The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance & Audit Department; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Reverend James Dawkins, First Missionary Baptist Church of Mascotte, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, appeared before the Board stating that Precinct 65, located at the Villages in Lady Lake, has 6,994 registered voters, therefore, she felt that a change was needed in the boundary line and that an additional precinct should be created. She reviewed a map indicating the boundary change and noted where the proposed precinct would be located.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Ms. Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, for a change in the boundary line for Precinct 65 and for the creation of Precinct 72.
The Chairman presented the following plaques and bond:
Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service to the County
Charles P. Simmons, Equipment Operator I, Public Services/Roads
Joanne K. Singleton, Secretary III, Fire & Emergency Services/Emergency Management
Plaque to Employee with Twenty-Five Years of Service to the County
John L. Jackson, Extension Agent, Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service
Plaque and Bond to the August Employee of the Month
Rebecca "Becky" Holland, Animal Control Attendant II, Animal Control Division, Department of Fire & Emergency Services
Regarding the Minutes of July 12, 1993 (Special Meeting),
Commr. Hanson requested the following:
On Page 12, Lines 7 and 8, clarify the fact that she would like to have all options evaluated, in running the Jail more efficiently.
On Page 13, Lines 16 through 18, clarify the fact that she wanted the committee to be created immediately, with the hope that they would have a recommendation for the Board within the next six months or so.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of July 12, 1993 (Special Meeting), as amended.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Denis Holman, President of Lakeside Coaches, Inc. and a member of the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Board, appeared before the Board stating that his company operates charter buses. He distributed a proposal which he had prepared, for the Board's perusal, concerning the possibility of implementing a pilot service route program for Lake County. He discussed the cost of operating the system, its hours of operation, how many vehicles would be in operation, how many times a day they would run, the cost of the fare, and funding. He reviewed a map (on display) indicating the route that the proposed system would take.
Mr. Holman stated that they would like to interact with Lake County Transit (known as the Little Blue Buses), noting that they have indicated support for the program. He stated that they would also like to interchange with a route of the LYNX system, at a southern most point in the system, ideally Mt. Dora, thus providing the opportunity for Lake County residents to travel to virtually any point in Central Florida, at a very economical cost, noting that LYNX officials are aware of the proposal and have indicated an interest in it.
Mr. Holman stated that they are looking for a subsidy, not necessarily from the County, but, possibly under the Section 18 Service Route Development Funds from the Department of Transportation. He stated that they feel the Department of Transportation (DOT) likes this plan, therefore, feel confident enough to push forward with it. He stated, however, that Lakeside Coaches, as an operator, cannot approach DOT for the funding, that the County would have to do so.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the program.
Mr. Ted Clark, a resident of Grand Island, appeared before the Board and clarified the fact that Mr. Holman had stated, during his presentation, that an individual could ride from Mt. Dora to the Orlando International Airport, under the proposed plan, for $1.75 one-way. It was noted that buses would run said route approximately every two hours and that it would take approximately one hour to complete the trip from Mr. Dora to the Airport.
Mr. Mel Scott, Planner, Planning Department, appeared before the Board and answered questions pertaining to the Section 18 funds that Mr. Holman had indicated he would like to receive for the program. He stated that it would be a supplementary program and would have to go through the Lake County Transportation Coordinator.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division, appeared before the Board and answered a question from Commr. Cadwell as to whether this type of transportation system would give the County any relief, as far as the level of service problem on Hwy. 441, to which Mr. Knight responded that it would not, at this point in time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board should be very cautious in what they do, concerning this proposal, due to the fact that it involves endorsing a private venture and the fact that public transportation is a big step. He stated that he felt it was a good idea and that he would do everything he could, privately, to support the system, however, was not sure that the County should be involved, at this time.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt it could be a great opportunity for Lake County, noting that she supports the program and would like to find some way to help make it work. She stated that she feels Lake County needs to get into mass transit, but, by taking it one step at a time.
Mr. Scott informed the Board that there are two ways in which to obtain Section 18 funds and that, if the Board were to entertain the notion for 1994, Mr. Holman may be eligible to throw his hat into the ring and became a subcontractor, thus, receive the funding.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would be hesitant to direct county staff to search for grants for a public entity. He stated that he liked the idea and felt that, at some point, Lake County would be moving in that direction. He stated that, if Mr. Holman's program could get started and could show that there is a reasonable ridership and that the cost that the County might incur, either through Section 18, or some other fund, than he would be willing to look into the matter. He stated that the County needs to find out if there is sufficient public interest for this type of program. He suggested that Mr. Holman approach the local hospitals, mobile home communities, the Mt. Dora Chamber of Commerce, etc., to see if they might be willing to subsidize some of the cost of the program, for the benefit of their employees.
Mr. Holman stated that this proposal was put before the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Board, at their last meeting, and that they had decided not to form a subcommittee, but, that a presentation should be made directly to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Scott interjected that staff made it very clear to Mr. Holman that they did not want to lay the ground work for his operation, because it was not related to transportation disadvantaged, and that they needed to focus on that.
The Board wished Mr. Holman well and noted that they would try to do everything they could, as individual commissioners, to encourage people to use the system.
Mr. Holman informed the Board that he would like to approach Mr. Tom Fernandez, with DOT, concerning the issue of funding, but that he cannot do so. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners has to be the one to make specific applications for funding. He requested the Board to send Mr. Fernandez a letter encouraging him to help Mr. Holman identify funding, other than Section 18 funds.
The Board directed Mr. Scott to draft a letter, for the Chairman's signature, to Mr. Fernandez, with DOT, requesting his assistance in the matter.
CLERK OF COURT'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Request to acknowledge receipt of the list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Clerical Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinance No.
93-05, from the City of Eustis, adopted by the Eustis City Commission on June 17, 1993.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the month ending June 30, 1993, in the amount of $128,209.00. Same period last year: $141,054.74.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/County Manager
Request from the County Manager for approval of an Interlocal Agreement with Orange County for an Economic Development Study; to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $24,000; and authorized proper signatures on same.
Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Budget Transfers/Office of Budget
Request from the Office of Budget for approval of the following:
Fund: County Transportation Trust Fund
Department: Public Services
Division: Road Operations
From: Operating Expenses $40,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $40,000.00
Transfer No.: 93-0255
Department: Community Services
Division: Human Services
From: Contingency $ 2,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $ 2,000.00
Transfer No.: 93-0258
For Your Information Item
In accordance with Board direction, the items in backup (Attachment I) were approved by the County Manager, based on a policy adopted by the Board on March 1, 1993, increasing the transfer limit for the County Manager to $25,000.
Request from Community Services for authorization to issue and advertise, by August 12, 1993, a Request for Proposal for a Library Automation System for Library Services.
Community Services/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Request from Community Services for approval of an agreement between the City of Mt. Dora, the East Lake Chamber of Commerce, Inc., and Lake County, for the establishment of a deposit library, and authorized proper signatures on same (3 originals).
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request from Community Services for authorization to pay Florida Hospital $12,006.40, for inpatient hospital stay for a Lake County resident, under the Health Care Responsibility Act.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request from Community Services for authorization to pay monthly Medicaid hospital bill, in the amount of $27,676.44, and Medicaid nursing home bill, in the amount of $37,280.37, for the month of May.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Public Health
Request to acknowledge the following For Your Information Item: The County Public Health Unit is in the process of applying for grant funds, in the amount of $39,000.00, through the Department of Transportation, in order to implement a Child Safety Seat Program.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Fire & Emergency Services
Request from Fire and Emergency Services for approval of an agreement between Lake County and the Astatula Fire Department, Inc., to receive ownership of a fire engine from the Astatula Volunteer Fire Department that was not signed over under the original consolidation.
County Employees/Human Resources/Insurance
Request from Human Resources for approval of the Amendment to Reliance Standard Life AD&D Insurance Policy, mandated by FS 627.6562, "Dependents Coverage", and authorized proper signatures on same.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request from Human Resources for approval of Certificates to Employees with One Year of Service to the County and authorized proper signatures on same.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request from Human Resources for approval of Certificates to Employees with Three Years of Service to the County and authorized proper signatures on same.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Human Resources
Request from Human Resources for approval of the Quarterly Advertising Agreement between Human Resources and the Daily Commercial, for the period of April 1, 1993 through December 31, 1994, and authorized proper signatures on same, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney.
County Employees/Human Resources
Request from Human Resources for approval of the reorganizational Personnel Change Requests (35) for Fire/Rescue, to be effective August 8, 1993.
Information Services/Roads-County & State
Request from Information Services for authorization to rename Canal Drive, in The Springs Subdivision, to South Canal Drive.
Appointments-Resignations/Committees/Planning & Development
Request from Planning and Development to appoint Mrs. Ruth Nix to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Subdivisions
Roads-County & State/Planning & Development
Request from Planning and Development for approval of the Final Plat of Rolling Hills Subdivision; authorization to accept and execute an Escrow Agreement, in the amount of $3,800.00, for maintenance; and to accept the following roads into the County Maintenance System: Rolling Hills Road (2-0734) and Janette Lane (2-0734A), subject to review and approval by the County Attorney. (16 lots in District 2)
Planning & Development/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for approval of the Final Plat of Oak View on the Lake, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney.
Accounts Allowed/Planning & Development/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for authorization to accept an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, in the amount of $2,823.90, for the completion of lot swales; and an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, in the amount of $1,430.00, for the installation of a fire hydrant in Western Pines, Phase II.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivisions/Roads-County & State
Planning & Development
Request from Planning and Development for authorization to accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $3,592.00; and to accept the following roads, in the East Umatilla Subdivision, into the County Maintenance System: East 6th Avenue (5-7879B) and East 7th Avenue (5-7879C).
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Planning & Development/Subdivisions
Request from Planning and Development for authorization to release a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $20,000.00, for Fairview Estates.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements/Planning & Development
Request from Planning and Development for authorization to accept a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed from James L. O'Berry, in relation to Large Lot Split No. 93-19.
Accounts Allowed/Municipalities/Roads-County & State
Request from Public Services for authorization to reimburse the City of Clermont $15,976.82 for engineering fees paid, to date, on Bloxam Avenue Impact Fee Project, Impact District 5.
Deeds/Public Services/Roads-County & State
Request from Public Services for authorization to accept the following:
Statutory Warranty Deeds
Glen and Myrtle Marie Bishop
Carter Jones Road (2-1309)
Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pearl Stallings, Deceased
Dogwood Drive (1-5913)
Public Services/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request from Public Services for authorization to accept the following:
Anthony J. and Maria J. Coletti
off Satsuma Circle (2-1267B)
Hi-Acres, Inc., a Florida Corporation
State Road 46
(For Road ROW involving abandoned RR ROW)
Request from Purchasing for approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue Purchase Orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, State Contract, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM repairs, sole source and proprietor source; and to approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
A) Authorization to Seek Bids, Proposals and Professional Services and Approve Technical Specifications.
1) Purchasing $50,000.00
Authorization to seek bids and approve technical specifications for Lake County's annual bid for Paper Products and miscellaneous Janitorial Supplies, Bid #B-3-4-22.
2) Purchasing $20,000.00
Authorization to seek Bids and approve technical
specifications for Lake County's Annual Bid for Coffee/Tea and Beverages, Bid #B-3-4-21.
B) Authorization to Waive Bid Requirements and Accept Quotes and Issue Purchase Orders.
1) County Finance $ 6,250.00
Delta Business Systems - Permission to waive Bid Requirements and accept the quote, for one each rebuilt Canon NP 6650 copier to be used by BCC Support. The Clerk's Purchasing Department received quotes from five vendors and recommends the lowest, most responsive quote.
C) Award Bids and Proposals and Issue Purchase Orders and/or Contracts.
1) Purchasing $28,092.68
Delco Oil Company - Award Bid #B-2-3-54 and issue Purchase Orders within budgeted funds for Public Services, Fire Services, Solid Waste and Mosquito, Aquatic Management for Lake County's Annual Bid for Lubricants & Oils. Seven Bids were received, award recommendation is to the overall low bid for all line items. Estimated savings between high and low bid is $5,087.43.
C) Award Bids and Proposals and Issue Purchase Orders and/or Contracts.
2) Fire & Emergency Services $ 7,505.00
Award Bid #2-3-62 and issue Purchase Orders within Budgeted Funds for Firefighter Boots, Gloves and Helmets. Award recommendation as follows:
1. Firefighter boots - Award to second low and most responsive bid, Sampson Fire at $73.45 a pair. It is requested we reject the first low bid, Seminole Fire at $73.00 a pair. Seminole Fire did not meet bid specifications requiring the boot to be insulated.
2. Gloves - Award to third low and most responsive bid, Ten-8 Fire at $22.00 a pair. It is requested we reject the first low bid, Florida Fire at $20.35 a pair and the second low bid, Sampson Fire at $21.95 a pair. Neither vendor met the bid specifications requiring the shell to be a leather-elk side split.
3. Helmets - Award to third low and most responsive bid, Safety Equipment at $110.00 each. It is requested that we reject the first low bid, Seminole Fire at $95.00 each and the second low bid, Ten-8 Fire at $96.50 each. Neither vendor met the bid specifications requiring a 6-Point Nomex and a Kevlar composite. Six Bids were received. The award recommendation is to the lowest bid which meets all bid specifications. Estimated savings is $1,225.00.
E) Authorization to waive Bid Requirements and Issue
Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities that are Not Bid or Quoted, or if they are OEM Repairs.
1) Risk Management $298,639.00
Security National Bank - Employee Benefits Plan/Issue Change Order for $298,639.00. Total Purchase Order will be $2,641,639.00 for payment of employee and dependent claims under the Group Health Plan. Board approved original Purchase Order for $2,343,000 on October 20, 1992, but a Change Order is needed to cover additional claims.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Office of Tourism
Request from the Office of Tourism to amend the Design/Build Contract, for the Tourist Development Council Welcome Center, and to encumber and expend funds, in the amount of $679.00.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
No one wished to address the Board.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for authorization to have the Lake Joanna Park Ordinance advertised.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT'D.)
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that Ms. Ruth Nix had indicated to the Board Office that she presently has too many commitments to serve on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, therefore, requested that the request appointing her to said committee be reconsidered.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to reconsider the request appointing Ms. Nix to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board withdrew the request appointing Ms. Ruth Nix to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT'D.)
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Elections
Request from the County Manager for approval of an agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and American Information Services, Inc., for a Complete Centralized Regional Ballot Optical Scan System, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Budget Transfers/Corrections
Office of Budget
Request from the Office of Budget for approval of the following:
From: Personal Services $165,000.00
Operating Expenses 9,300.00
To: Personal Services $ 54,300.00
Operating Expenses 120,000.00
Transfer No.: 93-0283
Request from the Sheriff, in the amount of $23,081.61, for payment of purchases of equipment, other current charges, and operating supplies. These funds have been expended in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Statutes, Section 932.704.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Libraries
Request from Community Services for approval of the McNaughton Book Service Lease Agreement for the East Lake Deposit Library; authorization to encumber funds, in the amount of $1,593.72, subject to properly executed Agreement among Lake County, the City of Mt. Dora, and the East Lake Chamber of Commerce, Inc.; and authorized proper signatures on same, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney.
Accounts Allowed/Grants/Fire & Emergency Services
Request from Fire and Emergency Services for authorization to execute two (2) State Emergency Medical Services Matching Grant Applications totaling $71,300.00.
Deeds/Planning & Development
Request from Planning and Development for authorization to accept a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed from Lowrie Brown Investment Company, in relation to Large Lot Split No. 93-20, for Charles Caldwell.
Office of Tourism/Utilities
Request from the Office of Tourism for authorization to execute an application for membership and electric service with Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONT'D.)
A brief discussion occurred regarding this request.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Manager that the meeting dates be set for the Value Adjustment Board. Dates are as follows:
September 29, 1993
September 30, 1993
October 1, 1993
Commrs. Cadwell, Gerber, and Swartz will serve on said Board, along with appointees from the Lake County School Board.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division, explained this request.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Planning and Development for approval of the Resolution amending the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timetable for Calendar Year 1993, due to a disruption in the adoption schedule.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
SUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she had previously informed the Board that the issue of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority litigation with the County had been resolved and that the Fifth District Court had voted in favor of the County. She stated that she was premature in making that statement, as a motion for rehearing has been filed by the petitioner and is pending. She stated that she would further update the Board, regarding the matter, at a later date.
No action was needed or taken at this time.
BONDS/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/SOLID WASTE
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board had previously approved a Substitute Remarketing Agreement wherein PaineWebber was substituted for Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc., in relation to the remarketing of the County's bonds for the Resource Recovery Facility. She stated that the $9,000,000 Series 1988 "B" Taxable Bonds were not included in that remarketing agreement, therefore, the agreement needed to be amended to incorporate said agreement. She requested the Board to approve the drafting of said amendment and to authorize the Chairman to execute it.
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 draft an amendment to the Substitute Remarketing Agreement, alluded to above, and authorized proper signatures on same. It was noted that this would be the first amendment to that agreement.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/STATE AGENCIES
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that they should have received a copy of a letter from Mr. Thomas Lewis, with the law firm of Ackerman Senterfitt & Eidson, regarding the public hearing process, with respect to the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan, as it pertains to the Florida Raceplex issue. She stated that she had received a response from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), in which they determined that the County had not submitted sufficient information concerning a number of items required by Rule 9J-11, of the Florida Administrative Code.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that it was her understanding that the applicant has prepared the information that has been requested by DCA, however, said information was not part of the record that the Board considered when they transmitted to DCA. She stated that, in light of the fact that the Raceplex issue has to be addressed through a quasi-judicial process, she felt that the additional information should be considered in a public hearing format. She stated that, in order to comply, the Board would have to set a public hearing, which she noted would be similar to the prior hearing, except that it would be narrowed down to the issue of the information being requested by DCA.
The Board members noted that they had not received the letter from Mr. Ross, alluded to by Ms. Lustgarten, at which time she informed the Board as to contents of the letter.
Discussion occurred regarding the issue, at which time Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the County Attorney had responded to the letter from Mr. Lewis, to which she responded that she had not.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board directed the County Attorney, Ms. Lustgarten, to respond to the letter from Mr. Tom Lewis, alluded to earlier, which the Board was copied on, concerning the issue of quasi-judicial hearings and how they are conducted.
After a brief discussion concerning the issue of setting a date for the public hearing concerning the issue of the Florida Raceplex Supplemental to Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs, it was the consensus of the Board to hold said meeting on Thursday, August 26, 1993, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room.
COMMITTEES/RESOLUTIONS/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that they had previously recommended adding two additional members to the membership of the Land Development Regulations Review Committee and that, to do so, would require an amendment to the resolution establishing said committee, at which time she requested approval to amend said resolution.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for authorization to amend the Resolution establishing the Land Development Regulations Review Committee, adding two additional members to the membership, representing the agricultural community - one recommended by the Lake County Agricultural Advisory Committee and one recommended by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board had recommended a couple of years ago that a Volunteer Program be put together for Lake County and noted that Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, had done so.
Mr. Smith appeared before the Board and discussed the program. Mr. Haig Medzarentz, Coordinator for the Lake County Volunteer Program, appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the program, at which time a brief discussion occurred regarding same.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Commr. Hanson for approval of the Lake County Volunteer Program that the Director of Community Services had put together, providing for volunteers to work in various departments of Lake County Government, to be governed by rules and regulations, as noted in backup material provided to the Board.
COMMITTEES/STATE AGENCIES/TAX COLLECTOR/PROPERTY APPRAISER
Commr. Hanson briefly discussed the Lake County Reforestation Program. She noted, for informational purposes, that flyers had been printed, explaining the program, and that they would be made available to the general public, particularly those individuals who are in danger of losing their agricultural classification. She stated that, according to the Tax Collector, the flyers cannot be included with the tax notices, as originally thought, but that a statement could be included with the trim notices to let people know about the program. She stated that the program will be promoted through the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
Mr. Bill Duval, Vice-Chairman of the Lake County Agricultural Advisory Committee, appeared before the Board requesting their support in this endeavor.
Mr. Russ Giesy, Director of the Lake County Cooperative Extension Service, appeared before the Board stating that this request is the first of many projects that the Agricultural Advisory Committee will be bringing to the Board's attention. He stated that the purpose of the Agricultural Advisory Committee is to look at alternative agricultural uses of land and that they are in the process of doing that. He requested the Board's support in the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Commr. Swartz for ratification of financial items which needed to be paid prior to the Board Meeting.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:25 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 11:00 a.m. for a Budget Workshop.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, referred to Pages 2 through 5 of a booklet contained in the Board's backup material entitled Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 1993-94, which he noted lays out the history of the budget preparation for this fiscal year. He stated that, when staff started this process in early July, there was an approximate $5.6 million shortfall in the General Fund, however, noted that that figure has now been reduced to $2,025,131.00. He stated that the County is looking at a .46 millage increase over the existing mills, which translates to a 9.5% increase in the proposed ad valorem millage rate. However, if the Board desires to incorporate the five positions that the Sheriff is requesting into the budget, then the County will need to add .04 mills to the .46 mills that he alluded to earlier, therefore, the County will be advertising a .50 millage increase.
Commr. Bailey questioned whether staff had challenged the Department of Corrections concerning the fact that the County feels the Jail can be operated more efficiently with less personnel, to which Mr. Wahl responded that there is a required number of personnel for each pod of the Jail. He stated that, at this point, until the County can get some firm recommendations and do a more thorough review, he felt that it would be dangerous to go with less than what has been proposed.
Discussion occurred regarding a possible reduction in the staffing of the Jail, at which time Mr. Mike Anderson, Director of Facilities & Capital Improvements, stated that Mr. Gary Borders, Director of Corrections, was putting together a staffing study to compare with the original study that Mr. Bob Buchanan, Correctional Services Group, Inc., had prepared for the County, for the purpose of comparing what was originally intended with what is actually on board.
Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Buchanan has volunteered to come back before the Board and discuss what he has found to be the trend, nationwide, and the merits of direct and indirect supervision. He stated that Mr. Buchanan will also review the County's present operation and compare it with the original plan that he helped design and see whether or not the County can make some of the changes that are being discussed.
Commr. Hanson reiterated the fact that she felt a committee should be created to investigate ways in which to run the Jail more efficiently, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the County is restricted in what they can do unilaterally.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt a committee could be set up, within those constraints, and that she would be glad to work with the County Manager and bring a proposal back to the Board for discussion.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether staff had included any projections, as far as a utility tax, to which Mr. Wahl, County Manager, responded that the County is conducting research in that area.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board what they can do, legally, concerning the issue of a utility tax.
Sheriff George Knupp, Jr. appeared before the Board stating that they had asked him to look at the staffing of the Jail and recommend some ways in which he felt the County could save some money. He submitted a memorandum, dated August 2, 1993, outlining ways in which he felt thousands of dollars could be saved, however, requested that they not discuss his recommendations at this time, but, to review them, for future discussion.
Ms. Ann Westphal, a resident of Hawthorne at Leesburg, appeared before the Board and read a statement into the record regarding a concern she has about the Sheriff's Department not having enough deputies to adequately protect the people of Lake County. She felt that the Sheriff's request for additional deputies should be approved.
Mr. Don Braksick, a local resident, appeared before the Board stating that he supported the Sheriff's request for additional deputies and felt that it should be approved.
Mr. Sal Pignato, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board and discussed several ways in which he felt the Sheriff's Department could save money.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Lake County Home Builders Association, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the portion of the budget pertaining to the Building Department was scheduled to be discussed this date. She was informed that the dollars that relate to that department had not been reflected in the budget numbers before the Board this date, however, before the Board sets the final millage, that issue would need to be revisited.
Ms. Kaminski stated that she was concerned about that department losing staff, due to the fact that more and more regulatory things are coming in for them to handle. She stated that the Building Department has always supported itself and she would like to see those monies continue to do so.
Mr. Hubert Hartman, a resident of Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board stating that he felt the budget problems facing them today were not caused by the taxpayers, however, the taxpayers will have to pay to solve the problem. He noted five reasons why he felt a substantial reduction should be made in the budget, being: (1) that 18.9% of the population in Lake County today is living below the poverty level; (2) 6,374 households receive food stamps to supplement their income; (3) school taxes have increased 95%; (4) in the last 10 years general county taxes have increased 137%; and (5) for the last 10 years, the Consumer Price Index and Social Security checks have only increased 40%, at which time he submitted a handout containing the five reasons he discussed, for the record. He stated that taxes in Lake County will eat up the savings of some residents, if changes are not made, and questioned why the County cannot make those changes.
Mr. Dan Eastwood, a resident of Tavares, appeared before the Board stating that, even though the shortfall has been reduced down to $2,025,131.00, as Mr. Wahl noted, he felt that, with some additional effort, that $2 million might be located. He encouraged the Board to revisit a couple of issues, which he elaborated on, one being the disposal costs at the waste-to-energy facility and the other being the refinancing of the bonds for the facility.
Discussion continued regarding the budget.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved to set the tentative millage rate for Fiscal Year 1993/94 at 5.364 mills.
Commr. Hanson voted "No", due to the fact that she had stated she would not vote for anything above 5 mills.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to set the tentative millage rate for the Northlake Ambulance Hospital District at
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to set the tentative millage rate for the Greater Hills Municipal Services Taxing Unit at 4.000 mills.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board set the first public hearing for adoption of the budget for September 7, 1993, at 5:05 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m. for a public hearing pertaining to the Land Development Regulations.
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the draft before the Board this date was in response to direction given to staff at the prior meeting concerning the LDRs.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, discussed three options which were given in the draft concerning Master Park Plans,
Preliminary Plats, and Final Site Plans, noting that the options would be the same for the three categories. He requested that the language "for which permit has not expired" be inserted after the word "construction", in the sixth sentence of Paragraph A. 1., under Option 2, on Page I-6.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the difference between the three options.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board selected Option 2 as the proposed option for Master Park Plans, Preliminary Plats, and Final Site Plans, as amended, adding the language alluded to earlier by Mr. Hoban.
Mr. Hoban referred to Page I-3, noting a change that was made in the language in Paragraphs A. 2. and B. 2., under Construction Plans.
Mr. Hoban referred to Page II-36 and explained the reason for two dates being given in the definition of a Lot of Record, being December 12, 1971 (Option 1) and May 20, 1981 (Option 2).
A brief discussion occurred.
Commr. Swartz noted that the May 20, 1981 date would be more consistent with the decision made by the Board at the prior meeting.
It was the consensus of the Board to use the Option 2 date of May 20, 1981, in the definition of a Lot of Record.
Mr. Hoban referred to Page III-35, noting that it was brought to his attention that, in the areas of Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento, the County's old Lot of Record required an aggregation of 12,500 square feet, therefore, entire areas were developed at that footage. He stated that the current language in the Code states that, if one had an R-1-7 zoning, one could develop a lot of 7,000 square feet and he felt that, if the County went back to the 12,500 square foot figure and took out the requirement of the zoning district - whichever is less, that would solve the problem in the Mt. Plymouth and Sorrento areas.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Ms. Soni Pilkington, a resident of Fruitland Park, appeared before the Board and requested clarification concerning the 12,500 square foot issue, with regard to a Lot of Record. She questioned what the difference would be in dropping the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district versus having it in there, to which Commr. Swartz responded, stating that, where there are some zoning districts, such as the old R-1-7 district, which allowed 7,000 square foot lots, under the current definition, one would not have to aggregate to 12,500 square feet, one would only have to aggregate up to 7,000 square feet.
Commr. Hanson stated that it only applies in the urban and urban expansion area, it does not apply in the rural and the suburban areas, which she noted makes it confusing. She stated that the losers will be the ones in the rural and suburban areas.
Mr. Bob Skinner, a resident of Umatilla, appeared before the Board and discussed some problems that owners of property in the East Umatilla Subdivision are faced with, due to changes which have been made in the square foot requirement for the Lot of Record. He stated that said subdivision has approximately 400 acres, with over 5,000 lots. He stated that the part of the subdivision that is zoned rural residential has 113 property owners, however, with said changes, only five out of those 113 own enough property to be able to build. The rest of the property will be worthless to the remaining property owners.
Commr. Swartz stated that the property owners probably have common law vesting rights, where the roads have gone in, which he noted goes beyond what the Lot of Record rights are.
Mr. Hoban stated that, if an individual has a lot and is able to obtain a septic tank permit, they can build on that lot, under every single option or possibility, no matter what the land use or zoning is, and no matter if it is on a paved or non-paved road.
It was the consensus of the Board to change the language in Section 3.02.01 - Lot of Record where needed, to make it uniform, requiring that one aggregate up to a minimum of 12,500 square feet, or they will have to go back to the aggregation language which states that one will have to put lots together until they reach the 12,500 square foot requirement.
Mr. Hoban referred to Pages III-38 and III-39, stating that when the Board made a decision about paved roads versus non-paved roads, the conversation was about non-Wekiva areas, however, he thought it was the Board's intent to have the requirement pertain to the Wekiva area, as well. He stated it was his impression that, no matter where one was located in the County, one would have to meet the paved road requirement. He requested clarification of same, to which Commr. Swartz responded that he felt the paved road requirement, whether one was in the Wekiva area or not, was an attempt to try and get the infrastructure in, particularly in areas where people have bought up old subdivisions.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the paved road requirement would not make any difference in those old subdivisions that are located in rural and suburban areas, noting the reason why.
Considerable discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Hoban as to whether language could be created to alleviate some problems that were noted with the paved road requirement.
Mr. Hoban stated that the language could be changed to state that, if one is in a rural area and has to aggregate up to five acres and is not on a paved road, that the County will do the same thing that they are currently doing for lot splits that are five acres, which is requiring deed restrictions which state that the County will never maintain the road - that the individual property owner will be responsible for maintaining the road. He stated that, if an individual owns ten acres of land on an unpaved road, they will get two building permits, five acres a piece, because of being in a rural area, but that they will have to abide by the deed restrictions.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt said language would make a substantial change in the Wekiva area.
Commr. Hanson stated she did not believe that DCA, in the stack of papers that she had received from them concerning their case law for vesting language, addressed existing subdivisions. She stated that they went into DRIs and large projects - not once did they address what happens to an existing subdivision. She stated that she felt it would take care of a lot of the County's problems, if they would vest ongoing subdivisions, where people have already bought lots and are building on them. She stated that some people have done special assessments in their subdivisions and have paved their roads and what the County is doing is making them vest twice. She stated that she is not just talking about the Wekiva area, she is talking about on-going subdivisions throughout the County.
Commr. Hanson stated that the ones that are going to be hurt are the individual, private, unsuspecting citizens of the County, because the County is making them aggregate up to five acres in an existing subdivision that has already started building out in 100' lots or one-quarter acre tracts. She stated that she feels the Board is missing the boat if they do not address this issue, noting that DCA has not said that the County must do this. She stated that they are leaving it up to the County to decide how they want to handle vesting.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that in the Comprehensive Plan it requires aggregation of Lots of Record.
Commr. Hanson stated that she is not opposed to aggregation, but feels that it can be aggregated at the 12,500 square foot requirement. She stated that the County can vest the subdivisions she alluded to earlier, because DCA has given them the right to do so. She stated that this situation is different than that of the large developer. She stated that the County is dealing with an individual property owner and she feels that the Board is going to open the County up to a tremendous amount of heartache, if they do not look at the situation. She stated that she did not feel the people she alluded to should have to go through a variance. She stated that, if the Board allows for a variance, that means that the County is not requiring them to meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements. She stated that you either have a variance or vesting.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board deal with the language before them this date and that, between now and the time of the public hearing, that Commr. Hanson work with staff and bring some language back to the Board for a vote.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the Board could change the definition of the Lot of Record, to which Commr. Bailey concurred, stating that he felt to do so would help the County solve the problem they are faced with.
Mr. Hoban referred to Paragraphs 2. and 3., on Page III-40, concerning what the County can and cannot grant a variance to, noting that one can acquire a variance from the Board of Adjustment concerning the publicly maintained road requirement, however, one cannot get a variance from the Comprehensive Plan aggregation requirement and he wanted to make sure that the Board understood that.
Commr. Hanson questioned where the County stood with the PUDs, to which Mr. Hoban responded, referring to Page I-10, Section 1.02.20 - Planned Unit Development (PUD), noting that it states, if there is a large PUD and only one phase is currently under construction, than the other phases of the PUD will not be vested for density, intensity, or anything and that PUDs are like any other zoning, in that they have to meet the Comprehensive Plan or they cannot go forward.
Commr. Hanson stated that this may be one of those cases where one may not find a case law that states, specifically, what one can do with a PUD. She stated that, in her opinion, a PUD goes beyond straight zoning, because of all the information that is required in the granting of a PUD. She stated that, when the Board approves a PUD, they are approving all phases of it, therefore, she feels that all the phases should be vested for density.
Commr. Bailey stated that he had a problem with denying a developer to go beyond a phase of his project, noting that the Board has misled people by approving a project and then telling them that they can only do a portion of it - that they cannot complete it.
Mr. Hoban stated that, of all the vesting language that staff had to write, under the common law, this part was the most troubling, due to the fact of what Commr. Bailey alluded to.
Discussion occurred regarding whether or not PUDs fall under common law vesting, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that they do. He stated that, if one does not derive vesting from this language, they can derive vesting from the common law section. He stated that if they get vesting from one section, it does not mean that they cannot get additional vesting elsewhere. He stated that he has seen many straight zoning projects come before the Board that had the same type of layout as a PUD, but it was straight zoning. He stated that staff is saying, because they called it a PUD, they get more rights than the guy who just got straight zoning.
Commr. Swartz stated that they get vesting, depending on what they have done, in terms of construction plans, final plats, preliminary plats, etc. He stated that the more they have done, the more vesting they have gotten, either from the Comprehensive Plan or from intensity or density requirements. He stated that PUDs are essentially zoning.
Commr. Hanson questioned where the County presently stood, with respect to DRIs, to which Mr. Hoban replied that they are vested.
Commr. Swartz stated that case law indicates a PUD is equivalent to zoning, at which time Commr. Hanson questioned whether anyone had that case law.
Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney, interjected that a PUD is a form of zoning, however, Commr. Hanson stated that it is almost a contract, because a developer can get it conditional, which they cannot get for straight zoning.
Discussion continued, at which time Commr. Bailey stated that, when the County changed the game, as they are constantly doing with this process, people did not know that one day they were going to be confronted with this problem.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt they should be given another option - one with a little more latitude and flexibility, but one that the County Attorney's Office will still be able to defend. She stated that she feels the County has the ability to grant vesting for PUDs - that they are not just straight zoning.
Mr. Hoban stated that Ms. Bonifay, Mr. Richey, and Mr. Bible's law firm are to submit opinions or cases concerning the vesting of PUDs, for the County Attorney's Office to look at, and that, after he has done so, he will bring a recommendation back to the Board. Commr. Cadwell suggested that the County Attorney's Office take another look at the definition and see what they can come up with.
Ms. Soni Pilkington, a resident of Fruitland Park, reappeared before the Board and commented on the issue of phasing stating that, when an individual buys in the first phase of a project, they buy with the overall promise of the entire development. She stated that, if individuals knew that the total development they were buying into would not come to completion, they would not purchase any of the homes. She stated that she felt, if a developer does Phase I and puts out the kind of money that they have to put out, that the project should be vested.
Ms. Pilkington stated that what the people are hearing is a kind of all or nothing at all attitude by some county people and that it worries her, as well as a lot of other people she has talked to. She stated that it seems only one or two of the Board members care about what is going to happen to the people in the County.
Ms. Pilkington stated that, when the Board is dealing with people's lives, especially the kinds of investment and time that developers put into projects, they have got to look at issues on a case-by-case basis and have enough flexibility in the rules to deal with different phases of the project and one's ability to complete those phases.
Ms. Pilkington referred to Page III-39 and discussed the issue of the taking out of language dealing with the lot size requirement, noting that, at an earlier meeting, it was voted that said language would remain in. She stated that it will help the people of the County, because there are some people that said language is going to allow to build, where normally they could not. She could not understand why said language was being deleted.
Commr. Hanson stated that it would only affect the urban and urban expansion areas. She stated that, when she brought the issue up, she thought it would pertain to all classifications, however, she was mistaken. She stated that it will not affect the rural and suburban areas, so it probably will not make too much of a difference. She stated the reason why she felt it should be taken out.
Ms. Pilkington stated that she is concerned about those people who have purchased lots over the years, for the purpose of a retirement income, who had a certain amount of trust in the County in the handling of their lives. She stated that the County needs to notify those individuals as to what the County plans to do and let them know what they have to do to protect their investments.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the concerns alluded to by Ms. Pilkington would be taken care of if the County would vest existing subdivisions.
Commr. Swartz stated that it is the Board's intention to try to provide, in the future, some training sessions for the general public, explaining what the Land Development Regulations are.
Mr. John Shegas, a local resident, appeared before the Board and questioned the issue of common law vesting.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that common law vesting pertains to a lot created by case law - decisions in the courts of the State of Florida. She stated that the criteria pertaining to common law vesting is addressed on Page I-1 of the LDRs, which she reviewed.
Commr. Swartz interjected that common law vesting is also addressed on Page I-9 of the LDRs.
Mr. Shegas stated that he felt the rules that applied when people bought property in their subdivisions should still apply. He requested the Board to leave the old subdivisions alone. He then addressed the new setback requirements, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the County plans to modify the setback requirements for existing developments, to allow for the old setbacks.
Mr. Shegas then suggested that, if the County does require aggregation of any subdivisions, they use a date in 1994, rather than a date that has passed. He stated that some land owners have been treated differently than others. He stated that he had been contacted by some attorneys that focus on people's rights and that he planned to sue, if the County tried to take his property rights away.
Mr. Paul Wilder, a resident of Seminole County who owns property on Lake Jem, appeared before the Board stating that the County is developing what seems to be a very serious problem. He stated that, if the County does not vest existing subdivisions, they are going to have a problem, due to the fact that a lot of property is going to be dumped on the market, if there is a grace period. He stated that the County will hurt a lot of people by doing that and requested the Board to take that fact into consideration.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that her staff is working to furnish Mr. Hoban with some case law, concerning the difference between a PUD and straight zoning. She stated that she feels there is a major difference between the two. She stated that, not only is the development community concerned about this issue, but the financial community as well. She then addressed the issue of the hearing officer, noting that the way this county is handling it is not the way that other counties in the Central Florida area handle it. She suggested a way in which she felt it should be handled, noting that it would be a lot more effective.
Commr. Hanson interjected that she felt the Board should follow what the surrounding counties are doing, with respect to this issue.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and referred to Page II-31, regarding the issue of Intensity, which he discussed. He stated that the definition talks in terms of non-residential and would suggest that intensity in residential, with regard to house size, coverage, setbacks, etc., is not just for non-residential property. He stated that residential property has intensity, as evidenced by the problem that the County has had in the RA zoning, with the changing of the setbacks. He requested the Board to look at that issue, because he feels that intensity needs to deal with both of them.
Mr. Richey referred to Paragraph D. 1. - Incinerator, on Page III-18. He stated that he is concerned about the fact that there is no definition in the definition section of the LDRs, or in the Code, with regard to recoverable materials for solid waste and felt that it needs to be in there, because some of the processes are a little confusing, which he elaborated on.
It was noted that said language would be incorporated into the definition section of the LDRs.
Mr. Richey addressed the issue of expiration of permits and the fact that it depends on what permit reviewer one gets. He stated that his concern is that, if it is the luck of the draw, then someone is going to be taken advantage of and the Board needs to work out some way to where it is equitable and more than just the luck of the draw. He stated that the Board needs to look at the wording regarding same.
After a brief discussion concerning upcoming public hearings, the Board set the following dates:
Land Development Regulations
August 12, 1993 @ 5:05 p.m.
BCC Meeting Room
Land Development Regulations
September 14, 1993 @ 5:05 p.m.
BCC Meeting Room
FY 1993/94 Budget
September 7, 1993 @ 5:05 p.m.
Tavares Middle School
FY 1993/94 Budget
September 21, 1993 @ 5:05 p.m.
Tavares Middle School
August 26, 1993 @ 5:30 p.m.
Tavares Middle School
August 26, 1993 @ 1:30 p.m.
BCC Meeting Room
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, distributed a handout pertaining to an issue that Commr. Hanson had brought up for discussion at a prior Board Meeting, relative to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, with regard to timing and/or the introduction of a variance procedure on the Lot of Record issue, for the Board's perusal. He stated that there is still time to incorporate same as part of the present Comprehensive Plan amendments.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to have a chance to study the handout and discuss it at a future Board Meeting.
No action was taken at this time.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK