MAY 16, 1991

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, May 16, 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; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.


Mr. Don Findell, Executive Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board and reviewed the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division budget. Under Waste Disposal Operations, he stated staff was anticipating the implementation of the Mandatory Waste Collection Program, thus, closure of the Astor, Paisley, Loghouse, and Lady Lake Transfer/Drop-Off Centers, and elimination of 10 Waste Disposal Operations positions (landfill attendants, guides, etc.). He stated that the landfill closures, and elimination of the positions he alluded to, will cut approximately $175,000.00 from the FY 91-92 budget. He stated closure of the Lady Lake Landfill is budgeted for approximately $2.375 million, and noted that next year will be the first full year of commercial operation of the waste-to-energy facility, therefore, there will be certain costs associated with it. He stated the County is anticipating the purchase, permitting, and preliminary design of Site K Landfill; however, does not see purchase of the landfill in this year's budget, due to the fact that the County is anticipating said purchase may occur in September. He stated that, if the purchase does not occur in September, it will go into next fiscal year's budget.

Mr. Findell stated that staff is recommending re-establishment of the Contingency Reserve, as the reserve that has been built up over the last several years has been utilized. He stated the County is establishing a Federal Department of Environmental Regulation required Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance Reserve, which he noted is required for monitoring the groundwater at the existing landfills, closed landfills, and new landfills, as well as the maintenance of those facilities.

Under Hazardous Waste Management, Mr. Findell stated the County will have the first full year of operation of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center. He stated the County will also be establishing mobile collections of household hazardous waste, primarily for mobile home parks. He stated staff is also anticipating expansion of the Battery Collection/Recycling/Disposal Program, noting that it is operating much better than staff anticipated it would. He stated the County would begin its second year of small quantity hazardous waste generator inspections, as well. He also stated that, as far as recycling is concerned, the major activity under recycling would be to go to countywide curbside collection in the unincorporated areas, noting that it would occur wherever the County is able to provide service under the Mandatory Collection Program. He noted that not every household would be served, but, the majority of them would be.

Mr. Findell then reviewed a table pertaining to Tonnage Assumptions/Calculations for FY 91-92, noting that it forms, somewhat, the basis for the revenue that the County will collect in the coming fiscal year. He stated he attempted to develop some tonnage figures that will allow the County, on a conservative basis, to estimate how many tons will be generated in Lake County that the County will actually collect and dispose of, noting that staff will then use said figures to determine what the tipping fees should be, and what the special assessment costs should be, as well, to a certain extent.

The chart alluded to above indicates what staff estimates the tonnage disposed of at County facilities will be from April 1990, through March 1991, noting that they assume there will be a tonnage increase of 3.5%, with growth population in the unincorporated area of the County. Staff assumes that the cities will generate 46.48% of the total waste, with the unincorporated area generating 53.52%. They assume a 5% increase in the unincorporated area, with mandatory collection, and that 15% of the total cities tonnage will be lost to recycling and composting. Staff also assumes that 345 lbs. of household tonnage, per year, in the unincorporated area, will be lost to recycling, which comes out to approximately 6,000 tons. Discussion occurred regarding the above table, which had been broken down into an estimation of the total cities tonnage and an estimation of the total unincorporated area tonnage, with a total fiscal year tonnage, at which time Mr. Findell answered questions presented by the Board, pertaining to same.

Mr. Findell then reviewed a table indicating the budget for the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division to be $13,694,320.00. This table was broken down into the various budgets under this division, such as Recycling; Hazardous Waste Management; Contingency Reserve; Mandatory Collection; Landfill Operations; and the Waste-to-Energy Facility. He noted that he did not have anything on this table relating to landfill closure or landfill construction, as, even though the County anticipates some substantial costs in those areas, the County is going to bond for those costs; therefore, they will not have a financial impact on this year's budget, as the debt service will be rolled over into next year's budget.

Commr. Swartz stated that, regarding the table pertaining to Tonnage Assumptions/Calculations for FY 91-92, he was aware of the fact that Mr. Findell felt the figures given were conservative assumptions, therefore, resulting in a conservative budget. However, he requested Mr. Findell to give the Board, assuming this table is a base case, a calculation on a worst case or a best case,

noting that he felt it was important, as the Board goes through this process, that they review that, as it could have a significant impact on whatever the projected tipping fee is, as it translates into the notice that goes to the citizens, and whether or not the County can come close to holding that. Mr. Findell noted that he would have those figures in approximately two weeks.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the fact that, as the tipping fee has gone up, there has been renewed emphasis and effectiveness in recycling and composting, which is reducing tonnage on the backside. He stated one of the things that has not been taken into account is the fact that there is a revolution going on in this country in trying to reduce packaging and waste; therefore, while the County is generating increased tonnage, the trend is going the other way. He noted that the County needs to be cognizant of this fact, as it will have a tremendous fiscal impact.

Commr. Hanson questioned Mr. Findell as to whether he anticipated the recession affecting tonnage, at all, to which Mr. Findell stated that he had not seen any impact, as of yet, noting that there has been a pretty steady wastestream from month to month.

Mr. Findell then reviewed a table pertaining to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division Budget for the Hazardous Waste Management and Recycling Programs for FY 91-92, noting that the total budget for the Hazardous Waste Management Program is $282,017.00, and the total budget for the Recycling Program is $1,097,453.00.

Mr. Findell stated that one of the advantages of going to recycling countywide, and having it put on the special assessment, is the fact that the County will not have the issue of double taxation, or double fees, with the cities, where they say that they are having to pay for recycling that is going on in the unincorporated area, due to the fact that this year the County is utilizing tipping fees, or cash reserves, to help subsidize the recycling in the unincorporated areas.

Mr. Findell then reviewed a table pertaining to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division Budget, for Waste Disposal Operations, which had been broken down into the following cost centers: Landfill Operations/Improvements (Existing Facilities); Waste-to-Energy Related Operations (Waste-to-Energy Facility and Ash Monofill); Landfill Closure (Lady Lake Landfill); Landfill Construction (Site K); Mandatory Waste Collection Program; Contingency Reserve (in the amount of $1,026,026.00, which he stated he felt was a very small reserve for waste disposal); and Debt Service, indicating a total budget of $12,314,850.00.

Discussion occurred regarding the above table, at which time Mr. Findell answered questions presented by the Board, pertaining to same.

Mr. Findell then reviewed a Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Budget Summary for FY 91-92, which had been broken down into Total Budget Expenditures and Revenues, totaling $13,694,320.00 each. He stated he tried to present a balanced budget. He then answered questions presented by the Board, pertaining to same.

At this time, Mr. Findell reviewed the Solid Waste Disposal Operations Detailed Line Item Budget, page by page, noting changes staff would like to have made and answering questions presented by the Board.

The Board directed Mr. Findell to cut certain requests from the budget; to share some equipment with other departments; and to buy clones of well-known brand equipment, when possible, in order to cut costs, now and in the future.

Mr. Findell then reviewed the Hazardous Waste Management Detailed Line Item Budget and the Recycling Detailed Line Item Budget, page by page, at which time he answered questions presented by the Board, regarding same.


Ms. Camille Gianstasio, with David M. Griffith & Co., and Ms. Terry King, Special Revenue Technician in the Non-Ad Valorem Tax

Office, appeared before the Board to discuss the implementation of non-ad valorem assessments.

Ms. Gianstasio brought the Board up-to-date as to what has transpired since her firm was hired in November of 1990, to do a Phase I analysis of what the County's assessments looked like at that time, and what they needed to do to clean up the roll and get the assessments ready for this year. She stated they have accomplished a lot, however, noted that there are two recommendations in the report prepared by her firm that the Board needs to keep themselves aware of, as they go through the budget meetings. She stated they all relate to one issue, which is equity, noting that, upon investigation, her firm determined that equity was not being applied in the fire rates. In fact, the fire rates had no relationship to anything except some numbers that the County felt comfortable with, for charging its citizens. She stated they also found that the way the database was being maintained by the Property Appraiser's Office was not providing much equity to the property owners in the County, in that categories that the County was allowed, or authorized, to assess, were not being assessed; therefore, these were the areas that her firm really focused on, in both the fire rate development and the database cleanup. She then turned the floor over to Ms. King.

Ms. King introduced her staff and noted that the computer upgrade for the Property Appraiser's Office had been completed and her terminals are now tied in with his system; therefore, her staff is able to key in information involved with the cleanup process, noting that they are approximately 30% through the process. She stated that there were approximately 30,000 parcels that were on the Property Appraiser's Tax Roll that were classified as lots, so, her staff went through their maps and keyed in the size of those lots, in order to obtain an average size for residential and commercial.

Ms. King stated that her department's administrative procedures have been developed and that staff has been having

weekly meetings with the constitutional officers, Mr. T. Keith Hall and Mr. Ed Havill, which has been very beneficial in keeping them informed and keeping her staff out of trouble with them, as far as their time frames are concerned. She stated the public hearing dates have been tentatively set for July 11 and July 18, 1991, noting that the July 18 date is sort of a backup for the July 11 date. She stated that Moore Business Communications Services has been hired to do the first class notices and mailing for her department, and that the fire rate study is about 35% complete, noting that they should be completed with it, and have it ready for presentation to the Board, on June 4, 1991.

Ms. Gianstasio stated her purpose today, regarding implementation of non-ad valorem assessments, was to inform the Board that she and her staff were trying to address every issue they had ever encountered in any other county, plus every issue this county has encountered, and try to make sure that businesses have the information they need, ahead of time, and that when they have a problem, the County will have a procedure in place to address it, in a timely manner. She stated they were hoping to receive input from the Board, this date, in order to know what direction to go in developing the rates, noting that once the Property Appraiser certifies the assessment, Ms. King and her staff will finish cleanup, and within two to three days after that, the Board will receive a final report from her firm. Along with the report which they will give the Board on June 4, 1991, she stated they are hoping to have a resolution approved authorizing those rates, in order to have them go out in the first class notices.

Ms. Gianstasio stated that, immediately after June 4, 1991, the fire rates will have to be keyed into a computer program and delivered, by June 7, 1991, to the printer. She stated that if the printer does not have the needed information by June 7, he will not be able to print the notices in time to be mailed by June 17, 1991, noting that they have to be mailed 20 days prior to the public hearing. Therefore, she stated the first possible date the County

can have a public hearing is July 11, 1991. She stated staff is hoping to be able to take care of a lot of the issues, before the public hearing, in order to help reduce the number of people that will attend, noting that some counties have had as many as 2,000 people attend. She noted that there will be some errors, due to this being the first year, especially in solid waste, in trying to determine which accounts are commercial and which ones are residential, and in the cleanup of the fire database, which she noted staff is going to try and clean up ahead of time. She noted that September 1, 1991, is when the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to certify the roll for the Tax Collector.

Ms. Gianstasio then reviewed several form letters which will be mailed to property owners, as well as five pages of sample questions and answers, pertaining to the non-ad valorem assessments, which she noted will be used by those employees answering phone calls from the public. She stated staff will be mailing an insert (which she distributed a sample of) along with the notices, noting that staff would like the Board's input as to what questions they would like to have on the insert.

Ms. Gianstasio then reviewed a sample of a tax notice which property owners will receive, noting that, under Solid Waste, the notices have been broken down into Collection, Disposal and Recycling, so that the citizens will know exactly what they are paying for each of these services. She then briefly touched on administrative procedures which will be used, consisting of a Citizen Information Program; a section on inquiries and complaints, such as a Question/Answer Script, Telephone Log, Follow-up Sheet, and form letters to respond to specific issues; a Corrections Process; Exemptions Process; and Petition Process. Another issue she touched on was the process which will be used for proposed low income exemptions and proposed solid waste exemptions. She then discussed mobile home parks and how they will be handled, as far as the old method on the tangible roll, and the new method on real property, based on the occupancy rate. Regarding the solid waste

exemption process, she noted that other counties wished they never had a solid waste exemption, at which time Commr. Swartz stated he would like a description of the types of exemptions other counties have used, noting that this Board may vote to have no exemptions whatsoever; but, he would support the possibility of an exemption for someone who can meet the very strenuous requirements for that exemption.

Ms. Gianstasio noted that the petition process would be for extraordinary circumstances which staff will not have the ability to make decisions on. She stated that, if it is a circumstance that staff cannot take care of, it will then go to a petition board. She noted that Marion County had over 700 administrative petitions filed, however, only 25 of those petitions actually went before the Board.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that Federal property is exempt from fire/rescue services non-ad valorem assessments, and that there is a provision in the Statutes that exempts public schools and community colleges, but, does not exempt private schools. She stated, however, that there are provisions that do permit public schools to be subject to certain kinds of fees.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter of mobile homes in rental parks, and as to what staff has been doing regarding it, at which time Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that, in order for a mobile home to be considered real property (which she noted is all that the County can assess in its program), it has to be owned by the property owner and has to be on property owned by that mobile home owner and has to be permanently affixed -this is what makes it real property. She stated that if it does not meet those three criteria, then it is not real property, it is tangible property. She stated the owner of the mobile home park is the owner of that property, and is the party that should be billed, because they own the real property, which she noted is not how it has been done in the past.

Ms. Gianstasio stated what staff has been doing to correct the problem, noting that the old way in which the matter was handled, the County was only collecting on approximately 10,700 units; however, the County will collect on approximately 15,000 units the new way. She stated the increase is going to be felt by the property owners (park owners); therefore, they will be mailed a special form letter, regarding the matter, and she noted that staff has made arrangements to meet with them in June, 1991, to answer any questions they might have. She noted that the park owners can pass this fee on, through their rental fees.

Mr. Steve Richey, a local attorney, appeared before the Board to discuss the matter of non-ad valorem assessments against RV parks versus mobile home parks.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that staff is going to be able to identify a mobile home park (which will pay 100%) from an RV park (which will pay according to how many lots there are).


At 12:00 noon, the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:30 p.m.


Regarding the matter of the selection of an investment banker to serve as senior underwriter for the Lake County Solid Waste System, the Chairman noted that the Selection Committee has narrowed the number down to six (6), being: Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc.; Merrill Lynch Capital Markets; Paine Webber Incorporated/A. G. Edwards and Sons, Inc.; Prudential-Bache; Goldman, Sachs & Co./Hanifen, Imhoff Inc.; and Lehman Brothers.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was the consensus of the Board to have the Selection Committee rank the firms and bring said list back to the Board for a final decision.


Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Executive Director of Health & General Services, appeared before the Board to discuss the Fire/Rescue Services Budget. He stated they were requesting one position - a fireman. He then reviewed the "Consolidated Countywide Fire District" chart with the Board, noting that a portion of a volunteer fireman's pay would be on a per call basis. It was noted that the County presently has approximately 350 volunteer firefighters.

The matter of operating expenses was brought up for discussion, at which time Commr. Bakich questioned whether or not hospitals have reimbursed the County, when the County has shown up at a fire or accident, as first responders, and have utilized its equipment and supplies, to which Mr. Strickland stated that staff has been working on this issue for the past few months, as there has been a problem with the County retrieving the cost of material used. He stated the County is trying to use its EMS grant funds for said reimbursement, and, also, where possible, to retrieve the material used from the hospitals.

Mr. Strickland then reviewed a handout (report) dated 1986, stating that Fire Protection has not replaced any of its operating equipment since 1986, even though, at that time, it was recommended that said equipment be replaced, over a five year period, at a projected cost of $5,876,500.00. He stated the needs that were noted in 1986 have yet to be made, however, are still the same. He stated one of the major complaints is the defective gear that some of the firefighters have to utilize, at which time he referred to a chart compiled by the Planning Department (at that time) of Fire Protection's projected replacement needs for all the rolling stock in Lake County. He stated that, when staff did the level of service which was presented to the Board in February, Fire Protection's projected equipment need, to totally revitalize the fleet to where it should be, would cost $8 million - to be done

over a five (5) year period. He noted, however, that this has never been done.

Mr. Strickland stated that one of the things the Board did in the level of service presentation, regarding budgets, was reduce the number of stations around the County, noting that the Board directed staff, at that time, to come back with a station count. He stated the 40 stations which the County presently has, has been reduced down to 31, noting that, by doing so, they did not actually shut any of the stations down, they just changed them from stations to auxiliaries.

Mr. Strickland stated that another thing he has been working on, for the past two years, is the organizational structure, noting that when Fire Protection was put under him, in 1989, there were 22 Fire Chiefs, however, he would like to reduce that down to one. He stated they are presently considering dividing Fire Protection into six (6) administrative areas, which will be referred to as battalions. He stated they do not anticipate expanding their manpower for the next five (5) years, but plan to utilize what they have in a more efficient and streamlined method. He stated that one of the biggest problems, at present, is the distance involved in spreading the manpower.

Mr. Strickland then distributed and reviewed a handout containing charts pertaining to fire prevention and fire response times, noting that each year fire response times escalate, as the population and needs continue to grow, at which time he answered questions presented by the Board, regarding same.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the charts alluded to above, at which time Mr. Strickland answered questions presented by the Board.

Mr. Strickland then reviewed the Fire Budget for FY 1991-92 with the Board, page by page, starting with a level which he recommended, and then showed how it could be adjusted. He discussed three levels, total, as requested by the County Manager, Mr. Thelen.

Discussion occurred regarding the Capital Equipment Request (machinery and equipment costing over $500.00), at which time the Board suggested cutting various pieces of equipment from the request, and phasing in several other pieces of equipment.

Commr. Swartz requested Mr. Strickland to put the requests into three categories, being: a priority of life support items that are absolutely needed; a second category of items that could be phased in; and a third category of items that he feels are needed, but are not necessarily life support items.

Commr. Hanson interjected that she felt maintenance of equipment needed to be a priority item, along with the safety and life support items.

The Board then discussed a handout consisting of Alternative 1 (Budget Summary FY 91-92 Maintaining Current Level of Appropriation and Increasing Revenue $800,000 through Assessment of Vacant Lots) and Alternative II (Budget Summary FY 1991-92 Without Revenue Change), at which time Mr. Strickland answered questions pertaining to same, presented by the Board.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, stated that the County cannot really justify what it is doing, or what it proposes to do, based on fire rates. He stated the issue is really fire safety.


Ms. Camille Gianstasio, with David M. Griffith & Co., informed the Board that when her firm was hired in March, 1991, they were hired to help pick up the database and get the assessments implemented. She stated that part of that study was to rework the fire rates, as it was felt that they were inequitable the way they stood. She noted some general issues that they wanted to take care of in the fire assessments, one of which is to eliminate the commercial square footage categories, and just go with per square footage, no matter what it is, at a common rate, which she noted will be one rate - there will not be any kind of graduated categories. However, Commr. Gregg stated he saw a problem with that, due to the fact that, in most cases, when a building exceeds

12,000 square feet, and, in some cases less than that, it requires automatic fire sprinklers, which he noted is a major expense to the building owner.

A brief discussion occurred regarding buildings requiring a sprinkler system versus a non-sprinkler system, and how it will affect the assessment, as far as credits are concerned. It was noted that it would depend on the type of classification of the building when it was built.

Discussion occurred regarding the cost of fire/rescue for a home versus a commercial building, at which time Mr. Thelen, County Manager, stated that he felt there was a greater inequity in a home valued at $20,000.00, as compared to a home valued at $2 million, than there is in the difference between the size of commercial buildings. He stated it gets down to the issue of how many calls are made, versus the ability to pay.

Ms. Gianstasio suggested changing the current rules regarding square footage, which give a benefit based on size, as she stated she sees no justification for keeping the present square footage categories the way they are, however, feels credit should be given for sprinkler systems, at which time it was noted that it was the consensus of the Board to do so, concerning commercial buildings.

The next issue that was discussed was that of trying to determine whether or not the Board was interested in providing some sort of acreage, free, or some sort of acreage as a base acreage rate. She questioned whether the Board wanted to either establish that as a given - that they get an acre free, like they do in some counties - or whether they wanted to charge a base rate and take a smaller amount of money for anything over that rate.

She recommended giving everyone one (1) acre free, noting that unless there is a house on agricultural land, an individual pays $35.00. She stated that, if an individual has one acre, he pays $35.00, or has a house on 500 acres, he pays $35.00. She stated what she is proposing is that the person who owns one acre will pay $35.00, and get the one acre free, and the person that has a house

on 500 acres, will pay for the house, and, in addition to that, the 499 acres. She then stated what the highest and lowest scenario would be.

Commr. Gregg questioned Ms. Gianstasio as to how she planned to address vacant parcels that are considered substandard, to which she replied that what she was proposing, based on the methodology she was using, was the most equitable way to fund the service and have it be legally defensible. She then reviewed the formula she used to come up with the figure that she did.

Discussion continued, at which time Ms. Gianstasio reviewed several charts, being: Total Fire/Rescue Calls by Type of Call; Fire Calls by Property Use; Rescue Calls by Property Use; Non-Specific versus Specific Calls; and Revenue Contribution by Property Use, discussing each one in detail and answering questions presented by the Board.

Upon being questioned by Commr. Bakich as to what the definition was for vacant lots and land, Ms. Gianstasio responded that the Property Appraiser's Office considers vacant lots as vacant residential, vacant commercial, vacant industrial, and vacant institutional, noting that they are going to have a higher probability of causing damage to structures, due to the fact that they are in a place where there is potential for them to become a residential/commercial hazard. She noted that there are three (3) categories of vacant land, or unimproved land, being: agricultural land, vacant land (non-agricultural acreage), and vacant lots (which is considered the type of property that has a chance of being improved and developed). She stated the County could lump them all together, lump two together, or keep them just the way they are. She stated that, due to problems she has come across in other counties, she was trying to give this County flexibility in dealing with the issue. She stated that there is not a better methodology to distribute the County's budget and determine its fire rates.

Commr. Swartz questioned Ms. Gianstasio as to what the results would be on any of the scenarios that she alluded to, if the people of Lake County voted to stay with the $35.00 fee for structure tax, even though it does not fit the most equitable category, and allocate the other categories, to which she responded that the thing the Board needed to remember is that if they keep the rate at $35.00, then everything else has to be proportionately reduced, or increased.

Discussion continued, at which time Ms. Gianstasio stated that on June 4, 1991, she will be giving the Board a report that outlines all the methodology that she alluded to this date, as well as at least two budget scenarios and rates (based on those scenarios). She stated she could also give the Board a budget scenario based on the $35.00 rate.

At this time, Ms. Gianstasio reviewed the chart pertaining to the current rates per residential unit, square footage of buildings, and acres, and what the two alternatives would be regarding same. She noted the County's total budget drives the rate.

Mr. Thelen, County Manager, interjected that other counties that got involved with this, for a lot of reasons, went back to ad valorem property tax, because of the problems involved with trying to do it on the basis of benefit. He stated part of the problem is that the County has only been funding approximately $2 million from the assessments, and subsidizing the rest with the General Fund.

Ms. Gianstasio informed the Board that she needed them to tell her three budget scenarios they would like to go with, at which time Mr. Thelen suggested leaving the cap at $35.00, for residential, and assume that they get one acre with that; have two categories for commercial - one big and one small; and stated he saw no needed changes regarding the institutional category. He stated, however, that the Board may want to give some special attention to agricultural property.

She stated that, on June 4, 1991, when she gives the Board a base year budget, based on the three scenarios discussed this date, she is also going to give the Board a five year budget for each of the scenarios, so that they will know what they are spending in five years.

Pertaining to Solid Waste, she brought up the issue of franchise fees for collection costs, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same, and it was the consensus of the Board not to do it, at this time.

Ms. Gianstasio then referred to a chart indicating how solid waste will be handled, as far as single family residential, mobile home parks, condos, multi-family, agricultural land, etc., pertaining to disposal, collection, and recycling assessments, noting that the recycling category is still subject to some negotiation, as far as mobile home parks, condos, and apartments is concerned. She answered questions presented by the Board pertaining to same.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.