The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 2, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Michael J. Bakich, Chairman; Don Bailey; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Richard Swartz; and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Bailey gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Gregg.
Regarding the Minutes of April 21, 1992 (Regular Meeting) the following changes were requested to be made:
On Page 14, Line 24 change the name David to Aaron.
On Page 24, Line 19 change the name Gregg to Stubbs.
On Page 25, Lines 24 through 30, clarification was made as to how the motion in question should read and the fact that the Board was sitting as the Local Planning Agency rather than the Land Planning Agency.
On Page 13, Line 5, clarification was made in the spelling of a proper name.
On Page 7, Line 17, clarification was made as to who brought a request for authorization to advertise and fill the position of Assistant County Attorney before the Board for approval.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 21, 1992 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 14, 1992 (Special Meeting), as presented.
PRESENTATION OF AWARDS, PLAQUES, AND RESOLUTIONS
Commr. Bakich, Chairman, presented resolutions to the staff of The Hawthorne at Leesburg and to the staff and residents of The Plantation at Leesburg for aid given in a public emergency.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/CORRECTIONS/FIRE PROTECTION/PERSONNEL
Commr. Bakich, Chairman, presented plaques to the following individuals in appreciation of five (5) years of service to the County, and Ms. LeEster Koranteng, Personnel Manager, gave a brief background history of said individuals:
Wanda G. Fields, Corrections Officer, Corrections Department
Steven M. Lee, Equipment Operator II, Maintenance Area III
April Perrigo-Hoover, Firefighter, Fire Protection
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT/PERSONNEL
Commr. Bakich presented a plaque to Maureen J. Eastwood, Corrections Officer, Corrections Department, in appreciation of ten (10) years of service to the County, and Ms. LeEster Koranteng, Personnel Manager, gave a brief background history of Ms. Eastwood.
BONDS/COUNTY EMPLOYEES/PERSONNEL/PUBLIC WORKS
Commr. Bakich presented an Employee of the Month Plaque and Savings Bond to Jerry W. Scott, Equipment Operator III, Maintenance Area III, Road Operations Division, Public Works Department, for the month of June, 1992, and Ms. LeEster Koranteng, Personnel Manager, gave a brief background history of Mr. Scott.
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Request for payment of Warrant No. 151911 through Warrant No. 152167, for the following accounts:
General Revenue Aquatic Weed
Fire Districts Mosquito Control
Road Impact County Transportation Trust
Landfills Private Industry Council
Capital Outlay Section 8
Commissary Trust Fund Emergency 911 Fund
Resort & Development Fund Tax Countywide Library
Animal Shelter Trust Fund Insurance Fund
Request for approval of Satisfaction of Assessment Liens (22) as follows:
Highland Lakes Subdivision
Marshall H. & Betty Lynn Gaard, subject to $4,528.64
an agreement for deed in favor of Robert
Eugene & Bonnie L. Gnann
Mt. Plymouth Subdivision
Randal W. Stormant 619.53
Randal W. Stormant 619.53
Randal W. Stormant 619.53
Ricky J. Russell 712.73
Astor Forest Campsites
Glen H. & Shirley Gardner 2,108.49
Thomas E. & Carolyn Conner 2,003.92
Leona L. Parker 1,867.19
William J. Boettcher 2,340.77
Marie Taylor 2,227.91
Lela Lytle 1,466.29
Lela Lytle 1,470.91
Carl Carrier, Jr. 1,536.70
Carl Carrier, Jr. 1,536.24
Sylvester A. & Theresa B. Anderson 1,545.72
Sunset Hills Subdivision
Margaret N. Penn & Mary Dextrage 1,892.93
Arthur G. & Nell S. Devore 366.47
Forty Eight Estates
Chris E. & Michele A. Warax 874.99
Ocala Forest Campsites
Jeanette Rybicki 302.48
St. Johns - Manhattan
Irene Lowrie 1,174.91
Irene Lowrie 1,174.91
James R. & Catherine L. Henry 189.00
Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment for Sue Ellen Woodham, in the amount of $250.00 - Case No. 84-29771TTFP.
Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Fruitland Park Ordinance No. 92-001, providing for the annexation of property generally located at 619 N. Dixie Avenue and providing for a C-2 (Highway Commercial) zoning of the property.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending April 30, 1992, in the amount of $156,094.00. Same period last year: $144,838.00.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, requested that Item 8 on Page 6 of the County's Purchasing Agenda, pertaining to the proposed purchase of shelving for the Law Library for the new Lake County Judicial Center, be pulled from the agenda at this time, noting that staff feels they have found the same or similar shelving as the one being requested for less money.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Administrative Services-Budget/Budgets/Budget Transfers
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:
(A) Specifications (these are specifications only):
(1) Health & Gen. Specifications for EMS $ 6,500.00
EMS Grant medical equipment. Gas
powered extrication saw,
mask and valves.
(2) Development Specifications for a $10,000.00
Building/ computerized cash register
Zoning for Building and Zoning Div.
(3) Admin. Svc. Request approval of the
Purchasing following annual County
Div. Bids. Bids to be solicited
for the 1992-93 Fiscal
1) Bid #002-750-093/
2) Bid #004-745-093/
3) Bid #005-235-093/
4) Bid #011-963-093/
Men & Women's Uniforms
5) Bid #014-964-093/
Repair of Fire Extinguisher
and Fire Hose.
6) Bid #015-957-093/
Pest Control Svc.
7) Bid #018-750-093
(B) Award Bids and Encumber Funds:
(1) Capital Interior Design Services/ $16,992.00
Improvements Additional modular work
stations for the Clerk of
(C) Approve Quotations and Encumber Funds:
(1) Corrections Xerox Corp./ Plain paper $ 1,698.00
Infrastructure fax to be used to receive
Sales Tax Bond legal documents from both
CJF-2295 Sheriff's Office and Clerk's
Office. Plain paper requires
no additional copies to be
made to preserve the document.
(2) Public Works Helena Chemical/ 3) drums $ 3,341.70
Road Oper. of weed killer, to be used
RB-8140 for road maintenance.
(3) Public Works Master Communications/ 3) $ 3,050.00
Road Oper. base stations and 2) power
RB-8043 supplies for Public Works
maintenance areas. Low bid.
(4) Public Works Triangle Reprographics/ $ 1,286.58
Engineering Reproduction of Township
RB-8150 Books. For department use
and re-sale to the public.
(5) Corrections Ford Press/ 225 sets of $ 3,281.00
Infrastructure operating procedures.
Sales Tax Bond Printed, collated and
CJF-2298 three hole punched.
(E) Approve Other Payments and Encumber Funds:
(1) Capital Imp. Ernie Morris Ent./ 75) $ 1,526.50
Infrastructure chair mats for the main
Sales Tax Bond jail. Start up items.
CJF-2290 County Bid #006-618-092.
(2) Public Works Hancor Drainage Sys./ $ 1,237.40
Road Oper. 40 feet of pipe with
RB-8147 bands for maintenance
on Quail Grove Rd.
(3) Public Works Tinkerpaugh Surveying Svc. $ 2,057.50
Special Svc. Prepare plat needed for
RB-8154 Washington St. project in
City of Eustis. Invoice
(4) Corrections Master Communications/ $ 1,332.00
COR-445 Encumbrance for the
remainder of the FY
for maintenance & repair
of radio equipment. County
Bid #007-958-092. Orig.
encumbered funds for 6-month
(5) County Mgr.'s Citibank N.A./ Change order $99,250.00
Office-Risk to increase p.o. for payment Increased
Mgmt. RSK-021 of liability and workers comp. amount
for remainder of FY 1992.
New p.o. total $339,250.00.
(6) Corrections Waterman Medical/ O.T.C. $ 1,295.70
MED-112 Medications & Supplies for
Medical Dept. Bid #017-268-
(F) Approve Services That Do Not Require Bids
or Quotes and Encumber Funds:
(1) County Mgr. Anthem Group Services $ 6,000.00
Office-Risk Corp./ Administration
Mgmt. of flexible benefit
(2) Corrections Waterman Medical Center/ $ 8,045.00
BIL-008 Inmate Medical Care.
(3) Corrections Natl. Health Lab. Inc./ $ 1,057.50
MED-108 Laboratory ser. for the
month of March, 1992 for
inmate care. Bid #063-
(4) Corrections Quality X-ray Inc./ $ 1,125.00
MED-109 Radiology svc. for the
month of March, 1992 for
(5) Corrections Bridges & Hardy/ Inmate $ 3,817.50
BIL-009 medical care.
(6) Capital Barton Marlow/ Progress $1,083,000.00
Improvements payment to pay for sub
CJF-046 contractors at courts
(7) Capital Liebert/ 20 KVA Uninterrupted $21,331.00
Improvements power source for main frame
Infrastructure at the new courts building.
Sales Tax Bond GSA Contract #GS-07F-3779A.
(H) Chairman's Signature and Encumber Funds:
(1) County Mgr.'s P.O.A. Acquisition corp./ $ 9,180.00
Office-Tourist Painted display agreement
Dev.-TDC-161 for twelve months. *Pending
(2) Corrections Lake County Public Health Not to
Unit/ Agreement between exceed
Lake County and the Lake $402.00
County Public Health Unit per inmate
for inmate prenatal care
services. Not to exceed
$402.00 per inmate.
(3) Corrections Institute of Police No Cost
Technology and Management
Agreement - End user soft-
ware licenses agreement.
Licenses already purchased.
(4) Public Works Tavares Associates/ Lease $ 3,963.54
Courthouse agreement for Tavares Tag
Maintenance Agency, Tavares Square for
XCH-13009 August & September 1992 at
$1,981.77 per month. Contract
(I) Chairman's Signature:
(1) Capital William T. Linderman/ $ 9,500.00
Improvements Second amendment to
CJF-046 agreement between Lake
County and William T.
Linderman for services
Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Budget Transfers/Landfills
Resolutions/Sheriff's Department/State Agencies
Request for approval of the following budget transactions:
a.) Budget Transfers, as follows:
From: Contingency-Sheriff $15,000
To: Law Enforcement $15,000
Transfer No: 92-0146
Fund: Northlake Ambulance
Department: Health & Gen. Serv.
Division: Public Safety
From: Contingency $21,200
To: Non-Operating $ 1,200
Operating Exp. $20,000
Transfer No: 92-0140
Department: Executive Offices
Division: Administrative Support
From: Contingency $ 4,475
To: Capital Outlay $ 4,475
Transfer No: 92-0142
b.) Resolution requesting that the General Fund be amended to increase the total budget to include unanticipated revenue received from concealed weapons applications, in the amount of $640.00.
c.) Resolution requesting that the Landfill Enterprise Fund be amended to increase the total budget to include unanticipated revenue received from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), in the amount of $41,875.00.
Health & General Services/E-911/Resolutions
Request from Health and General Services for approval of a resolution imposing a local option fee for the payment of recurring charges of $.50 per month, per exchange, for the provision of 9-1-1 services.
Request from Personnel for approval of certificates to employees with one and three years of service to the County.
Request from Personnel for approval of a Letter of Compliance on Equal Opportunity Plan Requirements regarding the Genesis Grant Project 92-GJ-036/Genesis and the DARE Grant.
Planning & Development/Roads-County & State
Request from Planning and Development for approval of the name change of West Montclair Road to Jones Drive, in District 1.
Planning & Development/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for preliminary plat approval of Greater Groves, Phase 2 (93 lots in District 2).
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Roads-County & State/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for final plat approval of Silver Lake Hill, First Addition; acceptance of a maintenance bond, in the amount of $12,365.00; and acceptance of the following roads into the County Maintenance System: Tarlton Drive (1-5233A); Barrington Court (1-5233B); and Dartmoor Street (1-5233C), subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Bonds/Planning & Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval of the following new Mobile Home Bonds:
Charles Salai - Lake Jem Area - District 3
James Granger - Sorrento Area - District 4
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Road Projects
Request from Public Works for approval to award and authorize Project No. 12-92, Radio Road (1/5-5433) Widening and Resurfacing Lump Sum Project, to Trac Roadbuilders, Inc., and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $214,516.75.
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Road Projects
Request from Public Works for approval to award and authorize Project No. 13-92, C-33 Widening and Resurfacing Lump Sum Project, to Trac Roadbuilders, Inc., and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $162,935.05.
Public Works/Roads-County & State
Request from Public Works for approval to abandon maintenance of the South 800 feet of Duncan Road (2-2819).
Public Works/Roads-County & State/Signs
Request from Public Works for approval to post "No Parking on Right-of-Way" signs on Melanie Lane (3-4261).
Deeds/Public Works/Road Projects
Request from Public Works for approval to accept the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:
For Lot Approval
Golden Gem Growers, Inc. - Golden Gem Drive (5-7563)
Golden Gem Growers, Inc. - Golden Gem Drive (5-7563)
Norma Elaine Brown - N. Buckhill Road (2-2739)
Robert D. Burke and Cherie D. Burke - N. Buckhill Road
Charles Harkus, Sr. and Charles Harkus, Jr. - N. Grassy Lake Road (2-1944)
For Road Project
Strong Properties, Ltd. - Lewis Grove/American Way (2-2324)
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT'D.)
Grants/Environmental Services/State Agencies
Request from Environmental Services for approval of the 1992-93 Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Waste Tire Grant Application and authorized proper signatures on same.
Committees/Health & General Services/Public Health
Request from Health and General Services to appoint Kathy McDonald to serve on the Nominee Qualifications Review Committee for the Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, District 13.
ADDENDUM TO COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works/Roads-County & State/Signs
Request from Public Works for approval to post a "No Parking" sign on both sides of CR 44, in the area of Club 44.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
GRANTS/HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES/PUBLIC HEALTH
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Health and General Services for authorization to submit subgrant applications to the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, Bureau of Public Safety Management for FY 1992-93 Anti-Drug Abuse Act funds and authorized proper signatures on same.
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT/GRANTS/HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Health and General Services for authorization to delegate authority letter enabling Mr. Tom Neumayer, Director of Corrections, authority to approve fiscal and quarterly reports required by subgrant for Genesis Program for FY 1992-93.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/PERSONNEL/PUBLIC WORKS
A brief discussion occurred regarding this request, at which time staff answered questions from the Board regarding same.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Personnel for approval to post and fill the following positions:
Environmental Engineer II - Pay Grade 613-00 -
Personnel Aide - Pay Grade 120-01 - Salary: $13,572.00
Engineer II - Pay Grade 611-00 - Salary: $30,127.50
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PUBLIC WORKS
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Works for authorization to execute two repair contracts with John Deere industrial dealer for two John Deere 670B graders, at a cost of $7,500.00 each.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
ASSESSMENTS/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained this request, noting that a timetable is involved that the County has to meet in order to implement the solid waste non-ad valorem assessment for disposal services for residential property uses in the unincorporated area of Lake County and recommended approval of the request.
Commr. Swartz questioned what bond counsel would be doing versus what the County Attorney would be doing regarding this matter, to which Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, responded that she would be doing the majority of what is necessary in relation to the assessments, but, the purpose of retaining the services of bond counsel is due to the nature of the assessment roll and insuring that it is sufficient as far as the bond issue is concerned.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Manager, Mr. Wahl, for authorization to engage the firm of Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. (County's bond counsel) for the purpose of implementing the solid waste non-ad valorem assessment for disposal services for residential property uses in the unincorporated area of Lake County.
ADDENDUM TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ASSESSMENTS/LANDFILLS/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request by the County Manager, Mr. Wahl, for authorization to execute an agreement with the vendor recommended by the Solid Waste Selection Committee (subject to review by the County Manager and County Attorney) with regard to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Solid Waste Disposal Assessment Program and authorized proper signatures on same.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for authorization to provide 30 days notice of termination of the lease between Lake County and Mr. David Weiss for the County Attorney's office space, with notice to be provided by June 15, 1992.
COUNTY ATTORNEY/COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board (for informational purposes) that she is presently in the interview process for an Assistant County Attorney and that she has
hired a part-time law clerk for the summer, two days a week, and that said individual will be starting on Tuesday, June 9, 1992.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved ratification of the Board on financial items which needed to be paid prior to this Board Meeting.
PRESENTATION OF AWARDS, PLAQUES AND RESOLUTIONS (CONT'D.)
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/FIRE PROTECTION
At this time Commr. Bakich presented Mr. Leon Lefler, Fire Lieutenant, Fire Protection (who was unable to be present during the earlier presentations), with a plaque in appreciation of his five years of service to the County and Ms. LeEster Koranteng, Personnel Manager, gave a brief background history of Mr. Lefler.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 9:30 a.m. the Chairman, Commr. Bakich, stated that the Board would recess until 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing.
Mr. Phil Yapkowitz, General Manager of Lake County Cablevision, appeared before the Board and gave an annual report on his firm, noting how they are handling local cablevision problems, changes which have been made in the system, and various new features Lake County Cablevision will be offering to their customers. He also noted that three new channels have been added to the system.
No action was needed or taken at this time.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that he had been requested by the Director of Capital Improvements, Mr. Mike Anderson, to inform the Board (for informational purposes) that on Friday, May 29, 1992, the new Jail received its final "Seal of Approval" from the Florida Department of Corrections, with said date being the effective turnover date to the operational unit.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:25 a.m. the Chairman, Commr. Bakich, stated that the Board would recess until 2:00 p.m. for a Solid Waste Workshop.
SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP - OGDEN MARTIN RENEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Bob Varner, with the firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand (the firm that was retained by the County in mid-November 1991 as contract counsel to renegotiate the existing service agreement with Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, Inc., a subsidiary of Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.), appeared before the Board stating that it is a very difficult process to renegotiate an existing contract that is valid and binding, noting that no other factors were being taken into consideration.
Mr. Varner stated that when his firm began the renegotiating process, a principal goal was to achieve a reduction in the County's "put or pay" obligation for the waste-to-energy facility. He stated that they were able to reduce the Guaranteed Annual Tonnage (GAT) from its present 130,000 tons to 125,000 tons per year, at which time he reviewed a graphic pertaining to same. He stated that, on an average of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance over a period of time, the County will have 85% (on an annual average basis) of the facility's processing capacity available to it, noting that this factor is guaranteed in the current agreement, as well as in all the scenarios that will be discussed this date. He stated that a 100% availability level is a nominal capacity level, noting that plants can exceed that level on a year-to-year basis, but, are not normally guaranteed.
Mr. Varner further stated that the current agreement and the agreement described as Scenario 2 both maintain the ability of the County to increase that GAT from the current level up to a maximum level. Under the existing agreement, the current level is 130,000 tons per year and under Scenario 2, the level would be 125,000 tons per year. He stated that in exchange for this reduction in the AT, the most critical factor in the negotiations was to avoid an upward price pressure as a result of the reduction of the County's guarantee in the existing contract, which he noted was a difficult challenge.
Mr. Varner then discussed, at length, Scenarios 1 through 4 and the provisions of each, as follows:
Scenario 1 - The Current Agreement:
a. Guaranteed Annual Tonnage (GAT)/Outside Waste Contracts
b. Service Fee
c. Equity Contribution
d. Failure to Process Waste/Electric Energy Guarantee
e. Annual Revenue Makeup
f. Additional Waste/Residue Disposal Fee
g. Ferrous Metals
h. Failure to Deliver GAT
Scenario 2 - Modified Service Fee with 125,000 TPY Guarantee:
a. Reduction of GAT
b. Escalation of Electrical Capacity Payments
c. Assumption of Scale House Operations
d. Ferrous Metal Revenue Share
e. Acceleration of Equity Contribution
f. Equity Contribution/Future Capital Projects
g. Hazardous Waste Costs
h. Special Waste
i. Additional Waste/Residue Disposal Charges
j. Increased Capacity Commitment
Scenario 3 - Fixed Service Fee/130,000 Ton GAT:
a. Service Fee
b. Revenue Sharing
c. Waste Quantities
Scenario 4 - Fixed Service Fee/120,000 Ton GAT:
Under this scenario, the cost payable by the County would be $29.25 per ton, escalated by the same escalation factor specified in the Current Agreement.
Mr. Rick Patterson, Public Financial Management (PFM) of Orlando (the County's financial advisor), appeared before the Board and discussed the Economic Evaluation portion of the report being presented this date, at which time he reviewed an overhead of the disposal fee system model that was developed and discussed some of the major assumptions that were used in developing same, as well as the results of the analysis. He stated that working in conjunction with the members of the County's negotiating team, PFM developed a life cycle system disposal fee model, similar to the model that was developed for the Board in October of last year for the no-burn analysis, which projects what disposal fees need to be for the system for each of the years 1992 through 2014 (the final year of
the current contract with Ogden). He pointed out several things that he felt were important in looking at the results of the analysis. He stated that when he talks about the system he is talking about all components of it, which includes waste-to-energy; recycling; composting; the landfill; transfer stations; and hazardous waste.
Mr. Patterson noted (for the record) that the tonnage and recycling assumptions, as well as assumptions relating to the system's capital and operating costs (other than the waste-to-energy facility) were developed by Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. (the County's general consulting engineer); assumptions relating to the cost of the waste-to-energy facility were developed by the negotiating team and were reviewed by R. W. Beck (the County's consulting engineer for the facility); debt service and financing assumptions were developed by Public Financial Management; and Mr. Bob Varner of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, reviewed the structure of the modeling to make sure that it is consistent with the terms of the renegotiated contract. He stated that, in looking at the assumptions, every effort was made to keep them consistent from scenario to scenario, wherever possible, to show the results of the negotiations rather than changes to the tipping fees.
Mr. Patterson then discussed, at length, the following issues: site recycling (they assume that the County will be able to achieve the State's goal of 30% by 1994 and that the County will hold to that 30% recycling rate through 2006); the landfill and ash monofill (a major assumption is that there is sufficient space or capacity available at the existing Astatula site to provide landfill and ash monofill capacity through the year 2014); the possible purchase of Site K (it is assumed that the County will purchase Site K in October of 1993 and hold it to provide backup landfill capacity in the event that Astatula does not provide sufficient capacity and since it was assumed that the County would purchase Site K, in effect, the numbers being shown could be reduced slightly, if the County decides to exercise the option); facility service fees (the model has been set up to reflect changes to the facility resulting from the changes to the contract in each scenario).
Mr. Patterson then summarized the results of the Economic Analysis portion of the report being presented, at which time he reviewed the following tables:
Table 2 - Summary of Net Present Value System Disposal Costs from 1993-2014 - the results of the analysis indicate that the projected Net Present Value System disposal costs under Scenario 2 (the modified service fee proposal) are approximately $443,000 lower than those projected under Scenario 1 (the current agreement). In looking at Scenarios 3 and 4, the Net Present Value of disposal costs is much greater, noting that it is approximately $36.5 million greater in comparison to Scenario 2, and Scenarios 3 and 4 are projected to produce the highest Net Present Value disposal costs (approximately $46 million higher) than Scenario 2.
Table 3 - Summary of System Tipping Fees for 1993-2014 - in looking at the average system fees over the life of the analysis, a slight improvement is associated with Scenario 2 of approximately 13 cents, on the average, over the life of the analysis, and in looking at Scenarios 3 and 4, they are projected to be much more expensive than Scenarios 2 or 1. He stated that Scenario 3 is projected to be approximately $18 per ton higher and Scenario 4 approximately $19 per ton higher in fiscal year 1993.
Table 4 - Summary of System Assessments per Household from 1993-2014 - in calculating the assessment, it is assumed that each of these residential households will generate, annually, 1.2 tons of refuse for solid waste, and, based on that assumption, one can multiply the tipping fee per ton in each year by 1.2 (the number of tons generated), and that is how the system assessments track the system tipping fees in the analysis. He stated that they show a decrease in the system assessment of $6.34 per year being possible with Scenario 2 and show Scenarios 3 and 4 showing an assessment of $21.50 more in 1993 for Scenario 3 and approximately $23.00 more under Scenario 4 than under Scenario 2.
Mr. Patterson then referred to two more tables which were provided in this analysis, being Table 5 - Summary of Projected Annual Tipping Fees for Scenarios Examined and Table 6 - Summary of Projected Annual Household Assessment for Scenarios Examined, however, did not review them, only stated that they provide the tipping fees and assessments, both actual and average, over the life of the analysis. He briefly discussed a graph titled Figure 1 - Pro Forma System Tipping Fee Analysis, which he noted represents what the negotiating team feels are conservative estimates of the tipping fees and disposal fees over the life of the analysis, noting that there are a number of things which could bring the tipping fees down in all scenarios.
Mr. Patterson stated that he felt a major advantage in recommending Scenario 2 to the Board is that it allows this Board to show a firm signal of support to the service agreement with Ogden that exists today. He stated that the assessment will go a long way toward alleviating some of the concerns that the rating agencies have had relating to the system, noting that it does two things, being (1) it improves the revenue stream for the system, because more people are paying that should have been paying all along, and it also improves the tonnages that come across the scale which reduce tipping fees accordingly. He then noted other improvements of the system that they have been able to achieve, such as resolving some of the existing city lawsuits, and he feels that the remaining suits will be resolved by the time the County is in a position to convert the facility bonds from variable to fixed rate; alleviating a credit concern relating to landfill disposal capacity, noting that currently they show that Astatula can provide sufficient capacity through the life of the bonds (2014); however, in the event that it does not, so long as the County can provide Site K as a backup, the County will be able to address those concerns effectively. Finally, an important credit improvement that needs to be made to this system is to receive the support of the Board for the existing service agreement or revised service agreement with Ogden, noting that the service agreement is the major credit or source of revenues for payment of the debt service on the bonds that were issued in 1988 to finance the facility. He stated that basically bond holders looked at the service agreement and the enforceability of that agreement as the credit support, noting that the rating for the bonds and the ability to get bond insurance and an effective credit rating or any kind of credit in hand for those bonds will depend on their opinion of the enforceability and the likelihood that the service agreement is going to stay in place. He stated that they cannot, as a financing team, look at converting the bonds to a fixed rate until some decision is made by the Board as to whether or not to honor the existing agreement, or to enter into a new agreement with Ogden. He stressed this issue, noting that interest rates are currently at historic lows and a ten basis point improvement in interest rates will result in debt service increases to the County, for the system, of $50,000.00 per year, or a present value of $750,000.00, and a 20 basis point increase doubles that and would produce a net present value increase of $1.5 million. He stated that any delay that the County takes in getting itself in a position to convert the bonds from variable to fixed rate increases the likelihood that rates may increase, and for every ten basis point increase the user of the system will pay for that delay. He further discussed the issue of the bonds and how they relate to the various scenarios.
Mr. Varner, Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, reappeared before the Board and addressed an issue that emerged during the period of time before this meeting, being the residue disposal option under the current agreement, which he elaborated on.
Mr. Wahl, County Manager, stated that the purpose of this meeting was to achieve a decision on one of the four scenarios that were presented, and reminded the Board that for them to not take
any action this date was, for all practical purposes, the election of the Board for support of Scenario 1, because it would revert back to the existing contract.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 6, Lines 148 through 156, of the Pro Forma System Disposal Fee Analysis charts for Scenarios 1 and 2 and requested clarification regarding the Ash Monofill Program, noting that it was his understanding that it was constructed and anticipated to have a life expectancy of five years. He stated that it has been used for approximately two years, therefore, would have approximately three years of remaining life. However, the Amortized Capital/Development Costs on Line 149 spans seven more years and he questioned the capital costs for the new ash monofill whenever it is built. He also discussed the matter of the debt service.
Mr. Patterson, with Public Financial Management, and Mr. Tom Keith, with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, responded to Commr. Swartz's questions regarding the ash monofill, at which time considerable discussion occurred regarding same.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had met with Mr. Varner, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Keith on several occasions and had pointed out the fact that in Scenario 2 the proposal is that Ogden not be required to pay for disposable ash in the county facility from out-of-county waste and questioned whether this was being included in Scenario 1, at which time he was told that it was not. He stated that he was assured by them that Scenario 2 was the best, that it does not get any better, and that they worked as hard as they could with Ogden, yet, this date came back before the Board stating that Ogden will pay for the ash disposal.
Mr. Varner responded to Commr. Swartz's comments, stating that, in comparing the two scenarios, they ended up with a disparity between the two, noting that in one case the contract right was not exercised and in the other case there would be no contract right. He stated that he had said they were at the point of having full agreement and had gone as far as they could, but, because of the discrepancy in the life cycle model, pushed real hard, got it from Ogden, and ended up where the negotiations are today.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there were any other things in the contract that might be "hiding" that would pose a benefit to Ogden at the cost of the County, noting that, if the Board had come into this meeting without the change that occurred, under a contract that, supposedly, was cast iron and could not be changed, it would have had an impact, in a revised contract, of $1.7 million (which he felt was closer to $4 million) to Ogden's credit. He stated that they would have told the Board that they should go with Scenario 2 and that would have been the effect, had the Board not questioned it. He stated that it did not get found until yesterday afternoon, and, even at that point in time, they were stating that Scenario 2 was the best the negotiating team could get from Ogden. He stated that they were talking about the County giving up revenue from anywhere, even using their numbers of $1.7 million (which he noted is four times what the life cycle savings are of Scenario 2), to which Mr. Patterson responded, stating that $1.7 million is not the right number to compare but rather approximately $700,000. He stated that, assuming only two-thirds of that cost can be picked up under the terms of the agreement, there would be no difference between Scenario 1 and 2, so, he did not feel that the analysis was significantly skewed.
Mr. Varner interjected that the problem did not come from an omission, in the sense that they did not exercise the County's right under the current contract, but arose from the fact that Scenario 1 was based upon the current county practices being maintained through Scenario 2, noting that this may have been a mistake in the assumption, but it did not shift the comparison of Scenario 1 and 2 substantially.
Commr. Hanson questioned why it had not been done all along and whether it could be made retroactive, to which Mr. Varner responded that, as the County stands today, the answer would be
"yes". He stated that the fact that the County may elect to charge would not mean that, since they have not elected to charge for that resident disposal under the existing contract, the County waived that right, they could retroactively recapture that amount under the existing agreement. It was noted that there would be no time limit on it; however, Mr. Varner stated that there is an ambiguity in the contract itself to the extent of recovery of dollars. He stated that, as to the County recapturing that amount, there is no doubt about it. He did note, however, that there is a question as to whether or not the County can recapture 100% of the unit cost, due to the fact that, in that particular area, there is no definition, so there is an argument as to what is meant by recovery of costs, noting that it is basically a fair market comparison in what it would cost to obtain the services somewhere else.
Commr. Swartz disagreed, stating that the contract says that the County may charge NRG a disposal fee for residue derived from outside waste NRG delivers to the landfill, and that the disposal fee shall be equal to the County's cost of disposing of such residue, subject to cost substantiation.
Mr. Varner stated that the problem really boils down to the phrase "cost substantiation" and noted that he agreed with what Commr. Swartz stated. However, he stated that the question is what is cost substantiation, in terms of whether it is operating and maintenance costs, as opposed to capital recovery costs, as opposed to anticipated closure costs, which he noted are not unusual issues in this particular area.
Discussion continued regarding this matter, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the County should be able to charge Ogden what it costs the County to provide for disposal of the ash, within reasonable bounds, but, noted that the negotiating team was getting ready to give that away in Scenario 2, to which Mr. Varner disagreed, stating that they did not lose a life cycle benefit.
Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Varner as to whether, with the proposals before the Board this date, there were any other areas in the contract where the County is agreeing to let them do something where they will actually receive, or can potentially receive, significant new revenue, or get rid of costs that the County might have been bearing, to which Mr. Varner replied that he was confident there were not.
Commr. Bailey questioned Mr. Varner as to which scenario he felt was the best deal for the County, to which he responded Scenario 2, noting the reason why he felt it was the best deal.
Commr. Swartz again questioned Mr. Varner as to whether there were any other places in the contract where changes to it will not yield the County any benefit, but may yield significant benefit to Ogden, to which Mr. Varner responded, indicating the ability for Ogden to increase the capacity payment that is currently in the agreement, in order to increase the potential revenue stream from electricity, for a higher capacity commitment. He stated that this is an issue that the County has not shared in the risk of not meeting capacity payments under the current agreement, nor would the County share in the risk of meeting the higher capacity payment under the Scenario 2 option.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether Mr. Varner was saying that, if Ogden goes beyond the 525 kilowatt hours that the County now shares equally with Ogden, that they will take 100% of that, to which Mr. Patterson responded, stating that it is not illustrated anywhere in the model analysis, due to the fact that they assumed the base case, which he noted shows Ogden meeting its performance guarantee. He stated that they cannot model or make a recommendation based on things that Ogden does that is in excess of what they are required to do under any of the agreements.
Mr. Varner interjected that what Mr. Patterson alluded to is not in the current summary of the evaluation report because the matter was just concluded in the discussions with Ogden the day before this meeting.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned about the fact that the Board was just informed about something that was a new addition
to the proposal before them, that was not in the proposal Friday, May 29, 1992, or Monday, June 1, 1992 - that it was not brought to the attention of the Board until this point in time, when he questioned them regarding the matter.
Commr. Swartz questioned what new money there would be for the County by escalating the electrical capacity payments, to which Mr. Patterson replied that there would be no new money for the County associated with doing it, but, rather a front loading of payments that would not be received until 1995, via tipping fee relief in the early years of the analysis.
Discussion continued regarding this issue, as well as increased capacity payments, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned exactly what the risk would be to Ogden if they changed the electrical service contract and attempted to get a higher rate, to which Mr. Varner replied that Ogden would not attempt to pay a rate that they did not feel they could achieve. He stated that, under the power sales agreement, what they have is the obligation to repay Florida Power for the dollars that are represented by their failure to meet that guarantee, which he noted is a month to month operational risk.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned about the fact that the Board indicated that they were going to bring others into the renegotiations, and not through sitting on the negotiating team, but that it would be through their ability to review the input and comment on what was before the Board; however, the agenda before the Board this dates states that this workshop is not for public input and also that the Board is expected to vote in approval of the renegotiations, as presented. He stated that, aside from the benefits of Scenario 2, which he noted that he is not certain of, this is going to mean that the League of Cities and the Taxpayer's League (who were promised a place at the table) will not be able to have input on the proposal. He stated that, if the Board acts on this proposal today, they will be walking away from a commitment that they made. He stated that the time he has spent on this does not assure him, at this point, that the County is not giving away more than it is getting. He stated that the business of the 50/50 split regarding the 525 kilowatt hours that was changed to 100%, without the Board's knowledge, which they became aware of only through questioning disturbs him and he was not sure why the County would give that away, realizing that the County might be able to increase the capacity payment without modeling it or knowing the risks or benefits involved. He stated that he is not confident, at all, that Scenario 2 is better, noting that he feels there are serious questions that still need to be looked at and would hope that this Board would recognize the commitment that they made to try and involve the people of Lake County in the process, in a different way than what was done in November of 1988. He stated that he hoped the Board would consider letting the public, and those who wish to know more about this proposal, have a chance to look at it, review it, and question some of the things in it.
Commr. Bakich referred to several pages of Scenario 2, at which time he questioned various aspects of the Recycling Program, the Total Resource Recovery Component Assessment, and Environmental Monitoring. He then commented about how far he feels the County has come regarding the incinerator, noting that he feels the County has made great strides in what it presently has, as opposed to what it had before these negotiations, which he elaborated on. He stated that he would like to see county staff work with the Property Appraiser's Office in removing the ad valorem dollars that are being charged to the waste-to-energy facility. He also stated that he hoped this Board would allow staff and the negotiating team to work in such a manner that they would continue to have open discussions with all involved, so that if the County has the opportunity to move forward sooner, that they would have the ability to do so. He feels that, if the County waits until October of 1993 to move forward, the potential is there for higher costs, because of higher interest rates.
Commr. Gregg stated that he concurred with Commr. Swartz in that the Board should have been made aware of any changes in the contract, or from one contract to the other, but, on the other hand, there is a certain amount of risk involved over and above the base case scenario that has to be taken into account. He stated that the only discrepancy he sees between the two comes in the aspect of disposal charges for ash generated by out-of-county waste and the true unit cost on that, noting that he agrees with Commr. Swartz in that looking at it, and the overall costs involved, it appears to him that it should be higher than what is indicated in this report and that that should be taken into account.
Commr. Gregg stated that he feels the hazardous waste disposal costs falling strictly upon the County is a true liability, noting that it is hard to measure and offers Ogden no incentive to be extra careful in screening it. He feels that the sharing of the ferrous metals is a minor amount, but, nonetheless, is a sharing cost. As far as the electrical generation revenue is concerned, he questioned whether there is something that the County gains by Ogden having an incentive of generating additional power, to which Mr. Varner responded, stating that what the County will end up with is a facility that is going to be operated at its peak efficiency in thermal conversion efficiency and kilowatt hours recovery, but it is a well maintained and well operated facility that is going to get the maximum throughput.
Commr. Bakich questioned Mr. Patterson and Mr. Varner, individually, as to, based on their experience, whether they felt that the contract before the Board this date was a fair contract and one that is comparable with other communities, to which they responded that they felt it was and explained the reasoning behind their answers.
Commr. Bakich then questioned Mr. Patterson, Mr. Varner, and Mr. Keith, individually, whether they felt that the contract before the Board this date was a better contract than what it was in 1988, to which they all replied that they felt it was.
Commr. Bailey stated that he would like to see the Board put this matter off for an additional week to allow the cities a chance to look at the proposal and discuss it among themselves.
Mr. Charles Strickland, City Commissioner, City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board stating that he was before them this date as President of the League of Cities. He stated that the cities were promised some input on this contract and felt that if the Board took action on it this date, without giving the cities some input, they were going to create the same problem that they had in the past, which is being at odds with the cities. He urged the Board not to take any decisive action on the proposal until the cities have had an opportunity to look at it. He noted that he felt it would take at least two to three weeks, minimum, for the cities to review the proposal and have input for the Board regarding it.
Further discussion occurred regarding the matter.
It was noted that the Board had scheduled a joint meeting with the League of Cities for Tuesday, June 16, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., for the purpose of discussing the solid waste issue.
Commr. Swartz requested Mr. Patterson to review an issue that was touched on earlier regarding whether or not the County moved an equity payment forward (Commr. Swartz feels that it was, however, Mr. Patterson stated that it was not) and stated that he would like to have staff report, and review with the Board, why the County has not been charging Ogden for ash disposal for out-of-county waste.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK