The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 2, 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: James C. Watkins, Clerk; Neil Kelly, Chief Deputy, Administrative Services; Frank T. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Watkins, Clerk, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve the Special Minutes of September 14, 1993, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as presented.
Under discussion, the following changes were made:
Page 15, Line 27 - Correction made to the motion to reflect that the Board discourages spending something less, rather than actually opposing.
Commr. Swartz suggested that, on Page 12, Line 20, and on Page 15, Line 26, where it indicates that "Discussion occurred...", pertinent comments be placed in the minutes regarding the proposed resolutions, with this set of minutes being brought back to the Board for consideration.
Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion, and Commr. Bailey withdrew the second to the motion.
It was noted that the Board deferred action on the Special Minutes of September 14, 1993, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, until the Clerk has the opportunity to revisit them.
Discussion occurred regarding the Regular Minutes of September 21, 1993, with the following changes being made:
Page 21 - Delete: portion of minutes pertaining to Commr. Hanson requesting postponement of appointments to the Lake County Sports Committee.
Page 21, Line 14 - Amend: meet to met
Line 18 - Amend: deprecation to degradation
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Regular Minutes of September 21, 1993, as amended.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Minutes of September 21, 1993, Final Budget Hearing, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Joint Meeting Minutes of September 27, 1993, BCC, IDA, TDC, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Minutes of September 30, 1993, Resolution, Bond Series, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Minutes, October 1, 1993, Resolution, Bond Series, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Meeting, October 8, 1993, County Attorney, as presented.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
Commr. Swartz presented plaques to the following employees, while Ms. Gwen Benton, Personnel Officer, presented information on each individual. It was noted that Mr. Russell Swanson, Extension Agent, was not present, and his plaque would be presented to him in December.
Presentation of Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service
Douglas J. Auriemma, Firefighter, Fire & Emergency Services/Fire-Rescue
Robert J. Blackmon, Construction Inspector, Public Services/Special Services
Richard J. Miller, Sign/Striping Technician III, Public Services/Engineering
Connie L. Nicholson, Personnel Specialist, Human Resources/Personnel
Fletcher D. Smith, Community Services Director, Community Services
Presentation of Plaque to Employees with Ten Years of Service
Charles W. Holbrook, Landfill Attendant I, Public Services/Solid Waste Management
Presentation of Plaque to Employee with Fifteen Years of Service
Debbra C. Snow, Training Specialist III, Community Services/Workforce-PIC
Presentation of Plaques to Retirees for their Years of Service Upon Retirement
Roger W. Gunnelson, Corrections Officer, Corrections - 9 Years, 9 Months of Service
Presentation of Plaque and Bond to the November Employee of the Month
E. B. Smith, Solid Waste Inspector, Solid Waste Disposal Operations, Solid Waste Division, Department of Public Services
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
Ms. Cora Fulmore, Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc., appeared before the Board and made a presentation to update the Board on the development and securing of funding assistance for the program, and to solicit the Board's continued support of the organization. At this time, she explained the progress that the organization has made during its six months of existence. Ms. Fulmore stated that nine seminars have been conducted throughout Lake County, with the organization being able to educate over 500 individuals on home ownership. She discussed the number of applications that have been submitted to the County, and the loans that were closed on. Ms. Fulmore stated that she was before the Board in May soliciting financial assistance, which was approved by the Board, and she is before the Board again to inform the members that she is in need of a secretary. She informed the Board that the Lake County program was highlighted at the Florida Low Income Housing Coalition Conference in Altamonte.
Commr. Hanson stated that Ms. Fulmore has done a great job for Lake County, and she supports the help that Ms. Fulmore has informed the Board that she needs.
Ms. Fulmore explained that she is still trying a volunteer work program, but there is a need for volunteers who are well versed in the areas that are needed, in order to continue to provide a quality type service.
Discussion occurred regarding the Sadowski monies that are available to the organization, with it being noted that Lake County is at the ten percent (10%) level.
Ms. Fulmore discussed the funding that the Board had approved for Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc., in May, 1993, which was $5,208.00, and at that time, the Board asked that she come back in October to request the remaining amount of $7,292.00.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff will review the funding and come back to the Board with a recommendation.
Ms. Fulmore explained that part of the funding being requested will go towards bringing on an additional staff member to assist her.
CLERK OF THE COURTS CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber to approve the requests under the Clerk of Courts Consent Agenda.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that three radios from the Corrections Department were listed on the List of Items to be deleted from Fixed Assets, and he would like to request an accounting of those. He stated that, if the County does not have a policy, he would like to see the County develop some type of one whereby equipment that is placed into employees' hands, there is some accountability for the equipment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, for approval of the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Courts-Judges/State Agencies/Reports
1. Approval and signature on Satisfaction of Judgment
Case No. 87-1044-CF, State of Florida vs. Anthony
A. Arjibay, in the amount of $250.00.
2. Approval and signature on Satisfaction of Judgment,
Case No. 92-18CFA, State of Florida vs. Jeffrey
Calvin, in the amount of $250.00.
3. Approval and signature on Satisfaction and Release,
Lake County discharges Ernest Schurch, Order of
Fine, in the amount of $3,080.00.
4. Approval and signature on List of items (7) to be
deleted from Fixed Assets, for the month of
September, 1993, in the amount of $5,173.98.
5. Monthly Distribution of Revenue, Traffic/Criminal
Cases, for the Month Ending September 30, 1993,
in the amount of $135,335.75. (Same period last
6. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
annual report of the activities, receipts, and
expenditures of the Division of Forestry's fire
prevention and suppression program and the Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Project in Lake County.
7. 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
8. Contractor Bonds, New, Cancellations, as follows:
369-94 William B. Bass (Carpenter)
4241-94 Gregory D. Baugh (Electrical)
4301-94 Austin B. Guinan d/b/a Guinan Electrical
4739-94 T. L. Carlson d/b/a T. L. Carlson
4778-94 Daniel Henderson, Jr. - Henderson Electric -
DWH Corp. (Electrical)
4803-94 United Electrical Contractors, Inc. and
Robert M. Adams (Electrical)
4913-94 Greens Energy Services, Inc. (HVAC)
4941-94 Ron Torri Plumbing Inc. (Plumbing)
5088-94 Richard S. Brantley
5124-94 Pete Ciraco (Building)
5258-94 William Lighthouse d/b/a Bill Lighthouse
5259-94 Stormy Frasier (Aluminum)
5098-92 Bob Mitchell Associates, Inc.
5241-93 Charles Carpenter
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
ORDINANCES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 13, Article VII, Lake County Code, Cable Television Franchises.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting for public comment. No one present wished to discuss the issue with the Board, therefore, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance 1993-18, as follows by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ARTICLE VII, CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISES, THE LAKE COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF SECTION 13-215, RATE REGULATION; PROVIDING THAT RATE REGULATION SHALL UTILIZE THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on Special Assessment 76 - Bogle Street, Pine Street and Spring Drive in the Yalaha Area.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, informed the Board that he received one letter of objection to the project. He stated that staff will be re-evaluating the financial aspects of special assessments for the new projects.
Commr. Swartz opened the meeting to public comment. There being no one present wishing to speak on the issue, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to award and authorize Project No. SA-76, Bogle Street, Pine Street and Spring Drive Lump Sum Construction Project to Professional Dirt Service, Inc., and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $46,764.00, and to authorize and accept a resolution adopting the assessment roll.
The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on Special Assessment 77, Circle Drive and Palmetto Drive in the Tavares area.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, informed the Board that he had received no letters of objection to the project.
Commr. Swartz opened the meeting to public comment.
Mr. Bernard Bergman appeared before the Board in opposition to the special assessment. Mr. Bergman explained that he is being assessed, in the amount of $1,112.00, for a portion of road that he does not use. He stated that the people who want the road paved should pay for it, not the people who do not use it. He discussed a portion of Palmetto Drive that is not being paved, but which will eventually fall into the paving program, and stated that he voted against the paving.
Mr. Stivender explained that this involves a corner lot situation. He stated that Mr. Bergman owns Lot 52, and he is being assessed for 62 feet only on Circle Drive. He further stated that, when Palmetto Drive is paved, Mr. Bergman will not be assessed again.
Mr. Bergman discussed the assessment payment plan offered by the County, and stated that he opposes the 12% interest rate. He stated that the County needs a more realistic percentage rate.
Mr. Bruce Brommeland appeared before the Board and stated that he is the owner of Lot 49. Mr. Brommeland stated that he has approximately 140 feet of road frontage, and that he is one of three families that actually live on Palmetto Drive. He stated that all three families did not opt to have the road paved primarily because of the costs involved, and the County's requirement on width. Mr. Brommeland stated that there is an actual pavement of 12 feet, and the County wants 18-20 feet, in terms of width. He stated that, if the County takes this much footage, the shrubbery will have to be removed.
Mr. Stivender clarified that Mr. Brommeland is not on the assessment list, and therefore, will not be assessed, and the road will not be paved in front of his house.
Mr. Brommeland stated that he is not against paving the road at the width that presently exists, but he would oppose the 18 feet, because of the shrubbery.
Mr. Stivender discussed the need for a turn around area, which would have to meet certain County standards, and stated that the scrubs would have to be removed, because they are in the right-of-way, and so that the road will be the proper width to take care of drainage.
Ms. Iris Bergman appeared before the Board to speak in behalf of Mr. Long, who was present in the audience. Ms. Bergman stated that he lives in the corner house on Cove and Palmetto. He has been charged $1,973.40 for the paving of Palmetto, which he never uses. Ms. Bergman stated that Mr. Long opposes the assessment and will not benefit from the paving, and the assessment will cause a hardship for him.
Discussion occurred regarding Mr. Long being assessed for the shortest distance, which would be on Cove.
Ms. Bergman discussed the County's payment policy, and stated that she was taken back by the $53 per foot charge being made for the paving.
Commr. Swartz explained that the County had five bidders, with the lowest bidder being selected for the project. He also explained that on a footage basis, the cost is higher because it is a smaller project.
Mr. Stivender stated that the property owners' contribution is $21,900.00; the County's participation is $10,200.00.
There being no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Stivender stated that staff will be addressing the interest rate with the future assessments, and reminded the Board that the property owner has a option to seek a private loan to pay the assessment.
It was noted that the State limits the Board to a 12% interest rate, and this issue will be coming back to the Board as a policy issue.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to award and to authorize Project No. SA-77, Circle Drive and Palmetto Drive "Portion" Special Assessment Lump Sum Construction, to Paquette Paving Co., Inc., and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $32,163.00, and to authorize and accept a resolution adopting the assessment roll.
Mr. Stivender informed the Board that there is only one more assessment that will be brought to the Board at the current interest rate, and any new ones will be brought to the Board with discussion concerning the financial aspects of the projects.
The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the second and final public hearing to receive citizen views concerning an application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing for public comment.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board in behalf of the applicant, St. Johns Reserve Service Corporation and East Lake Utilities. Mr. Beliveau stated that the issue has been duly noticed, and he has met with Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator, and the Affordable Housing Task Force, which is acting has the Advisory Committee for this grant application, and who has recommended unanimous approval. Mr. Beliveau explained that this is an economic development application, not a neighborhood, or commercial, block grant. He stated that Mr. Robert Johnson, Clark, Roumelis and Associates,
Inc., was present, along with Mr. Paul Bouldin, Bouldin Investments, Inc., and Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney for the project, could not be present.
Commr. Hanson explained that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee was to evaluate the application as an economic development grant, but she was also interested in the concept of an ACLF, or that type of a concept, being implemented, because she believes there is going to continue to be that type of a need for an adult assisted living facility. It was noted that the application was not being proposed as an ACLF, but that it was a part of the economic impact on low and modern income living.
Mr. Beliveau explained that the project was approved as a PUD and was partly for the elderly, as a part of the elderly support system, and the applicant is utilizing a health care facility under contract to provide services to the residents in an effort to address their needs. He explained that one of the issues brought up at the PUD hearing was whether there is adequate health care in the area, and in order to address this issue, the applicant added the facility as an amenity to the project.
Mr. Robert Johnson, Clark, Roumelis and Associates, Inc., appeared before the Board and clarified that the application will be revised to note sewer only, and not water. Mr. Johnson stated that the grant application is taking into account the complete project as it will be in a two year phase. It was noted that there would be five jobs specifically created for the water and sewer operations.
Discussion occurred regarding the $650,000.00 grant, with Mr. Johnson providing information regarding a similar grant project for Shoneys, and explaining that the overall impact will need to be considered, and all jobs have to be documented.
Mr. Beliveau stated that a draft is being developed with Lake County staff regarding the operations of a private-public utility for the area in question. He explained that, to have a joint
agreement with the County, East Lake Utilities would be the utility provider for this portion of the County, and the Interlocal Agreement with the County would designate the boundaries of the utility district being discussed, and the parameters for service of those utilities. He stated that East Lake Utilities will be the provider of water and sewer for a designated geographic area serving partly Crows Bluff, Lake Mack area. This will be outlined in the grant application.
Commr. Gerber commented that when the PUD was voted on, she was not of the understanding that the Board would be looking at a CDBG grant.
Mr. Beliveau explained that the PUD had language that identified three options for utilities, with a grant application being one of the options. At this time, he discussed the other options in the PUD.
Commr. Swartz stated that there were options in the PUD as to the ultimate owner of the facilities, and how this was going to be arranged, but with regards to the grant, it was clear that it would not become a public facility, and would be transferred into a community development district, which is not a public facility at all, and this is where he has a concern.
Mr. John Brock, Director, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board and explained the funds that are available for this type of application, and the time limitation on the applications.
Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator, appeared before the Board and stated that DCA has four funding cycles for economic development, and you are allowed up to $650,000.00 per project. The intent of the dollars from DCA is strictly for job creation, and they are used to fund private, as well as public, projects. Mr. Jackson stated that you need to create approximately 52 jobs, which would equal the $650,000.00 grant. He clarified
that the application before the Board will not hurt the County in applying for any other grant.
Commr. Hanson stated that the County has not been aggressive on going after economic development grants, and for that reason, the County has not received its share of the funding. She stated that question of whether the public owns it, or whether it is privately owned, is not an issue, because she feels the County needs to continue to develop public-private partnerships, and if it can be done through private participation, the County will be better off.
There being no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Swartz reminded the Board that the $650,000.00 is taxpayers money that comes into the State of Florida, and that he does not feel comfortable that these monies are being used in the best way. If the sub-regional system became a public entity, he would not be opposed to it, but he would have a problem, if it becomes a private entity with public taxpayers dollars. He explained that he did not support the original PUD, but if the application could be modified to show that any infrastructure that is funded from the CDBG would come into public ownership, he would support it.
Commr. Hanson commented that she felt economic development should be driven by the private interest, and not by the government interest.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve the grant application for St. Johns Reserve Service Corporation and East Lake Utilities, and to authorize proper signatures on the application.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned other changes that will be made in the draft application before the Board.
Mr. Johnson stated that clarification will be made on Page 12 of the application to Section VIII., Managerial Competence, with
the people being identified, and their resumes being included, and additional attachments and clarification of exhibits will be made. It was noted that a change will be made to reflect the funding of the "sewer" system rather than the "water" system.
Commr. Swartz requested that a notation be made of all changes, so that staff can review them, prior to the signing of the application.
Mr. Beliveau stated that the application needs to be submitted before November 10, 1993.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "no".
ADDENDUM NO. 1 - PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
PETITION NO. 735 - Frank T. Gaylord - Eustis Area
The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on Road Vacation Petition No. 735, by Frank T. Gaylord.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, informed the Board that staff had received the easement necessary in this case, and therefore, recommended approval.
No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.
Mr. Frank T. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney and applicant, answered questions of the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 735 by Frank T. Gaylord, to vacate street (South St.), Eustis Meadows, Sec. 36, Twp. 18, Rge 26, Nearest Town - Eustis, Commissioner District 4, as advertised, and accepted the drainage easement.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests, Tabs 7 through 42, with the exception of Tabs 7 & 8, 33, 36, 37 and
39. Commr. Hanson introduced Mr. Robert Froeman (Tab 16) who will be filling the vacant unexpired term of the HRS Representative on the Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children:
Office of Budget
For Information, in accordance with Board direction, the items on Attachment I were approved by the County Manager based on a policy adopted by the Board on March 1, 1993, increasing the transfer limit to $25,000.00 for the County Manager.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Community Services
Approval of Agreement between Lake County and The Central Florida Young Men's Christian Association for Grant Funding for Scholarships for Summer Day Camp Program.
Committees/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Grants/Education
Approval recommended by the Lake County Citizens Commission for Children of Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and The School Board of Lake County for Grant Funding for the Adopting Communities for Excellence Program.
Approval and signature on non-profit form for Social Services to coordinate and distribute approximately 2,000 toys, provided by the Orlando Sentinel, to the parents of Lake County's indigent children.
Approval of the following Library Policies:
(1) Materials Selection Policy
(2) Patron Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials
(3) Unsolicited Ephemeral Materials
(4) Acceptance of Gifts
Approval of the appointment of Ella Paets to the Advisory Board of the Lake County Library System as County-at-Large Representative, Seat 3, term to expire October 1, 1995.
Grants/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Planning Department
Approval and signature of LSCA Grant Agreement and approval to issue and advertise a Request for Proposal for a Planning Consultant, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Approval of appointment of Robert Froeman to fill the vacant unexpired term of HRS Representative on the Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Committees
Approval to execute an Agreement between Lake County and the Economic Development Commission of Mid-Florida, and approval to encumber and expend funds in an amount of $124,000.00.
Fire and Emergency Services
Approval to donate Tanker 97 (1966 Ford, County Property #10306, Serial #F60D8Y7569) to the Woodlands Lutheran Ministries, Inc. in Montverde, Florida.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/State Agencies
Approval and execution of Addendum to Cooperative Agreement between Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Forestry and Lake County changing the amount of acres of forest and wild lands within Lake County from 369,766 to 366,044, and the annual cost to the County from $11,092.98 to $10,981.32.
County Employees/Human Resources
Approval to authorize the Chairman to sign Certificates for employees with one year of service.
County Employees/Human Resources
Approval to authorize the Chairman to sign Certificates for employees with three years of service.
Approval of Cable Television Resolution which authorizes the County Manager to file complaints with the FCC to initiate a review of the reasonableness of upper tier cable television rates and provides for service of said complaints upon the Cable Television Operators doing business in Lake County.
Approval to remove Faithy B. Dowdell (deceased) and appoint Ann Hall to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee as the member designated for an advocate of low-income people.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Zoning
Acceptance and execution of an Agreement between David D. and Barbara T. Duitsman and Board of County Commissioners for Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use, subject to County Attorney's final review and approval.
Release of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $19,107.00 for East 8th Avenue in East Umatilla Subdivision.
Release of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $55,924.90 for maintenance of improvements in Lake Crescent Hills.
Acceptance of the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds:
Frances A. Joslin and Ralph Horton
Accounts Allowed/Planning and Development
Approval of Final Plat of Cross Tie Ranch and Acceptance of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $64,350.00 for performance of improvements. (42 lots in Commission District 4).
Approval of Final Plat of Greater Hills, Phase 5 and Acceptance of a Performance Bond in the amount of $641,219.32. (96 lots in Commission District 2).
Accounts Allowed/Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Approval of Final Plat of Wedgewood Club, 7th Addition; Acceptance of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $10,100.00 for maintenance; and Acceptance of Draw Drive into the County Maintenance System. (29 lots in Commission District 5)
Accounts Allowed/Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Approval of Final Plat of Wedgewood Club, 6th Addition; Acceptance of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $13,500.00 for maintenance; and Acceptance of the following roads into the County Maintenance System: Slice Lane, Pitch Drive, Fade Drive, and the turn lanes on CR 452. (58 lots in Commission District 5)
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Approval of Final Plat of The Hills of Mount Dora; Acceptance of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $20,000.00; and Acceptance of the following roads into the County Maintenance System: Scenic Hills Drive and Scenic Ridge Court. (53 lots in Commission District 4)
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Environmental
Approval for Chairman to execute contract between Lake County and Laidlaw Environmental Services (TS), Inc. for Hazardous Waste Management Services, and to encumber and expend funds in an amount not to exceed $120,000.00, subject to County Attorney's final review and approval.
Accounts Allowed/Landfills/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Amendment No. 12, and approval to encumber and expend funds for Final Closure Design of the Umatilla Landfill by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $142,000.00, subject to County Attorney final review and approval.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Appraisals
Approval for the Chairman to execute a contract and all necessary closing documents to purchase property next to John's Lake at the appraised value of $35,400.00.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Approval to advertise a request for proposal for consulting services pursuant to the CCNA Act, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Consulting services requested are Civil Engineering, Surveying, Environmental Services and Traffic Engineering. The primary use of these consulting services will be as design and professional support for the County road projects. Approval to encumber and expend funds in an amount not to exceed $60,000.00.
Roads-County & State/Resolutions/Signs
Approval for changing "Speed Limits" and posting signs on the following roads in the Mascotte/Groveland area:
Villa City Rd., C.R. 33 from Mascotte city limits sign to
Underpass Rd., C.R. 33 from Underpass Rd. to S.R. 50,
C.R. 50 from C.R. 33 south to S.R. 50 and Tuscanooga Rd.
Request 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; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
A) Authorization to Seek Bids, Proposal and Professional Services and Approve Technical Specifications.
1) Public Services $ 7,500.00
Authorization to seek bids for annual tire recap services for Lake County fleet.
2) Public Services $34,000.00
Authorization to seek bids for one each heavy duty (26,000 lbs) vehicle lift and one each single phase medium duty (12,000 lbs) vehicle lift and installation.
C) Award Bids and Proposals, and Issue Purchase Orders and/or Contracts.
1) Purchasing $25,000.00
Computer Factory/Authorization to award Proposal #P-4-3-14, Computer Maintenance and issue a blanket Purchase Order (See attachment A). All computer maintenance requests and billing will be processed through Information Services.
It is also requested that the Board authorize the Office of Budget and Information Services to take the necessary action to set up an internal charge back contra account to administer computer maintenance. Funds for this account will be obtained from transfer of funds from Departments/Divisions/Offices for computer maintenance which is currently budgeted under repair and maintenance. All excess funds in Information Services Computer Maintenance account at the end of each fiscal year will be placed in a contingency/reserve account for computer maintenance and/or replacement of the computer equipment if it is not economically feasible to repair. Each fiscal year Department/Division/Office will budget a separate line item for computer maintenance based on historical data on their computer equipment, which will be provided to them by Information Services. As of October 1, of each year those funds will be transferred into Information Service Computer Maintenance account. This contra account process is currently being utilized for Telephone Communications charge backs.
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) Solid Waste $ 415.53
Dickey Scales/Authorization to issue a change order for $415.53. Total Purchase Order will be $6,415.53 for labor and parts to repair the outbound truck scale.
2) Risk Management
Unum $ 100,000.00
Cost Care $ 36,000.00
Allscrips Pharmacy 38,000.00
Acordia Corp. Benefits 2,000.00
Authorization for the Risk Manager to approve direct payment up to $100,000.00 per transaction for Lake County's Health Insurance claim payment, premium payment and administrative charges. All direct payments will be within Board approved line item budget.
3) Risk Management $430,000.00
Citibank, N.A. and Arthur J. Gallagher & Company/Authorization for the Risk Manager to approve electronic transfer of payments up to $100,000.00 per transaction for Lake County's General Liability and Workers' Compensation payments. All transactions will be within Board approved line item budget.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/BUDGET TRANSFERS/RESOLUTIONS/STATE AGENCIES
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 2, 4. of the budget transfer requests, and suggested that, before an approval is made for a vehicle for the Transportation Engineer position, staff provide information as to whether a determination has been made that a vehicle is actually needed. It was noted that $20,000.00 had been requested from Capital Outlay.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and explained that this would be a special purpose vehicle to handle surveying, and after reviewing the fleet of vehicles, there was not one available.
Discussion occurred regarding making a trade-in as an alternative to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following, including the deletion of the $20,000.00 for a vehicle from Capital Outlay, which will be brought back to the Board on November 16, 1993, and the adoption of the following resolution:
A. BUDGET TRANSFERS
Fiscal Year 1993/94
1. Fund: General
Department: Sheriff's Budget
From: Reserve for Salaries/Bcc $ 6,718.00
To: Transfer/Jail Operations $ 6,718.00
Transfer #: 94-0011
2. Fund: General
Department: Facilities & Capital Improvements
Division: Capital Improvements
From: Capital Outlay $1,732,500.00
To: Capital Outlay $1,732,500.00
Transfer #: 94-0005
3. Fund: General
Department: Facilities & Capital Improvements
Division: Capital Improvements
From: Operating Expenses $677,305.00
To: Operating Expenses $677,305.00
Transfer #: 94-0006
4. Fund: Transportation
Department: Public Services
From: Contingency $ 4,041.00
To: Personal Services $ 4,041.00
Transfer #: 94-0012
Fiscal Year 1992/93
1. Fund: Transportation Trust
Department: Public Services
Division: Special Services
From: Contingency $ 60,103.00
To: Grants and Aid $ 60,103.00
Transfer #: 93-0379
B. Resolution requesting that the General Fund for 1992/93 be amended to increase the total budget to include unanticipated revenue from the Department of Community Affairs for the South Lake County Water/Wastewater-Update Grant in the amount of $12,500.00.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Commr. Swartz discussed Tab 33, the request for approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute Addendum No. 5 with the Resource Development Group, and to encumber and expend funds for the Waste Generation and Composition Study in an amount not to exceed $68,000.00. Commr. Swartz stated that, when the Board went through the budget workshops, this item was included, and he had indicated at that time that he did not support the consultant contract to perform this task. After reviewing the details of the task, Commr. Swartz stated that he is of the opinion that staff should be able to perform the services, and therefore, he will not support the hiring of a consultant.
Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management Division, addressed the Board and stated that the Waste Generation and Composition Study cannot be done with the current staff. Mr. Roche stated that this involves two studies, with Mr. Steve Hiney, Recycling Coordinator, being in charge of the Waste Generation Study at staff level, and Mr. David Crowe, Hazardous Waste Management Coordinator, overseeing the Composition Study at staff level, so that staff will be able to produce both studies in the future without consultants being involved. Mr. Roche explained that he could develop the Generation Study, but that his work schedule could not accommodate this task at this point in time. He further explained that the County does not have the computer system to maintain the data that is the support for the study, and Resource Development Group has the system and has been allowing the County to use it. He stated that the request for the system will be coming to the Board on November 16, 1993, which is included in the budget.
Discussion occurred regarding the request to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $25,000.00 related to the retention of temporary labor from a Lake County firm in order to fulfill the contractual obligations to perform solid waste generation and composition studies. Mr. Roche explained that the cost will be approximately $10,000.00, after additional review was made of the figures. He explained the number of staff members to be assigned to each study, and stated that the last Composition Study was done in 1989 by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan. Mr. Roche stated that, once the computer system is in place, it will be up and running in January, and staff will be able to perform all of the tasks the next time they are required.
Commr. Bailey stated that he is not sympathetic to these types of fees, but he does realize the complicated problems that staff is having to face, in relation to the garbage issue, so if it looks as though the Board is going to complicate this problem and make it worse, he will not oppose the request.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if the County can perform the tasks at a much lower cost, and the County has the staff and expertise to perform such tasks, and get the same quality of work, this is the direction that should be taken, as opposed to hiring the work out.
Commr. Gerber discussed the costs that have been paid to this consultant over the past three years, which amounted to $251,065.42, and for 1992-93, the costs were $144,449.42. She stated that $68,000.00 for the services being discussed is too much money.
Commr. Swartz stated that he will not support the request to authorize $68,000.00 for consultant services, because staff has the capability of performing the tasks.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Roche has the personnel and time to perform the studies being discussed, with Mr. Roche responding "no".
Commr. Hanson discussed the times that the County needed consultants to get to the point where the issues currently exist today, and stated that she feels this is one more step that the County needs to take, in order to get through the process. She further stated that, if the Board wants to keep its staff trim, it is going to require outside expertise. Commr. Hanson stated that the County needs to continue the private-public partnership. She stated that she is going to support the request based on the comments made by Mr. Roche, and for respect of his control of the personnel under him, and the evaluation he has made of his needs pertaining to this issue.
Commr. Bailey commended staff for the time it has contributed in making the system the most stable it has ever been.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to execute Addendum No. 5 with the Resource Development Group, and approved to encumber and expend funds for the Waste Generation and Composition Study in an amount not to exceed $68,000.00.
The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voting "no".
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Commr. Swartz stated that Tab 37 is in conjunction with Tab 33, and that he is not in objection to the request.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve for the Chairman to execute all applicable documents and encumber and expend funds in the amount of $25,000.00 related to the retention of temporary labor from a Lake County firm in order to fulfill the contractual obligations to perform solid waste generation and composition studies.
Under discussion, the Board suggested that staff consider the use of inmate labor for the studies. Mr. Roche explained the problems that he has run into, which does not make this suggestion possible.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Mr. Ron Roche, Director of the Solid Waste Management Division, explained to the Board that staff is not allowed to perform the services that are necessary during the liner construction of Astatula Phase II-B cell. The rules of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) require liner and sub-soil testing by a geotechnical engineer, and a construction certification by the consulting engineer. Mr. Roche stated that, through further negotiations with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., the amount is $370,500.00 for the services.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board to explain the request.
Discussion occurred regarding the position held by Mr. Gary Debo, Solid Waste Construction Contract Manager, who was to be available to try and reduce some of the costs associated with these services. Mr. Roche stated that the certification as to the project being in conformity with the permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has to come from the consulting engineer.
Mr. Stivender explained the in-house work that will be performed by staff including Mr. Debo.
Mr. Debo addressed the Board and explained the services that will be performed by Hewitt Construction, and presented detailed information as to the liner construction of the Astatula Phase II-B cell. He also addressed the County's work that will be performed through him regarding the cover to protect the synthetic liner.
Mr. Roche stated that the construction management on the project has been reduced by approximately $30,000.00, because of Mr. Debo, who will also be working at Lady Lake and Umatilla, as well as Astatula.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized for the Chairman to execute Amendment No. 11, and to encumber and expend funds for Quality Assurance Services by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., and its subcontractor, Jammal & Associates, in an amount not to exceed $401,500.00.
DEEDS/MUNICIPALITIES/RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ROADS & EASEMENTS
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, discussed the request for the Board to execute a Statutory Quit-Claim Deed to the City of Clermont, and the City of Minneola, for the County owned T & G Railroad Right-of-Way, which is in their respective city limits. Mr. Gaylord stated that there is still a question as to the validity of the County's title. He stated that there does not
appear to have been a deed gone into the T & G Railroad. He further stated that the County has received its deed from the T & G Railroad. Mr. Gaylord stated that, if the County records an instrument, such as a Quit-Claim Deed, and if, in fact, the County does not own the property, then consumably the County would be subject to a Slander of Title Suit. Rather than recording a deed in the public records, if it is the Board's intent that Minneola and Clermont be on the forefront of this, the Board could enter into an agreement with Minneola and Clermont, and if they prevail in the litigation, at that point the County will deed its interest to them.
Discussion occurred regarding the previous action taken by the Board when it initially approved and authorized signature on the settlement agreement, and then reconsidered its action, with there being no authorization at this point in time. Mr. Gaylord stated that his concern is recording a deed. He informed the Board that the Writ of Mandamus was filed yesterday, and the Board has 20 days to answer it.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, for the Board to table Tab 39, regarding the execution of the Statutory Quit-Claim Deed to the City of Clermont, and the City of Minneola, for the County owned T & G Railroad Right-of-Way, which is in their respective city limits, until November 16, 1993. Commr. Cadwell requested that Mr. Gaylord keep Minneola and Clermont apprised of any action being taken by the County.
Under discussion, Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, informed the Board that staff has met with the cities, who explained their positions on this matter, and who indicated that they would be in a better position if this was in their possession where they would have better control over the property owners, because there are platted rights-of-way to the area that will probably need to be vacated.
Mr. Steve Parrish, Mayor, City of Minneola, appeared before the Board and discussed his communication with one of the partners for the property in the subdivision, with them determining that the best thing would be for the City to acquire and take over any claims that the County had to the property. Mr. Parrish stated that the City's position is to let the 15 foot agreement between the County and the developer stand, and the City will negotiate the remaining portions of property that it needs, with the developer.
Mr. Gaylord stated that all of this deals with the same chain of title, and the intent is to have everything completed as one solution.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried unanimously.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a short recess.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Commr. Swartz called for any public comment, questions, or concerns from the citizens of Lake County.
It was noted that no one present wished to address the Board.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that a letter was received from the City of Eustis regarding "Lake County Day in Tallahassee". He stated that staff needs the Board's direction to expend the $300.00 that was requested by the City, who will be coordinating the event.
Discussion occurred regarding the Board's past participation in this particular event, with Commr. Swartz suggesting that, between now and this time next year, the Board may want to consider bringing members of the legislative delegation to Lake County. It was the consensus of the Board not to change its participation, with the $300.00 being a budgeted item.
No action was necessary on this item.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1993-89, changing the quorum requirements for the "Lake County Land Development Review Committee".
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, discussed the establishment of a Records Management Program and the new position for Records Management Specialist.
Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Coordinator, and Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, were present to discuss the requests.
Mr. Smith appeared before the Board and stated that he will be speaking with the volunteer coordinator about part-time individuals working with the Records Management Specialist.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to establish a Records Management Program under Library Services for the Lake County Board of County Commissioners in accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapters 119 and 257.36, and approved the new position of Records Management Specialist, Pay Range 124-01, in Library Services, Human Services Division, Department of Community Services.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COMMUNITY SERVICES
Ms. Eleanor Anderson, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), appeared before the Board and stated that currently the contract is for $25,000.00, and she needs a resolution that allows her to bring in additional monies. Therefore, the Board needs to include the adoption of the resolution to amend the budget, to be brought to the Board at the following meeting.
ON a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the execution of a one-year contract (10/1/93 - 9/30/94) with Digital Products Corporation for lease of work release program electronic monitoring equipment,
subject to County Attorney's final review and approval, and to authorize the resolution that will bring in additional revenue and budget amendment for expenditures.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/HUMAN RESOURCES/COMMUNITY SERVICES
It was noted for the record that the grievant, Dolly Y. Garnto, nor a representative for the grievant, was present to discuss the request to accept the Final Order upholding the termination of the grievant.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to accept the Final Order issued by the County Manager upholding the termination of Grievant, Dolly Y. Garnto, Community Service Officer, Grievance No.: G-93-02-26-043-TERM, effective on February 19, 1993.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, discussed the implementation of exemptions for the installation of replacement mobile homes with the same number of bedrooms legally existing when impact fee ordinances are adopted. Mr. Wahl stated that this issue came to the forefront from a permit in south Lake County, which surfaced a conflict between two existing ordinances, the road impact fee ordinance, and the school impact fee ordinance.
The following information was provided to the Board:
The Land Development Regulations (LDRs) provide for an exemption from road impact fees for the installation of a replacement mobile home with the same number of bedrooms when a mobile home legally existed on the site on, or prior to, the effective date of the ordinance establishing road impact fees (March 15, 1985).
The LDRs provide for an exemption from school impact fees for the installation of a replacement mobile home with the same number of bedrooms when a mobile home legally existed on the site on the effective date of the ordinance establishing school impact fees (August 1, 1991).
Mr. Wahl stated that staff believes that the intent of the Board was to make the two ordinances consistent. He stated that the issue is determining when the impact occurred, and the intent of the road ordinance was to indicate that the impact on a piece of improved property would have already occurred, if the property was
used at any time prior to the adoption. The situation with the school impact fee is that the property could have been improved, but the mobile home may not have been parked on that given piece of property on the day that the school impact fee was adopted, therefore, when you replace the mobile home on that piece of improved property, you would be subject again to another impact fee every time you replace the mobile home.
Discussion occurred regarding the relocation of residence from one site to another, with the question being does the impact relate to the improved property, or to the household unit. It was noted that, if it is within the same impact fee district, there is no additional cost.
Mr. Wahl stated that, with the road impact fee, the County exempted all of those properties that had been improved at some point in time prior to the adoption of the impact fee. He questioned whether the same thing would be applicable to the school impact fee, because the impact would have been there, if the property had ever been used at any time prior to the adoption of the school impact fee ordinance.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained the situation that has been brought forth to the County where a determination needs to be made as to the school impact fees.
Mr. Wahl stated that he talked with Mr. Gene Mulner, Lake County School Board, about the issue of the school impact fee.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, explained that the Board needed to determine whether it wanted the wording to consist of "on or before" a definite date, to be consistent in both ordinances.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, addressed the Board and stated that the fee is not charged if an individual is moving somewhere else within the same district, but if someone moves into the vacated spot, the fee will be paid by the new individual.
Ms. Bonnie Roof appeared before the Board and explained that, if someone takes a mobile home off of a piece of property, and that property has been impacted before, if there was a two bedroom mobile home on it, and you are putting a three bedroom mobile home back in its place, you will pay an additional impact fee. If you go to a piece of property that has never been impacted, and you place a new mobile home, or a used mobile home on it, that property is subject to impact fees.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if staff is proceeding in the direction that Ms. Roof has explained to the Board, then staff is not following the ordinance. He suggested that, if it is the consensus of the Board, to insure that an impact fee is paid once, or if it was a pre-existing one, that when a second impact is created, somebody is paying for it, and it will run with the land.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that the test is a rational nexus between the impact that is created and the burden on the facility. So when the Board says that it runs with the land, that is not the legal test.
Commr. Swartz stated that the rational nexus issue brought forth by Ms. Bonifay is, if that person has already paid, or they have been exempted because they were a prior existing condition, and they move to another location within the same district, the impact will be the same, and he cannot justify charging them again. He stated that, to charge that person when they move to another location within the same benefit district with no change in the number of bedrooms, he cannot understand charging them again.
Discussion occurred regarding an individual paying impact fees on an existing home, and if they build a house, the same situation is created as a mobile home lot. Commr. Swartz stated that the difference is that the mobile home has paid the impact fee and has now moved, and the person that paid it still owns it and they have now moved. If you had a conventional home and moved it to a new lot, the same situation would be created, and you would not charge
them the impact fee again, if it was in the same district, because there has been no change to the impact. If someone comes to the lot where the house was originally, and builds another house, he will be charged the impact fee.
Mr. John Brock, Senior Director, Planning and Development Department, appeared before the Board and suggested adding the following language: legally existing and by the same owner.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff contact the consultants who are dealing with the impact fees and who helped development them, and see if they have a solution as to how to deal with this issue. He stated that the ordinance is not being enforced as it is currently written, in terms of relocation issues. He suggested that the staff ask the consultants for input, with staff coming back to the Board with alternatives.
Commr. Hanson stated that the County is enforcing the issue through the Tax Collector's Office by having an individual verify that there has been a mobile home sometime in the past with well and septic, and allowing them to go forward and put a mobile home, or house on the property, without paying a road impact fee.
It was noted that staff will contact the consultants, who assisted in the development of the fees, and come back to the Board with alternatives to the problems brought before the Board today regarding impact fees.
RESOLUTIONS/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/MUNICIPALITIES
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to adopt the Resolution transferring jurisdiction of Highlands Avenue to the Town of Montverde, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS/RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained that the individual has not lived here for some time, so the frontage was re-evaluated by staff, and
a determination has been made that the individual should be refunded $938.13.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board authorized and accepted a Resolution correcting the SA-54, Mt. Plymouth Subdivision Assessment Roll and a refund of $384.44 and $278.77 assessments, plus interest, for a total amount of $938.13, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Dennis Reid to the vacant position of School Board representative on the Rails to Trails Task Force.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the contract with CPA firm of Ernst & Young to provide actuarial services for liability reserves for a fee of $8,000.00, and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
Discussion occurred regarding the County Manager's Review Group Proposal to revamp and revitalize Lake County government. Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the intent is to take an indepth look at what the County is doing, why the County is doing it, and how the County is doing it, in light of the five goals identified in the Proposal, as follows:
1) The Delivery of High Quality Service in a User Friendly
3) Economic Feasibility and Viability
4) Improved Utilization of Existing Resources
5) Realignment of Functions to Eliminate Duplication and
Mr. Wahl directed the Board's attention to Page 3 and stated that the six general "results" that were identified previously in the agenda request that went to the Board, have been included in the Proposal.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Manager's Review Group Proposal, as presented by Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager.
Mr. Wahl presented the Board members with the list of appointments to the Manager's Review Group.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/BONDS
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, discussed the request to accept escrow agreements in lieu of performance bonds. His memorandum indicated that an Escrow Agreement will authorize cash to be placed in a custodial account. In the event of a breach of the underlying agreement, the County can unilaterally withdraw the money from the Escrow Agreement. The benefit of the Escrow Agreement rather than the Performance Bond is that cash is available upon which to draw in the event of a default by the developer. The benefit to the developer is the developer does not have to pay a premium for the bond and the interest on the amount will be posted to benefit the developer. It was noted that the Escrow Agreement pertained to Pennbrooke, and that the Board may wish to use the same format with other developers in the future.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that this is a positive approach for both parties, because when a bond is used, there is a tremendous amount of costs involved in going after the bond in the event of a default. This gives the County access to immediate cash, and saves the owner bond fees, in the event he performs appropriately.
Mr. Gaylord explained the implication of bankruptcy on funds that are placed in this type of escrow account.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Escrow Agreement between Leisure Communities, LTD., and the Board of County Commissioners, and Citizens National Bank, which pertains to the Pennbrooke development.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, informed the Board that he had given the Board a memorandum pertaining to the estimate of costs regarding the defense of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
It was noted that this issue would be brought up later in the meeting for discussion.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, discussed the December meeting schedule, and stated that the Board is currently scheduled for a regular meeting on December 7, December 14, and zoning on December 21. A question had been raised as to whether the Board wished to combine the zoning meeting on December 21 with the December 14 meeting.
After some discussion of the proposed change in meetings, it was the consensus of the Board to hold regular scheduled Board meetings on December 7, December 14, and December 21.
It was noted that the discussion on the Board enacting a Noise Ordinance for Lake County was postponed until December 7, 1993.
Commr. Cadwell requested information regarding the status of the emergency airport ordinance. It was noted that a title has been written, and it has been advertised for the Land Development Regulations' hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the ratification of financial items which needed to be paid prior to the Board meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to pay costs, in the amount of $97.60, in Case Nos. 92-1508-CF-DB and 92-1357-CF-DB, State of Florida vs. Rodney Pew.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to pay costs, in the amount of $195.00, in Case No. 91-18,746TT-54-B, State of Florida vs. David Clarke Copeland.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution concerning the Florida Legislature's "Functional Classification Study: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Revised Roadway Ownership Criteria".
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/STATE AGENCIES
Commr. Swartz informed the Board that the former County Attorney had presented to the Board a memorandum, with a copy of the August 27, 1993 letter from Mr. Richard Grosso, Esquire, Attorney for 1000 Friends of Florida, who had offered to appear before the Board to discuss outstanding issues pertaining to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had before them a copy of a letter from Mr. Rolon W. Reed, which had additional comments regarding the outstanding issues from the Lake County Conservation Council and 1000 Friends. He stated that this is before the Board today, because of the postponement of the Administrative Hearing, and to determine whether the Board wishes to authorize staff to meet with the intervenors who may still have standing, to determine whether or not any agreements can be reached, to be brought back to the Board in an effort to avoid going through the Administrative Hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, because the issue is in the process of an Administrative Hearing, and the Interim County Attorney needs time to prepare for the hearing, he would not be in favor of meeting with the intervenors who are still challenging the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that a Settlement Agreement has been made with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the County need to proceed to defend it.
Commr. Bailey stated that a Settlement Agreement has been made with DCA, and adequate hearings have been held on the issue, and therefore, to start re-negotiations would be a waste of staff's time. He stated that the County needs to move forward and defend the Settlement Agreement made with DCA.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the State has entered into the suit to defend the County's Plan.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, stated that the State's position is subordinate to the County, and that the County is responsible for the defense of the Plan. The State will provide witnesses and support for the County, and will be responsible for explaining why they found the County in compliance.
Commr. Gerber commented that she felt it would be a waste of time for staff to proceed to new negotiations with the intervenors.
Commr. Swartz stated that he agrees with some of the points presented by 1000 Friends and the Lake County Conservation Council, and has agreed with them way back into the process, even as late as the adoption of the Settlement Agreement on March 2, 1993. He explained that he had indicated that he would support the Agreement, with the understanding by a majority of the Board, that there was some willingness to come back and address some of the outstanding issues that were raised. He stated that, clearly there is no desire, on part of some of the members of the Board, to address the outstanding issues that he feels makes the Plan
inferior, unacceptable, and not in the best interest of Lake County, as it goes into the next century. He further stated that this issue was brought to the Board today, because he felt the Board should take the opportunity to find out whether or not there were some issues that the Board could resolve. Commr. Swartz explained that, even if the Board came to some agreement on any one of the issues, the Administrative Hearing could possibly be delayed, and the needs for some of the costs outlined in the Interim County Attorney's letter could be postponed. He stated that the Board is losing an opportunity that might result in savings.
Commr. Bailey and Commr. Cadwell expressed no desire to delay the Administrative Hearing, and stressed that the Board needed to move on with the issue and to defend the Plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that he voted against the original Plan because he felt there were things that the Board could have done to provide more equity for some of the people, and he proposed, and re-proposed, and did everything he could to try and get the Board to adopt a transfer of development rights program countywide that would bring relief to some of those people. He stated that the second thing he proposed and re-proposed, and continues to support, is looking at the fact that the Board has allocated land inappropriately. There are people who have old subdivisions where development is occurring, and those types of lands should have been designated in a designation that would not have put them in the aggregation requirement, but rather than to do this, the County now has thousands of acres that exist in suburban, or urban expansion, or urban, in areas where they cannot develop it, because of the timeliness criteria, or there is no infrastructure.
Commr. Hanson discussed the transfer of development rights as a way to compensate the landowner, and stated that it will not work in Lake County, because there is so much land, so the supply and demand will not make that feasible in the County. She discussed
the Economic Element, which involves very few pages in the Comprehensive Plan. Commr. Hanson stated that she has a problem with going ahead with a negotiation, because there is no scientific data to support the issues that are before the Board, and she does not feel that there will be any answers to those issues at a negotiating table with the intervenors.
It was noted that the consensus of the Board was to proceed with the Administrative Hearing for the defense of the Comprehensive Plan.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Discussion occurred regarding the memorandum from the Interim County Attorney, Mr. Frank Gaylord, regarding the estimate of costs pertaining to the defense of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. The estimated costs would be between $25,000.00 and $30,000.00.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, explained that he tried to be conservative on the numbers, and to be realistic.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve the estimated costs between the amount of $25,000.00 and $30,000.00 to defend the Plan.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson expressed her appreciation for Mr. Gaylord's efforts in determining the estimated costs being presented to the Board.
Mr. Gaylord explained that Mr. Jake Varn will be paid as an expert witness, and will not be serving as an attorney. Mr. Gaylord recommended that Mr. Varn be present at the councel's table, because of his knowledge.
Commr. Swartz explained that there were certain aspects of the proposals presented that would improve the Comprehensive Plan, and which he made a part of the reason why he supported the Settlement Agreement. He stated that the Board is making Mr. Varn a representative of the County again, which he does not support, and he does not support spending $25,000.00 - $30,000.00 without first trying to find out if there is any common ground, or spending this amount of money to fight for portions of a Plan which he feels are flawed.
Commr. Hanson stated that she believes the Board approved the Settlement Agreement with the idea that the Board would use the amendatory process to modify the Comprehensive Plan, and there could be a continuation through the intervenors, but that the final vote was being to clean it up through the amendatory process.
Commr. Swartz stated that, during the discussion, he tried to be as specific as he could that the Board would take the issues back up, either in the first or second amendatory time, and the majority of the Board refused to consider any of the items in either of those two amendatory processes.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that clarification needed to be made for the money to come out of contingency.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the request for authorization for a budget amendment from contingency to the appropriate line item would be a part of his motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "no".
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
CATHERINE H. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, November 2, 1993, at 5:05 p.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: Frank T. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that this meeting was the first public hearing dealing with amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRS) and that the draft amendments before the Board this date, dated October 27, 1993, included everything that had been duly advertised thus far, other than Chapter IV, Special Districts, Subsection 4.01.00 - Airport Zoning, at which time he distributed a handout pertaining to same, noting that it had not been duly advertised for this meeting, however, was in the process of being advertised for the second public hearing, scheduled for November 16, 1993.
Mr. Hoban stated that, if the Board chose to do so, they could hold a second public hearing on this particular change to the LDRs, approximately two weeks after the November 16, 1993 hearing. He stated that it comes from a Code Enforcement violation, wherein the County's ordinance was in conflict with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rule.
It was noted that said conflict affects the Umatilla Airport and that the County is trying to get the matter resolved, to where there is only one set of rules.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and requested clarification concerning Lots of Record. He referred to Pages III-35 through III-40, Subsection 3.02.01, and questioned whether one would have to meet the requirements listed in Paragraphs A. 1. a. through e.; 2. a. and b.; 3. a. through d., etc., or whether they were options, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that one can only fit, theoretically, into one of the seven options listed.
It was noted that, if one took their Lot of Record, tested it against the seven options and met one of them, they would be able to build on their lot.
Mr. Beliveau then pointed out the fact that on Page III-36, Paragraph 5., it states "The minimum lot size requirement for the Suburban and Transitional Land Use Categories shall be one (1) acre." and questioned whether that meant that one would not have to worry about the infamous rooftop counting business, to which he was informed that one would not have to, as far as Lots of Record are concerned.
Ms. Janet Brady, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the Lot of Record Ordinance was going to still contain the ability for people to split parcels into lots and develop them, by using some sort of special assessment, rather than putting the roads in themselves, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that, under the current regulations, a developer might be able to come in, add lots together, and use the County process for doing road assessments - have the County pay for 1/3 and the property owners pay for 1/3, for existing lots.
Ms. Brady questioned whether this was previously allowed, before the most recent Lot of Record Ordinance was passed, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that said policy has been governed by the County's road policies, concerning when the County would and would not pave. He stated that those policies have remained consistent over the last ten years, however, the Lot of Record Ordinance has changed drastically over that same period.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the original LDRs were put together, which was June 1, 1992, the old Lot of Record Ordinance was left out, therefore, the requirements that existed for the old Lot of Record Ordinance ceased to exist as a part of the Code. He stated that it was that part of the Code that required aggregation and, under some circumstances, would have limited the number of building permits, unless the infrastructure was put in.
Commr. Swartz stated that, from June 1, 1992 until today, that Lot of Record language did not exist, however, it now exists and would require that the road be put in by the individual or individuals who own said lots and they would only get one building permit, unless they put said roads in. He stated that there was a gap when that requirement was omitted.
Mr. Hoban interjected that there is still a gap and the gap will not change until December 1, 1993, when the LDRs are officially adopted in their current form.
Commr. Hanson stated that one still had to aggregate lots on a non-county maintained road and the only way that the situation differs now is that one has to aggregate to five acres on a non-county maintained road.
Mr. Hoban interjected that, from the period of June 1, 1992 to February 15, 1993, one could only get one building permit per lot. However, in February of this year, the County made one aggregate to the zoning district, whatever it might be, but there is no road requirement.
Commr. Swartz stated that the amendments before the Board this date will put the road requirement back in.
Ms. Brady informed the Board of a situation that occurred at the last Board of Adjustment Meeting that was held concerning a case involving an individual who owns approximately 90% of the lots in a local development, in that said individual was given double the amount of lots that he had been assigned a couple of years ago and that he will not have to put in the roads.
Ms. Brady stated that the County will be doing some sort of special assessment agreement with him, so that the roads can be put in, at a later date, by the County. She stated that she wanted to protest the fact that the County is going to pay 33% of the cost of those roads and is going to build the roads and then wait seven years, under a special assessment situation, to get the money back. She stated that she felt that was not right, that taxpayers' money should not be subsidizing developers.
Commr. Swartz agreed with Ms. Brady, stating that it is an unfortunate omission in the LDRs. He stated that, whether or not the County is entering into any agreement for a special assessment, he did not know, but he knows that there are some provisions in the road policy which may prohibit the County from entering into such an agreement, not withstanding the gap he alluded to earlier.
Commr. Hanson stated, for the record, that the omission Commr. Swartz alluded to was not an omission, noting that, in February, the Chairman came up with the language that was put in, stating that the special assessment and road right-of-way dedication would be inserted and that was when the Board adopted said language. She stated that the Board consciously did it, in an effort to take care of the road situation.
Commr. Gerber read into the record a portion of a letter the Board had received from Mr. and Mrs. David Nye, concerning the issue of the Lot of Record Ordinance and a request that language be inserted requesting developers to pay their own way, with respect to infrastructure.
Mr. Frank Kutch, a local realtor, appeared before the Board stating that he had a problem with that portion of the LDRs that requires any development that takes place within 1,000 feet of a water and sewer line to connect to said line. He noted the reason for his disapproval and stated that he would like to see that portion of the LDRs modified.
Commr. Swartz stated that the language Mr. Kutch referred to is language that is in the Comprehensive Plan and, whether it is in the LDRs or not, it is a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it is also a requirement of the State Statutes. He noted that the Board had provided an exemption for existing development so that, whether it be residential or commercial, it need not connect, as long as there are no environmental problems with the water or wastewater.
Mr. Kutch stated that, just because said requirement was put into the State Statutes, it does not mean that the LDRs have to require it. He stated that the LDRs do not follow the State Statutes all the time. He stated that they are developed by the County as a tool to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that the connection requirement has been in the County's Code book for approximately 15 years. He also stated that, at this point in time, unless the Board is going to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the language that is in the LDRs tracks the language that is in the Comprehensive Plan, as it is required to do. He stated that the only way to accomplish what Mr. Kutch is suggesting is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and remove said language. He reiterated the fact, however, that the State Statutes require the same thing.
It was noted that the Board could not do anything about the issue that Mr. Kutch addressed, at this time.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that staff will be coming back during the next round of LDRs, which will be sometime between June and October of 1994, addressing the very issue being discussed, a mandatory connection - when one will and will not have to do it. He stated that staff will be bringing proposed language back to the Board, at that time, regarding same.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, a local attorney, appeared before the Board and suggested a change that she felt should be made in the language contained in Subsection 1.02.14 - Master Park Plan, on Pages I-5 through I-6; Subsection 1.02.25 - Preliminary Plat - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-11 through I-12; and Subsection 1.02.27 - Site Plan - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-12 through I-13.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, by making said change, it allows the developers to have spent the extra money to do the permit, or they have to commence the development by October 1, 1995, and she feels that that will fit more in line with what the Board did on PUDs and construction drawings. She stated that, on most of those, given the uncertainty of the process of what the County has been going through for the last two years, people have not been moving forward with a complete application to the St. Johns River Water Management District for an entire development, because they did not know (a) what the Comprehensive Plan had in store for them; (b) whether or not there was going to be any vesting; or (c) what the development regulations were going to look like.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the Board leaves the language in the LDRs the way that it is presently written, they will have divested most of those preliminary plats and she does not think that it is parallel with what they did under the PUDs and construction plans. She suggested that, instead of making it a requirement that a developer have both the commencement of development and the St. Johns River Water Management District permit, in each one of the sections she alluded to earlier, as indicated, the word and should be changed to or.
Ms. Bonifay then requested the Board to, once again, look at the issue of CP zoning and give those clients of hers who have gotten development plans approved, with commercial zoning, some window of opportunity that, if they did a development plan, in conjunction with that commercial zoning, they would have at least 12 to 18 months to come in with a final site plan and that they be vested for density and intensity, at this point in time.
Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., appeared before the Board and referred to Paragraphs A. 1. b. and c., under Subsection 3.02.01 - Lot of Record, on Page III-35, and questioned whether a Lot of Record would be issued a building permit if the Lot or Record met either the requirement of Paragraph b. or Paragraph c., or if it meant something else, to which Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, responded, stating that one would have to meet all of the requirements, Paragraphs a. through e.
Ms. Roof stated that it would be impossible to meet the requirements of Paragraphs d. and c. at the same time, however, Mr. Hoban disagreed.
Ms. Roof then questioned whether the Board would be addressing the issue of existing subdivisions that have 25 foot setbacks, in the agricultural zoning districts, and 10 foot setbacks, in the rural residential zoning districts, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that the setbacks are being changed and said changes are contained in Chapter III.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson referred to Subsection 1.02.22 - Plats - Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-10, and stated that the language "and depicted on Comprehensive Plan Map I-5", contained in the second and third sentences of said paragraph, undermines the vesting of final plats which may have been recorded in the Wekiva Basin.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that said language should be deleted, because it is stating that if the plats are not on the Comprehensive Plan Map they are not vested. She stated, however, that in another part of the Comprehensive Plan it states that all zoning is vested in the Wekiva Basin, so, obviously, there is a conflict.
Mr. Hoban stated that the reason the Comprehensive Plan states that all zoning is vested is because staff took every kind of zoning there is, made a category for it, and said that it was vested.
Commr. Hanson interjected that nothing has been depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map for the final plats in the Wekiva Basin, which is inconsistent.
Mr. Hoban stated that all zoning should have been depicted, as of March 11, 1990, on Comprehensive Plan Map I-4.
It was determined that Mr. Hoban's statement was correct.
Mr. Hoban noted that, in Subsection 1.02.22 - Plats - Chapter 7 (Wekiva), the reference made to Comprehensive Plan Map I-5 should be changed to I-4 and that it should show all zoning existing as of March 11, 1990 as being vested, in the Wekiva Basin.
Commr. Hanson questioned Mr. Hoban as to whether anything had been done that takes away from the original language in the Wekiva amendment, to which he responded, stating that the road requirement and aggregation is policy decision that the Board can make and it simply adds another requirement onto the vesting language.
It was noted that the Board has made that decision.
Commr. Gerber questioned why the word natural was taken out of Paragraph A. 3. b., in Subsection 3.02.01 - Lot of Record, on Page III-35, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that the Comprehensive Plan has a requirement for open water bodies, natural included, and that said language follows the Comprehensive Plan policy.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Commr. Hanson stated that, at the last meeting, Commr. Swartz had mentioned the possibility of a variance, for aggregation, however, noted that she had a problem with that, in that she feels it will affect affordable housing in many areas. She stated that she is concerned about the Mt. Plymouth area, particularly the CDBG area that the County has now received a grant for, where the road will be paved. She stated that there are areas in Mt. Plymouth where there is a need to find more affordable housing lots and she does not believe that the County has anything that allows for that.
Mr. Hoban stated that the County allows variances in the Wekiva Basin for the road requirements, but they do not allow variances for the Comprehensive Plan aggregation requirements. He stated that one can get variances for the roads, for the paving requirements, but they cannot get a variance if they are in a rural area, where the requirement is to aggregate up to five acres, and the person owns five acres worth of little lots.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that, if the road requirement was taken out and the requirement for a special assessment was left in, somewhere down the road, those individuals that Commr. Hanson is concerned about, from an affordable housing standpoint, are going to end up having to pay a special assessment.
Commr. Gerber questioned language contained in Paragraph C. 2., in Subsection 1.02.21 - Planned Unit Development (PUD), on Page
I-10, at which time it was clarified that there was a typographical error, in that a reference made to Subsection 1.02.20.C should read Subsection 1.02.21.C.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, brought up the fact that Commr. Gerber had questioned the issue of open water bodies and natural open water bodies and stated that he felt it is a term that, at some point, may become important and that the Board may need to define it somehow.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, however, no action was taken at this time regarding same.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like for staff to look into Ms. Bonifay's request to change the word and to or, on Pages I-11 through I-13, as well as Pages I-5 through I-6, as suggested earlier in the meeting.
Discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the changes Ms. Bonifay was requesting would do to Preliminary Plats, Site Plans, and Master Park Plans what has been done to PUDs, which is eliminate the requirement for having achieved some level of permitting that gives one more vesting, with easier regulations, as opposed to it coming under less stringent regulations.
Mr. Hoban interjected that that would be his understanding.
Commr. Swartz stated that there is something to be said about consistency and that he would suggest changing the PUD back, to be consistent with the others, as opposed to changing the others to be consistent with the PUD.
A motion was made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve the change requested by Ms. Bonifay being that, in Paragraphs A. 1. a.; A. 2. a.; B. 1. a.; and B. 2. a., for Subsection 1.02.14 - Master Park Plan; on Pages I-5 through I-6; Subsection 1.02.25 - Preliminary Plat - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-11 through I-12; and Subsection 1.02.27 - Site Plan - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-12 through I-13, the word and, at the end of Paragraphs a., in each subsection, should be changed to or and to eliminate any inconsistencies which might exist within said subsections.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he would vote against the motion, because he felt that it was doing exactly the same thing to the subsections involved that was done to PUDs.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.
Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "No".
The Board chose not to act on the second proposal by Ms. Bonifay, which was to readdress the issue of CP zoning.
It was noted that the final public hearing dealing with the LDRs would be held on November 16, 1993, at 5:05 p.m.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board declared an emergency situation, as it pertains to Subsection 4.01.00 - Airport Zoning of the LDRs, which could affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the area of the Umatilla Airport, and removed the requirement for advertising the first public hearing regarding same.
It was noted that said subsection would be advertised in time for the second public hearing.
Commr. Bailey questioned what staff had found out about the issue of impact fees, to which Mr. Wahl, County Manager, responded, stating that a staff person from Reynolds, Smith & Hill had returned a call from him regarding the matter, however, said individual was not familiar with the language and indicated that he would have to look into the matter and get back with Mr. Wahl at a later date, at which time staff will bring the matter before the Board, for discussion.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK