as they do it in accordance with State standards, in an air curtain. However, in order to avoid a fight with the County over the matter, they decided to request the Board to grant them a burn permit, for burning the debris on his client's property.

The County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, informed the Board that the existing CUP, for Theophilus, Inc., does not permit ongoing burning. She stated their uses are limited to not operating a land clearing business, noting that this is what the original citation from Code Enforcement was for, based on her understanding. She stated staff was clearly under the impression that the request was for a one-time burn, in order to clear the debris presently on the property. She stated if Theophilus, Inc., was talking about the ability to burn, in relation to a land clearing operation, it would require an amendment to their CUP.

A brief discussion occurred regarding an air curtain type burning, at which time Commr. Gregg stated he had used this type of burning process (explaining how it works) and had never had a problem with smoke.

Mr. Lockett stated that part of the problem is the disposal of the debris, noting that he had understood the incinerator would not handle this type of debris, therefore, his client would have to dump it in a landfill, sub-contract it out, or burn it on the property.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, also representing Theophilus, Inc., appeared before the Board stating that the property in question had been rezoned to a PUD, with a CUP on it, noting that this would seem to say that one could not have a PUD overlying a piece of property if, in fact, a CUP existed. She then elaborated on the power of the State, versus the County, regarding the burn issue.

Discussion continued, with the attorneys and staff disagreeing over who has power over the matter, at which time Ms. Bonifay stated that, perhaps, the County needs to look into it, noting that her client is only asking for equal treatment.

Commr. Gregg questioned whether the burn permit was going to be used for debris Theophilus, Inc., clears on their land only, or whether it was going to be used for other site contractors, as well, to which Mr. Lockett replied that it would be used for his client's property only.

A motion was made by Commr. Gregg and seconded by Commr. Bakich to approve a request for the issuance of a burn permit, for Theophilus, Inc., with the stipulation that it be used only for debris they clear themselves, on their property.

Further discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz noted reasons why he could not support the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.

Commr. Swartz voted "No".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:10 p.m. the Chairman announced the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m.

WORKSHOP - TRANSPORTATION ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

ORDINANCES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the draft ordinance they had before them incorporates the access management regulations recently established and adopted by the State.

Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, informed the Board what had transpired, up to this point, regarding the Access Management Ordinance (known as such since 1989), which he noted was once known as the Frontage Road Ordinance. He stated the ordinance evolved, in 1986, from the cities urging the County to adopt some type of frontage road ordinance.

Mr. Swanson then reviewed a map (on display) indicating principal and minor arterials, major collector roads, and those roadways designated as by-passes, that would be addressed in this ordinance. He stated that frontage road access works by limiting curb cuts for spacing and controlling the type of access management behind the curb, thus, increasing safety, capacity, and service volume on the roads involved, which will maintain the road's service level for a longer period of time. He also reviewed several charts indicating various types of possibilities for access, such as a front corridor; a rear corridor; and ingress and egress.

Ms. Pat Mayhill, Comprehensive Planning, appeared before the Board to discuss the Access Management Ordinance, stating a lot of the definitions staff used in their backup came out of the Department of Transportation's Access Management Manual. She stated one of the reasons the County needs to have an Access Management Ordinance is due to the fact that the State is in the process of doing their access management on State roads and that, by 1992, they will classify every State road and determine at that time what spacing will be allowed for access roads. She stated the State has interim standards which they are adopting, based on speed limits, and that staff had included these standards in their

backup. She stated the County is trying to forestall the State dictating to them, totally, due to the fact that the State is not worried about what happens behind the curb cuts, where the County is. She stated the County is trying to come up with a unified system, as opposed to a hodgepodge of curb cuts. She reviewed charts showing connecting spacing, and intersections involving full median openings and directional median openings, noting that directional median openings allow for less confusion, thus, are safer.

Ms. Mayhill discussed the various site classifications used when evaluating a site, being: Class I - small residential, as well as agricultural and silvicultural lands; Class II - minor commercial and non-commercial traffic generators; Class III - major commercial and non-commercial traffic generators; and Class IV - temporary connections. She stated the County is trying to encourage developers to meet with staff early on, regarding the recording of their plats.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Current Planning, informed the Board that staff would like for there to be a joint effort between the cities and the County regarding the requirements of this ordinance, to which Commr. Gregg concurred.

Commr. Swartz discussed Section 5 of the ordinance, on Page 8, questioning whether staff was suggesting that, when the Board adopts this ordinance, it will be countywide, unless a municipality creates an ordinance that is in conflict with it, to which Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded that the ordinance refers to County roads, which the County has jurisdiction over; therefore, the provisions alluded to in the ordinance will be applicable countywide. She stated that, even though the roads go through various cities, they are still within the County road system. Mr. Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, interjected that there should not be any conflict between the County and the State, in principal, regarding roads involved, due to the fact that what they are talking about is spacing, signalization, and some

type of flexibility in where the access is located, be it in the front, the rear, or utilizing some other type of system. He stated it is not really important to the issue of access management, as it is to the spacing, the speed limits, and the locations of driveways and curb cuts.

Mr. Mike Stearman, City Manager with the City of Eustis, appeared before the Board in response to a question by Commr. Swartz as to whether the City of Eustis had a frontage road ordinance, stating that it did not, nor did he think any of the cities had one, noting that such matters were handled through the site plan review process, in the past. He stated this ordinance needs to address the issue of processing, itself, spelling out how it is going to take place. He stated another issue is the matter of existing conditions, noting that the County is going to end up spending millions of dollars trying to correct traffic problems on some of the County's minor arterial collector roads. He also stated the County is going to end up paying a lot of money buying houses, if it does not provide for additional setbacks in the Zoning Code, or come up with some other way to deal with the matter. He stated the Class I classification, under Section 6 (B), on Page 10, exempts subdivisions from a lot of the requirements and felt that said classification needs to give the County a little more flexibility in requiring alternate access management techniques. He did note that he felt the ordinance requirements and substance had improved a lot over what the County had three years ago, when they first started working on it.

Further discussion occurred regarding various aspects of the ordinance, at which time Commr. Swartz stated he felt the County should be trying to obtain necessary right-of-way, for future purposes, pertaining to Class I and II site classifications; that he felt the present language, in Item 6, under Section 9, on Page 17, may not be satisfactory for what might be a rather heavily traveled access road, particularly for commercial vehicles; and that staff needs to add language in Section 11, on Page 18, where

the ordinance refers to minimum set backs in the right-of-way of access roads, that if the property owner wants to put in a side or rear parking lot, he would not have to meet the 25 ft. setback. He also discussed Page 19, Section 12, pertaining to variances, questioning why variances would not come through the Planning and Zoning process, rather than going through the Board of Zoning Appeals, to which the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, responded that the Board can decide how they want the matter to be handled.

Commr. Gregg stated that, on matters concerning several parcels that are landlocked, he wanted staff to add language giving the property owners the freedom to use cross access corridors or frontage roads, but, to keep in mind that the county will maintain the road if it is a frontage road, where, if it is a cross access and a limited piece of ground, he did not see any point in not using cross access management, and eliminating the possibility of the City or the County picking up the maintenance on the frontage road.

Mr. Stivender, Director of Public Works, stated the importance of this ordinance is that staff have the complete support of the philosophy behind it, so that when Technical Review is discussing it, or a developer comes to the Board, staff will not be out on their own. He stated this ordinance is really going to be a help to staff, in strengthening their stand, when dealing with developers on commercial lots where the County is trying to connect them together, in order to limit the number of cuts.

Mr. Swanson noted staff would redraft the ordinance, based on the discussions held this date, and bring it back to the Board at a later date.

Commr. Swartz suggested staff not only meet with the cities, but also with the development community, to answer any questions they might have, as well as receive their input, so that the Board will not have to wait until the workshop meeting to obtain said input, which he felt would be helpful to the Board, as well as staff.

No action was taken at this time.

BIDS/FIRE PROTECTION

Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Director of Health & General Services, explained this request, stating he would like to change the request for the Board to reject all bids, for construction of the Plantation Fire Station, to acknowledge said bids, instead, as staff is working on some other alternatives, noting that said bids were over what was funded for the project. He stated staff needs time to work with some other individuals who have shown an interest in coming back with some modifications and rebidding the project.

Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, interjected that the design being used by the County was signed off by The Plantation people, due to the fact that, in 1986, they provided $75,000.00 towards construction of the fire station. He stated there was a lot of emphasis, at one time, to have a store front which matched the architecture already in place at The Plantation; however, the current Manager, as opposed to the one before him, is not quite as interested in having the decor match, thus, saving $6,000.00 in costs. He stated there has been some indication, due to the fact that the County is approximately $50,000.00 over the monies allocated for the construction, to look at some other major changes, which would probably involve a rebid. However, staff would like another week to look at the options, before suggesting that the bids submitted be rejected, and, hopefully, come back to the Board with some options. He stated he felt the project had been underfunded, from the start, noting that when the site was accepted, in 1986, staff did not examine the cost very well at that time. He stated the site work is about 27% of the bid price, and approximately $20,000.00 more than anticipated. He stated the site has some problems which will need to be worked out, before putting a building on it, noting that, perhaps, the building could be changed, somewhat, to make it work.

Mr. Thelen stated that the project has had a number of problems, noting that staff lost four or five months, due to the

contract with the architect which dates back six to seven years, and finally had to buy those plans; a change in management at The Plantation, that required a change in the store front; and the loss of staff's own review process, as well as two to three months in the State's review process, of which the County will have to assume responsibility for. He stated the chief problem, at present, is that the project is underfunded. He stated the County has to come up with some additional money, noting that they have earned almost $25,000.00, in interest, since receiving the $75,000.00 from The Plantation, and need to find some way to get it into the project.

Commr. Bakich questioned whether the County really needed a fire station at The Plantation site, or just a multi-purpose unit, to which Mr. Strickland, Director of Health and General Services, responded that the main thing which is needed, at present, is a First Response mechanism, noting that what the County is purchasing, equipment wise, will provide fire service, however, will be a multi-purpose unit.

Commr. Gregg stated he had a problem with eliminating the fire station, after the County has taken the developer's money to build it, noting that the County has an obligation, at this point, to do something.

Commr. Swartz stated he would like to have a comparison between what it is going to take the County, at least during the hours that the station is staffed, to get to the site for fire fighting, as compared to what it would take volunteers to get to the site, using whatever equipment is necessary.

Upon being questioned by Commr. Gregg as to whether staff will be going to the architect and having the station redesigned, Mr. Thelen, County Manager, responded that the design staff has in mind can be done by Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Capital Improvements, noting that it is probably going to be a significant enough change that it will have to be rebid. He stated the reason staff does not want to reject the present bids, at this time, is due to the fact

that this is another option, noting that staff prefers to handle it this way, if it can be done legally.

Mr. Thelen stated he felt staff could get a report back to the Board, next week, regarding the matter.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to acknowledge bids received for the construction of The Plantation Fire Station, and requested staff to come back with some alternatives, as soon as possible.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ORDINANCES

Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board stating that several months back the Pollution Control Department presented a memorandum to the Board indicating that after approximately one year's worth of administration of the Tree Protection and Landscaping Ordinances, that there were several areas which staff felt could be considered for revision, and that those revisions, if handled properly, could result in more administration of the ordinance - not only for staff, but also for the regulated community, under the ordinances. He stated staff also felt that there were some clarifications in the enforcement section that needed some revisions, as well. He stated that, subsequent to the presentation that was made to the Board at that time, the Board directed staff to reconvene the Landscape and Tree Protection Committees, as a combined group, and to prepare the recommended revisions, and work said revisions through the Tree Protection and Landscape Committee. Once that was completed, to bring the revisions back to the Board for a workshop session, thus, the reason for this session.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, appeared before the Board stating that the committee met and compiled a lot of information, deciding that, in essence, the problems and issues that were identified fell into three categories, being (1) clarity of meanings, definitions, and several terms used throughout the ordinance; (2) issues of completeness, and as to whether the County

fully addressed the issues which were intended to be addressed; and (3) whether or not some issues and points in the body of the ordinance were consistent with both that ordinance, as well as with other ordinances. He stated that, using the three "C's" (clarity, completeness, and consistency), as the committee called them, the committee went back and looked at the 26 issues, identifying four additional issues that were within the original memorandum presented on August 15, 1990.

Mr. Barker stated the committee did an excellent job and worked very closely with staff, noting that what is before the Board this date is a very innovative and comprehensive document which allows staff to effectively do their job, in administering the ordinance, as well as allows staff to provide more efficiency, thereby, reducing the amount of hours needed to do a comprehensive job and, most importantly, allows the public to comply with the ordinance, by knowing what they are supposed to be complying with, which is what staff found was the problem with the original ordinance.

Mr. Chris Bove, Environmental Resources Specialist, appeared before the Board stating that they had broken down the 26 issues, which had been brought before the Board last summer, into seven categories, all relating to the three "C's" alluded to by Mr. Barker. He noted several areas and issues that the committee covered, stating that a lot of the processes in the current Tree Protection Ordinance are not consistent with the existing development review process, and that the committee tried to bring them in line with existing development review processes. He stated the committee clarified inventory needs, including establishing new criteria for waivers, noting that the existing ordinance does allow for waivers; however, there was no criteria for implementing them. He indicated other areas which the committee covered, noting that said areas had been clarified, in order to make them easier for the public to understand.

Commr. Gregg addressed the portion of the ordinance regarding exemptions (limiting lots to one acre or less), noting that he did not feel the County should limit it to one acre or less, as the County has a lot of five acre parcels and, from an enforcement standpoint, feels the County is going to be putting themselves in a position to where they will not be able to enforce 99% of it, if there is a problem. He stated he would like to see the County set a threshold at five acre lots.

Mr. Bove stated the existing ordinance does not exempt undeveloped lots, nor does it exempt additional structures, other than the existing residence - it only exempts those lots with existing residences on them. He stated the committee was concerned about large parcels, be it five, ten, or twenty acre lots - that once a residence was on it, one was allowed to clear cut.

Commr. Gregg suggested the ordinance contain language to the effect that anything over a five acre lot be required to have a permit, however, those parcels of five acres or less, with a residence on them, continue to be exempt, rather than just one acre or less.

Ms. Pat Leonard, a member of the Tree Protection and Landscape Ordinance Committee, responded to a question from Commr. Swartz regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz stated he would like for staff to find some alternative language concerning same.

Commr. Gregg mentioned the fact that, concerning the matter of a visual barrier, the ordinance does not state anything regarding the spacing of shrubs, or the height of the berm, to which Mr. Bove responded, stating that what the committee is trying to do with a visual screen is require a screen that one cannot see through, therefore, what they have done is that, in the definition of "visual screen", one is referred to a table of shrubs, and in that table of shrubs there are basic requirements for one to follow. He stated the existing ordinance also had a requirement, depending on the situation, where the shrubs had to be one foot, if they were on top of the berm, or two feet, if they were by themselves. In order

to avoid any inconsistencies, staff recommended that shrubs be two and one half feet throughout - whether they were buffering residential or commercial land use, or whether they were buffering a public right-of-way. He stated the existing code calls for a height of three feet, or six feet at the end of one year, noting that some of the nursery people on the committee felt that the six foot requirement was too much; therefore, the new draft is recommending a four foot height, at the end of one year, and a six foot height, at the end of two years.

Commr. Swartz stated he felt there should be landscaping along the right-of-ways, but not necessarily to where they hide the businesses, but to enhance them, stating he would like to see something in the ordinance providing for trees as a canopy, with lower landscaping around the base of the trees, to which several of the commissioners concurred, noting that it softens the effects and is very pleasing to the eye. It was noted, however, that in dealing with industrial sites, staff might want to keep language in the ordinance to provide a screen that cannot be seen through.

Commr. Swartz brought up for discussion Issue No. 13, on Page 19 of the ordinance, stating that one of the things which brought this ordinance back before the Board was that staff found when somebody clear cut, in violation, they had a hard time knowing what they could do to make the individual put something back in its place.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue, at which time Mr. Bove stated the main concern was not the number of trees one would have to put back, but the size of the trees one would have to put back.

Commr. Swartz also brought up for discussion Issue No. 24, on Page 33, regarding open space, stating he would suggest inserting language which indicates open space is whatever the Comprehensive Plan says open space is, so that it is consistent. He stated this may, or may not, be what the Comprehensive Plan says it is, to which Commr. Bakich stated he had no problem with it. He also

brought up Additional Issue No. 2, on Page 37, concerning tree minimum requirements, stating that the original ordinance required three (3) trees on lot sizes of 6,000 square feet, or greater, however, it now requires three trees per 6,000 square feet, up to an acre, and then three trees for each additional acre after that, noting that he felt the County should require more trees. He stated he felt there should be more trees on an acre than just three, perhaps six or ten.

Mr. Bove brought up for discussion Section 17-120 (a), on Page 26, concerning right-of-way exemptions, at which time he distributed a handout pertaining to same.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, questioned whether the Public Works Department would be exempt from permitting regarding new roads going in, as well as whether they would be exempt from the tree replacement requirement, when an existing road needs to be widened and, in order to do so, trees have to be removed, noting that his staff saves as many trees as they can, to which Commr. Swartz replied that, if the Board was going to exempt Public Works, they could possibly exempt them from the permitting requirement, but not from the tree replacement requirement, noting that they will have to replace any trees removed, the same as any other person will have to do.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, stated he felt it would be a mistake for the County to exempt themselves, if they are going to set a standard for everybody else - the County should be the first to comply.

Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Stivender stated that the issues being discussed were going to cost the County time and money, to which Commr. Swartz replied that the Board trusts the department to recognize that when they come in conflict with a tree (due to safety or other considerations) that will not fit in with the expansion of a road, as it is planned, the Board will accept that; however, Public Works is going to have to replace the tree just as anybody else would.

Mr. Bove brought up one last issue for discussion, being that of mobile home rental lots, stating that sometimes the definition of the word "lots" is not clear in different situations, therefore, requested further definition of the phrasing that deals with "lots" to incorporate the use of "mobile home lots".

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating (for the record) that he felt issues should not be put on the agenda until backup pertaining to them can be provided to the public, in a timely fashion, or, some other mechanism needs to be in place. He stated the public needs to have the opportunity to submit input regarding particular issues to the Board before the issue is brought up for discussion and consideration by the Board.

Commrs. Bakich, Gregg and Bailey concurred with Mr. Richey, in that the public should be furnished with any information they request, prior to the Board Meetings, whether they are able to participate in the discussions or not, and directed staff as to how they felt the matter should be handled from this point on.

No action was taken at this time.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/WATER RESOURCES/STATE AGENCIES

Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to amend the existing agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District, for land use mapping of Lake County.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BIDS/ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to advertise for bids for C-561, Widening and Resurfacing Lump Sum Project, No. 15-91, at an estimated cost of $260,000.00, and approval of the specifications.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to award Project No. 11-91, C-452 Resurfacing, to Carroll Contracting and Ready Mix, and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $240,467.00.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bakich and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to award Project No. 12-91, C-474 Resurfacing, to American Asphalt, Inc., and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $329,940.00.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained this request.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to award Project No. 13-91, Countywide Guardrail Program, to Superior Asphalt Co., Inc., and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $121,796.75.

OUTDOOR RECREATION

Mr. Kent Lindemann, Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator, appeared before the Board and brought them up-to-date regarding the Rails-to-Trails Project.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, however, no action was taken at this time.

COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved ratification of the Board on financial items which needed to be paid prior to this Board Meeting.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to reappoint Mr. Paul Bryan to the District 5 position on the Planning and Zoning Commission. The term will expire on February 28, 1993.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Bakich, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request to reappoint Ms. Debra Williams to the Code Enforcement Board, in the Sub-Contractor position. Due to the fact that Ms. Williams' original appointment should have expired on October 31, 1991, rather than October 31, 1990, in order to keep staggered terms on the Board, this appointment is for a term of one (1) year, to expire October 31, 1991, and then for a regular three (3) year term, to expire October 31, 1994.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

Commr. Gregg brought to the attention of the Board (for informational purposes) the fact that Mr. Clell Coleman, who is up for reappointment to the Board of Examiners, under the position of Licensed Building Contractor, does not wish to be reappointed.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

___________________________

DONALD B. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

___________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

SEC/3-5-91/3-21-91/BOARDMIN